I don’t think your source was wrong about the construction “homophobia” having an archaic definition which used the latin meaning of homo and refrerred to fear of men. I think it’s just that the resemblance to the modern word is more coincidental than etymological. The homo in homophobia is shorthand for “homosexual.” It’s a sloppy neoligism which really owes more to modern English than to Greek or Latin. I agree we could all use a better word for the kind of bigoted sentiment we all know we’re trying to talk about, but so far (despite attempts like “heterosexist”), “homophobia,” through sheer popular usage, has more or less transcended it’s pseudo-classical etymology enough to become the signifier we need.
Which you failed. 
All your examples, except homicide (which LHoD already mentioned) use the Greek homo-. The challenge is to find more Latin ones. I’ll give you another chance…go!
If we were to go by the 1828 Webster’s dictionary, Liberal’s criticism of the misuse of skeptic (or sceptic) would be well founded. But by 1913, Webster’s had added this definition to the philosophical and the theological meanings and listed it as the primary meaning:
Therefore, sometime between 1828 and 1913, the above definition came into common usage. I would not consider its usage now as “descriptivist.”
As a former national forensics competition judge, if I had judged debating, I would have allowed the use of skeptic and skeptical with the above definition without a problem. I would have viewed the use of skepticism and Skepticism more favorably if I could distinguish the meaning from the context naturally.
“La tee da, la tee da…” – Annie Hall
I think this puts my rant on the use of “loose” when people mean “lose” to shame.
Might that be more an indication that lexicographers changed during that time period, and began reflecting the common usage in dictionaries rather than usage by the educated elite?
D’oh! ::head slapping emote:: I misread his post! Double d’oh!
Lessee… um… [looks through dictionary]…um… “homo” the genus … um… homininization… um…
Hey! It says here that “homogeneous” is from… oh wait. Never mind: *Midieval * Latin. From Greek.
…um… here’s one: “Homoousian: a Christian supporting the Council of Nicaea’s Trinitarian definition of Jesus the Son of God as consubstantial with God the Father” Ha! Beat that!
[tangent]
Hey, Randy, welcome to the board! Yeh, yeh, a bit late and all that, :smack: but nevertheless, welcome, you crack me up, 
and I hope you’ll be coughing up the dough to join when your guestship expires. 
[tangent of tangent]
Smiley overuse? Smiley abuse? Death to the Great Smileyizer? Whyever would you say that? 
Homo = same
Ousia = substance
As in English “con” from Latin cum = with + substance, giving consubstantial
(whence Luther’s Platonic Consubstantiation against the RCC’s Aristotelian Transubstantiation)
Origin and derivation: Greek
I don’t believe there’s a significant difference between the two terms.
Does that make you skeptical or incredulous?
I’m incredible.
Liberal, I apologize for my contributions to the hijacking of your thread.
That said, ETF, thanks for the kind words. Come fight with me in my GD thread on free will! (My guest-ship runs out on the 1st, and, at best, it’ll be a few weeks before I’ll be able to tithe for membership.)
Jeez, what are you? My girlfriend? Can’t I be right just **ONCE ** when I’m obviously wrong?
Fine! The dictionary says it’s from the late Latin homousianus, from homousius, from, yes, the **Greek ** homoousios. Jerk.
OK. Next time I’ll take the time to go look it up in a dictionary for confirmation so that you have the opportunity to look it up and get back with a correction, first.
(And a word of advice: Don’t EVER post “beat that!” on THIS message board–SOMEONE will.)
“Dead horse”
Beat that!
-D & R-
“Penis”
Beat that!
Fun facts - classicists (okay, classicists who are purists and do gender studies) HATE the word ‘homosexual’, for exactly the reasons evident in this thread. The prefix ‘homo-’ HAS a Latin meaning, so combining the Greek prefix with the Latin ‘-sexual’ just messes things up.
Also, ‘homoousian’ (better known as Nicene Christian) along with it’s cousin, ‘homoiousian’ (Arian Christian) gave rise to a pun - between the two warring groups, there was just an iota of difference.
Well, I’ll also note that you:
a) tentatively excluded most dopers who call themselves skeptics from the rant (“The majority of Dopers who claim to be skeptics probably know what they’re saying, so this rant isn’t directed at them”), and
b) Insulted the remainder by suggesting that they “pretend,” that they are " illiterate crank[s]," that they “proudly puff out their chests.”
My claim is that, in the setting of debates (which, as Miller points out, is not exactly a formal setting), you’ll find the overwhelming majority of folks who use the word “skeptic” use it in the common parlance, exactly the parlance that you insult in your OP.
I could be wrong, and perhaps you’ve gathered the evidence of my incorrectness: if you’ve had to ask, over and over, which definition of “skeptical” someone is using, perhaps you’ve received enough answers that you can show me how “the majority of dopers who claim to be skeptics” are using it in the should-be-capitalized sense, not the common sense. Has this actually been your experience?
I suspect that the reality is different. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of folks who call themselves skeptical are saying that they are not convinced by the evidence so far offered. If I am corect, then the breakdown in communication is with you, not with them–because I and virtually everyone else understands what they’re saying without having to ask, and it’s you who do not. The solution to the problem is not to forbid them this perfectly fine use of the word, but rather to accept that they probably mean the shouldn’t-be-capitalized version of the word when that’s what they use.
Daniel
What do they think of “television”?
parricidal orphanage.