For what it’s worth, though, there are indeed a great many dictionaries out there that use the word “Webster” in their titles with no connection whatsoever to Noah Webster.
Robbey is right. The US Constitution talks about “states”. There are 50 states, no “commonwealths” according to the Supreme law of the land. Hell, a “state” could call itself a “rutabaga” if it liked, they still cal themselves “sovereign”, which is as wrong- “the Sovereign Rutabaga of California”. Cece agrees- no “commonwealths”, just States.
My problem with these is that so many are just mundane. For example, “Karl Marx wasn’t Russian.” Okay, some people might think he was, but it’s not like it’s a big mystery or anything.
Yeah, I hear ya Urban. Just don’t get between them and their bamboo source though… for once they taste human blood, there’s no going back. 
The maneater-panda “factoid” gets a :rolleyes:
Actually, that has been disputed. According to one *source, there are actually 52 states, one of which is. . . Chicago?
*Raquel Welch in an interview with Larry King.
toadspittle, ordination does not end a previously established marriage.
Marriage is permitted for priests (but not bishops) in the Eastern Catholic rite.
It’s usually forbidden inthe Roman Catholic rite, but even there you can find exceptions. I’ve known a couple of married Catholic priests. Both had been Episcopal priests (where marriage is allowed) but had left the Episcopal church for the Catholic as a result of changes in Episcopal doctrine (sadly enough from my point of view, one of the major sources of contention was the decision by the Episcopal Chruch to begin ordaining women).
Nonetheless, their ordination as Catholic priests in no way invalidated their existing marriages.
This argument sounds the guy on the eastern island described by MonkeyMensch:
Although you can’t say that the guy on the eastern island is outright wrong, you can say that he’s silly, nonsensical, impractical, and unreasonable.
If you adhere to that definition then there’s really no rhyme nor reason to what is easternmost and what is westernmost. My definition is unambiguous.
The 180 longitude line may be the “most extreme eastern longtitude line,” by convention, but it is not the “easternmost longitudinal line,” which is a nonsensical phrase. Being at that line doesn’t mean you are as far east as you can go.
If I were standing at the easternmost point of Maine, and asked, “Can you go any farther east and still be in the US?”, a reasonable person would say, “No, you are the edge of the country. If you go any farther east you’re not in the US anymore.” Surely you would not say, “Of course, just go another 15,000 miles or so across a couple of oceans and continents and you will be at the easternmost point of the US. Except, by the way, from there you can continue to travel east and still be in the US.”
Neither would you say, “Of course, just turn around and go west 4,000 miles to be able to go farther east.”
I can’t see how this is possible. Adding water to sand to the extent that voids between the grains are filled adds weight withouth increasing volume. How can this one be true?
Now this is just rotten. They didn’t even try.
Whoever wrote that never ate asparagus
Similar story for East St. Louis, BTW.
Dolphins are whales, IIRC.
Agree. Paper can be made out of a lot of things, not just wood fiber. Ask the ancient Egyptians.
I’ll be darned, this is the first one that is correct and also surprised me (I had to conduct an experiment to verify).
The thing about the nave and aisle is a little architectural trick question.
The nave of a church sometimes has aisles added on either or both sides to increase its area and perhaps seating capacity… The word originally described sections of a church building added on as wings .
However the path between the seats or pews is also known as the aisle in vernacular usage.
Merriam-Webster (those liars) would beg to differ:
Undoubtedly the false word origin was derived from:
I thought pandas were related to Racoons?
Ice cream doesn’t make us cooler. Because of its high caloric content, it makes one hotter, not cooler.
:rolleyes: So I guess eating a big meal gives you a fever then.
Genetic studies have shown that Giant Pandas are more closely related to bears than raccoons.
You are probably thinking of the Red (or Lesser) Panda (Ailurus fulgens). It has been frequently debated as to whether these were more closely allied with Bears (Ursdiae) or with Racoons (Procyonidae); however, they are currently placed in their own group, the Ailuridae. Recent analysis has indicated that they are more closely related to racoons and their ilk than to the Giant Panda, but their closest relatives appear to actually be skunks.
According to a guy I met that worked at the National Zoo, the most dangerous animals were the elephants.
Maybe that panda factoid comes from a fan of PvP - it’s a running gag.
Actually, I thought that the studies indicated that they are bears. However, they are different enough from other bears that they are in their own sub-family.
How nitpicky do you want to get? What about Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, Charlemagne, Moses, Abraham, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed?