Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-23-2008, 11:55 PM
MC$E MC$E is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cow Country, MD
Posts: 528
When did "Architechted" become a word?

What the fuck? Architects design things. And don't get me started on "recruitment"

And all of the other non-words that are becoming popular. Grrr. Get off of my lawn!
  #2  
Old 01-24-2008, 12:00 AM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,526
The Oxford English Dictionary's earliest citation for "architected" is 1818, by Keats, with a string of citations continuing into the 1920s. Though it may well be nonstandard today, it's hardly unprecedented. The very fact that people are apparently using it with some regularity around you indicates that it is, in fact, a word, at least to them. It certainly follows systematic principles of word creation, analogous to many others which go without comment.

What's wrong with "recruitment"?

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 01-24-2008 at 12:03 AM.
  #3  
Old 01-24-2008, 08:53 AM
Gukumatz Gukumatz is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,827
Extrapolating, perhaps recruitmented snuck up on his and fisted him in the kidney?
  #4  
Old 01-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Mangetout's Avatar
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 57,832
I agree. It should be architectized.
  #5  
Old 01-24-2008, 09:47 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
Though it may well be nonstandard today, it's hardly unprecedented. The very fact that people are apparently using it with some regularity around you indicates that it is, in fact, a word, at least to them. It certainly follows systematic principles of word creation, analogous to many others which go without comment.
I'm assuming MC$E came across the word at work, not in a book of poetry. Jargon has a way of seriously irritating people, especially when it sounds like people have changed a job title (like Software Architect) into a verb and then used the verb because it sounds technical, which obviously makes the user sound smart.
  #6  
Old 01-24-2008, 09:50 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout
I agree. It should be architectized.
Architectuated.
  #7  
Old 01-24-2008, 09:53 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm
Architectuated.
The process of architectuating something would be "architectification," right?
  #8  
Old 01-24-2008, 09:55 AM
Mangetout's Avatar
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 57,832
I still think architectized - the process being architectization, performed by an architectizator

Last edited by Mangetout; 01-24-2008 at 09:55 AM.
  #9  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:32 AM
ColonelDax ColonelDax is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Marylebone
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC$E
When did "Architechted" become a word?
Probably about the same time "surveil" became a verb. I hate that.
  #10  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:38 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Verbing weirds language.
  #11  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:52 AM
Trunk Trunk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Baltobama, YesWeCanyland
Posts: 9,764
My wife (jeweler) once got an online order from a guy who said he was looking for "architectonic jewelry".

(ok, just to make sure I wasn't making a fool of myself, I googled "architectonic" and whaddyaknow. Oddly enough, that sort of describes some of her pieces.).
  #12  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:09 AM
Defensive Indifference Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,608
Leverage as a verb has been driving me nuts lately. "Let's leverage our SAN space for that." How about "use"? Can we just "use" the SAN space?
  #13  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:54 AM
gotpasswords gotpasswords is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: San Francisco area
Posts: 16,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard
Leverage as a verb has been driving me nuts lately. "Let's leverage our SAN space for that." How about "use"? Can we just "use" the SAN space?
Of course not! At best, it could be utilized. You're just not thinking outside of the box.

(shipping clerk) But my job IS the box!
  #14  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:57 AM
Lionne Lionne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,938
I cannot stand the word 'texted'. It just grates on me. I know the word 'text' as a verb is new to the vernacular, but I just don't agree with the past tense becoming 'texted'.

Am I the only one?
  #15  
Old 01-24-2008, 12:00 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
The first time I can recall hearing "architect" used as a verb was in a college production of The Lion in Winter -- written 1966. King Henry II tells his sons, "What I have architected you will not destroy."
  #16  
Old 01-24-2008, 12:20 PM
Defensive Indifference Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotpasswords
Of course not! At best, it could be utilized.
Utilize also annoys me. Really, what does the word "utilize" do for us that "use" does not? Is there a shade of meaning that's just too subtle for me? I'm all for felicitous wording and clever use of language. But utilize? Gah!!
  #17  
Old 01-24-2008, 12:42 PM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard
Utilize also annoys me. Really, what does the word "utilize" do for us that "use" does not? Is there a shade of meaning that's just too subtle for me? I'm all for felicitous wording and clever use of language. But utilize? Gah!!
What does "felicitous" do for us that "well-suited" does not? What does "clever" do for us that "witty" does not?

Synonyms, even ones that sound quite similar, are an unavoidable/inevitable product of language.

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 01-24-2008 at 12:45 PM.
  #18  
Old 01-24-2008, 01:10 PM
Defensive Indifference Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
What does "felicitous" do for us that "well-suited" does not? What does "clever" do for us that "witty" does not?

