Reply #119: putrid

[iverglas]

You were replying to this exchange, and no other:

gorfle: So if the word "homophobia" has been co-opted to generally mean an anti-homosexual person, why can't the othe word be co-opted to generally mean an anti-firearm person?

me: That is not what it is used for.


By the time you came yammering in, any confusion that could possibly have existed regarding what the "it" in my sentence referred to -- "the other word", HOPLOPHOBIA, and NOT homophobia -- had been entirely cleared up in my post 100:

Why on earth would you reply as if the "it" in my answer referred to "the word 'homophobia'," when your QUESTION was about THE OTHER WORD, i.e. HOPLOPHOBIA???

The word "hoplophobia" IS NOT USED "to generally mean an anti-firearm person".


*I* am not the one confusing my -phobes and my -phobias there. Thank gorfle for that.


All you did in your post 109 was disregard that plain fact, and continue merrily along as if (as if you believed) the "it" in my sentence referred to HOMOPHOBIA when it beyond plainly did not, and when I had already made it so additionally plain that it was not, that there there simply is no rational explanation for why you would be acting as if it did.

And all I did was direct your attention to that fact.

The word "thick" applies here in more than one way.



edited to insert omitted word