Stones

[libertango]

In this entry, via_solis misuses the word "enormity", in reference to the Edmund Fitzgerald. Normally I would just grind my teeth and move on, but in the comments, they take Alanis Morissette to task for her well-known misuse of the word "ironic". I tried to post the following comment:

*^*^*^*

Item the first: You may want to review John 8:7.

Item the second, from my copy of the Oxford Universal Dictionary (basically a shorter OED without as many citations): "Enormity: 1475 [...] 1. Deviation from a normal standard or type; esp. from moral or legal rectitude. In later use: Monstrous wickedness. 1538. 2. That which is abnormal; an irregularity; a crime; in later use, a monstrous offence 1475."

So, one may speak of the enormity of the Shoah. But the word is not generally a synonym for, "like, rilly, rilly big."

*^*^*^*

Note that I said, "tried", though. That's because they apparently feel themselves so above criticism they've turned off comments from LJ'ers not "friends".

And isn't that ironic.

Don't they think?

Comments

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I imagine that being on the receiving end of such an e-mail isn't at all pleasant and the person you're thinking of has decided that they are not interested in unpleasantness, possibly from total strangers. (I don't know who that user is, nor if you know them.)

Sure is fun to get it all ready to send, though, isn't it?

K.

[photosexual.livejournal.com]

I've been using enormity wrong for years now. Oops.

But I'm willing to add a new twist:

Normity: Deviation from a normal standard or type;

e-Normity: Normity, but happening on the internet. See email, ecommerce, etc.

Yeah. I know. I'm a dork.

Distinctions

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"I imagine that being on the receiving end of such an e-mail isn't at all pleasant..."

Only if one's ego is wrapped up in being perceived as "right" all the time. My own ego is wrapped up in getting to the truth sooner or later, regardless of what source. Tongue twister though it is, as I've said before, "Everything is provisional, pending better data." Which is to say, if someone were to make such a comment on my own journal, I would welcome it if it was right, and do my best to get to the truth if it was wrong.

My stats page tells me I have 577 posts over a five year period. The overwhelming majority of these are public (I have no ready numbers, but I'd be very surprised if I've made more than 10 private posts). So it's not like I'm being coy here.

"...and the person you're thinking of has decided that they are not interested in unpleasantness, possibly from total strangers. (I don't know who that user is, nor if you know them.)"

It is the nature of publication to be available to the public. The post itself is not friends'-locked or restricted in any way. Only commenting on it is restricted. So apparently presenting one's views in a public place is pleasant enough for the person in question, they just don't want to be accountable for those views directly. So, if indirectly is what they want, indirectly is what they've got. {shrug} That's certainly their privilege. Just as it is my privilege to comment in my own journal about the wisdom of that move.

"Sure is fun to get it all ready to send, though, isn't it?"

Takes one to know one, doesn't it?

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Luckily for consistency, you never presume to tell people how to behave.