Synonyms, even ones that sound quite similar, are an unavoidable/inevitable product of language.
Fair enough. I think it annoys me because I only hear it in offices. Business people, rarely satisfied with one syllable when three will do, seem to like using it to show us that they're intelligent. This is, of course, completely different than my using "felicitous" when I could have used "apt". Yup, entirely different thing at work there.
  #19  
Old 01-24-2008, 01:18 PM
Brown Eyed Girl Brown Eyed Girl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Outtastate
Posts: 4,532
Ok, I have one that's been bugging me for awhile.

The plural noun: emails. Why? You don't say, "I picked up my mails at the post office." No, the plural is the same as the singular. "I retrieved my email on my cellphone." And why don't we refer to email missives as "letters" like we do with postal mail? Or missive. Or something.

You've got mail. You've got email.

These articles show you how to code your emails to ensure they display as you want them to. No. No. No!

Put the hyphen in or don't. I don't care. But lose the 's', please. Or find an alternative noun you can pluralize.
  #20  
Old 01-24-2008, 01:27 PM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard
Fair enough. I think it annoys me because I only hear it in offices. Business people, rarely satisfied with one syllable when three will do, seem to like using it to show us that they're intelligent. This is, of course, completely different than my using "felicitous" when I could have used "apt". Yup, entirely different thing at work there.
  #21  
Old 01-24-2008, 02:24 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
One of Cecil's six friends
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,594
Bases on the 337 occurences of "architected" on Google, it appears it is mostly used by those in the computer software industry, in reference to system architecture. It sounds like it is just lazy vocabulary by someone with a narrow technical education.
  #22  
Old 01-24-2008, 02:27 PM
MaxTheVool MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Eyed Girl
These articles show you how to code your emails to ensure they display as you want them to. No. No. No!

Put the hyphen in or don't. I don't care. But lose the 's', please. Or find an alternative noun you can pluralize.
"I came into work after being sick and had 734 emails in my inbox" sounds 100% fine to me.
  #23  
Old 01-24-2008, 02:55 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 4,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool
"I came into work after being sick and had 734 emails in my inbox" sounds 100% fine to me.
Yes, but that's actually enumerated. If instead you said, "I came in to work after being sick and had a shitload of emails in my inbox" it would sound weird, and to my ear it should be "email" not "emails." I'm kinda on board with this one.
  #24  
Old 01-24-2008, 02:59 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard
Utilize also annoys me. Really, what does the word "utilize" do for us that "use" does not? Is there a shade of meaning that's just too subtle for me? I'm all for felicitous wording and clever use of language. But utilize? Gah!!
Historically, utilize has the implication of putting something to a profitable use, especially when that use is not what the thing would be normally used for. "Utilize" generally should be used to indicate the accomplishment or expectation of a specific outcome or product. If you're just using a car, you're driving it around for any purpose. But I could say "We have that second car, the one we hardly drove, so I utilized it to generate a second income as a delivery driver." For another example, you use a screwdriver to drive screws; if you were to find yourself locked out of your house, you could utilize the screwdriver as a lock-picking device.

I would agree that most of the time "utilize" is trotted out, it's the wrong choice; "use" should be there instead. But once in a great while, it's a slightly more precise word.

I can appreciate Indistinguishable's point, but actually a lot of words claimed to be synonyms aren't quite 100% synonymous. "Felicitous" has a subtelty of meaning, sort of an undercurrent of niceness and/or good luck, depending on the context, that "well-suited" lacks.

Having said all that, we still have otherwise seemingly intelligent SDMB members confusing "its" and "it's," and until we can clear up THAT goddamned eyesore I'm not going to be too harsh on "utilize."

Last edited by RickJay; 01-24-2008 at 03:00 PM.
  #25  
Old 01-24-2008, 03:08 PM
Defensive Indifference Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
Historically, utilize has the implication of putting something to a profitable use, especially when that use is not what the thing would be normally used for. "Utilize" generally should be used to indicate the accomplishment or expectation of a specific outcome or product.
Ah, I think the word I would use there is "repurpose".

Not really.
  #26  
Old 01-24-2008, 03:18 PM
FlyingDragonFan FlyingDragonFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Obamarado
Posts: 1,101
I went to Architecting school in the early '90s, and I guarantee you not once did anyone ever mention having architected anything, nor have I ever read it in any literature since. We all designed things.

I suspect Fear Itself has it right, it may be in minor use in the software industry. MC$E, what context did you hear it in?
  #27  
Old 01-24-2008, 03:19 PM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Eyed Girl
And why don't we refer to email missives as "letters" like we do with postal mail? Or missive. Or something.
In order to distinguish them from missives on paper. I would think that's obvious.
  #28  
Old 01-24-2008, 03:46 PM
Gangster Octopus Gangster Octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: US of O
Posts: 13,171
Adhering to SDMB bylaw 4.3.2 I now give the requisite appropriate Simspson quote for this thread:

'Architected' is a perfectly cromulent word.
  #29  
Old 01-24-2008, 04:14 PM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
I can appreciate Indistinguishable's point, but actually a lot of words claimed to be synonyms aren't quite 100% synonymous. "Felicitous" has a subtelty of meaning, sort of an undercurrent of niceness and/or good luck, depending on the context, that "well-suited" lacks.
Absolutely, and I should have noted this. But, of course, the only reason such connotational differences are able to arise at all is because the synonyms existed in the first place. Among those who use the verb "architect", it surely has a slightly different flavor than would be given by the verbs "design" or "plan".
  #30  
Old 01-24-2008, 04:41 PM
Liberal Liberal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Gone
Posts: 39,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
What does "felicitous" do for us that "well-suited" does not? What does "clever" do for us that "witty" does not?

Synonyms, even ones that sound quite similar, are an unavoidable/inevitable product of language.
I think I accidentally called you "Indisputable" once, or something like that.
  #31  
Old 01-24-2008, 05:32 PM
Brown Eyed Girl Brown Eyed Girl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Outtastate
Posts: 4,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool
"I came into work after being sick and had 734 emails in my inbox" sounds 100% fine to me.
And yet, "I came home from vacation to find 45 mails in my mailbox" sounds 100% wrong. No, you would use 'letters' or 'pieces of mail'. But the 'e' changes everything and it shouldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot
In order to distinguish them from missives on paper. I would think that's obvious.
Then use emissive and apply to email the existing language standard for regular mail (pmail?).
  #32  
Old 01-24-2008, 05:32 PM
Autolycus Autolycus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ainran
Posts: 11,449
Architechted? That's inconceivable!
  #33  
Old 01-24-2008, 05:37 PM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Eyed Girl
And yet, "I came home from vacation to find 45 mails in my mailbox" sounds 100% wrong. No, you would use 'letters' or 'pieces of mail'. But the 'e' changes everything and it shouldn't.
Why shouldn't it? After all, there are certain changes that you don't protest; when people say "inbox" instead of "e-mailbox", for example. And I imagine you have no problem with "mailing address", but recognize "e-mailing address" to be quite odd.

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 01-24-2008 at 05:41 PM.
  #34  
Old 01-24-2008, 05:45 PM
Brown Eyed Girl Brown Eyed Girl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Outtastate
Posts: 4,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
Why shouldn't it? After all, there are certain changes that you don't protest; when people say "inbox" instead of "e-mailbox", for example...
Why would you even say box? It's a 'folder' isn't it? But it's not really even that. Apples and oranges. Mail is still mail whether sent via post or electronically.

And, on second thought, 'email messages' works just fine and is already in use.
  #35  
Old 01-24-2008, 05:48 PM
Brown Eyed Girl Brown Eyed Girl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Outtastate
Posts: 4,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
And I imagine you have no problem with "mailing address", but recognize "e-mailing address" to be quite odd.
Actually, I prefer postal address and email address. It's much more specific than "mailing address" which, incidentally, does sound funny to me.
  #36  
Old 01-24-2008, 05:50 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
We should go back to using the English language the way Shakespeare did. You'd never catch him making words up!
  #37  
Old 01-24-2008, 05:51 PM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,526
Ah, well, there go all my assumptions. Still, it just confirms that there's no real reason why email terms have to match their corresponding snail mail terms.
  #38  
Old 01-24-2008, 06:48 PM
lissener lissener is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 17,197
Architectualismicizationalized.
  #39  
Old 01-24-2008, 07:38 PM
vison vison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,036
Fred Bloggs authored a book.

Next thing we'll hear that Wolfgang Puck cheffed a meal.

The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, I ween.
  #40  
Old 01-24-2008, 09:37 PM
Annie Annie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,987
In college I wrote a paper on The Master Buildeder. Or was it The Master Buildered?
  #41  
Old 01-24-2008, 09:58 PM
Indistinguishable Indistinguishable is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by vison
Next thing we'll hear that Wolfgang Puck cheffed a meal.
Or, horrors, that he cooked one!

Last edited by Indistinguishable; 01-24-2008 at 09:58 PM. Reason: (The verb "cook" is first attested nearly four centuries after the noun)
  #42  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:33 PM
vison vison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indistinguishable
Or, horrors, that he cooked one!
Yeah, and he wore a napron while he did it, too.

Last edited by vison; 01-24-2008 at 10:33 PM.
  #43  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:31 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Eyed Girl
And yet, "I came home from vacation to find 45 mails in my mailbox" sounds 100% wrong. No, you would use 'letters' or 'pieces of mail'. But the 'e' changes everything and it shouldn't.
Why not?

Why should the plural of "dish" always be dishes, but the plural of "fish" can be "fish"? It's just a one letter difference.
  #44  
Old 01-25-2008, 01:02 AM
Brown Eyed Girl Brown Eyed Girl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Outtastate
Posts: 4,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
Why not?

Why should the plural of "dish" always be dishes, but the plural of "fish" can be "fish"? It's just a one letter difference.
True. Nooses : Moose. I get it. But dish, fish, noose and moose are different words. Mail and email are basically the same word with the same meaning with the exception of the modifying 'e'. Ergo, they should follow the same rules.

I know I can't possibly win this battle. English is a goofy language. Nevertheless, it's one of those things that makes me wince when I hear it.
  #45  
Old 01-26-2008, 02:19 AM
Amblydoper Amblydoper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 1,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autolycus
Architechted? That's inconceivable!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  #46  
Old 01-26-2008, 04:04 AM
Charlie Tan Charlie Tan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Scania
Posts: 4,944
I propose a new law:
Whenever a poster starts a thread to rant about a neologism, another poster will always turn up with a cite that the word has been in use for a very long time.
  #47  
Old 01-26-2008, 04:25 AM
jjimm jjimm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard
Leverage as a verb has been driving me nuts lately. "Let's leverage our SAN space for that." How about "use"? Can we just "use" the SAN space?
I think there's a nuance you may be missing. It's not just "use", in context. While not a great fan of the term, I do occasionally use it, because there's a much more specific meaning to it - when I use it in business, it means "use [the subject] to capitalise on effort/investment already undertaken (with the implication that this will save duplication of effort or expenditure and thus maximise return-on-investment)". Which is a bit wordy, so "leverage" will do.
  #48  
Old 01-26-2008, 10:34 AM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Eyed Girl
Then use emissive and apply to email the existing language standard for regular mail (pmail?).
I think you overestimate this "standard." There are loads of words in English that serve as both count and non-count nouns in varying contexts.
  #49  
Old 01-26-2008, 11:10 AM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
I can appreciate Indistinguishable's point, but actually a lot of words claimed to be synonyms aren't quite 100% synonymous. "Felicitous" has a subtelty of meaning, sort of an undercurrent of niceness and/or good luck, depending on the context, that "well-suited" lacks.
Yes. But synonymous doesn't mean "having exactly the same connotation." It means "having a similar meaning." 100% synonymous, by definition, is meaningless.

Many linguist believe that a language doesn't hold onto two different words with the same meaning unless there's a reason (a useful difference in connotation). This assumes that language is used "naturally"--without affectation. English has a pretty large lexicon because England was the site of several invasions, and then the English colonized a lot. (And then the U.S. expanded to the Pacific, taking up some Native American and Spanish words.) New words usually arise naturally with new contexts.

What's bothering the OP, I think, is that the use of architect as a verb is affected. People just say it in order to sound more important. (Which I too find annoying.) But apparently, they do this only in certain communities. In that case, it will probably become argot in a while. You can think of it as slang.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay
Having said all that, we still have otherwise seemingly intelligent SDMB members confusing "its" and "it's," and until we can clear up THAT goddamned eyesore I'm not going to be too harsh on "utilize."
Mistakes with it's/its are everywhere that people write English, and probably always will be. It's not a question of intelligence--it's just a punctuation error, often simply made in haste. If things like that really bother you that much, you'll probably be crazy in a few years. (And a whole lot of other SDMB members who seem to complain about it every month or so.)

Last edited by guizot; 01-26-2008 at 11:11 AM.
  #50  
Old 01-26-2008, 11:49 AM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,873
"Architected" is annoying, whether or not the word has precedent. My personal tech-term bÍte noire, however, is "premise," as in "customer premise equipment." (Premise is a presupposed proposition in an argument; the plural word premises is used to refer to a location, even a single one).

I've all but given up the battle, though; the misuse is so ubiquitous that I'm confident the dictionaries will soon be updated to cite "premise" as a valid alternative to refer to a single place. Probably accompanied by an italicized note explaining that the usage is still considered "controversial" by a happily dwindling number of pathetic, anal-retentive prescriptivist killjoys.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017