Actually, unless lowbrass’s post discovered you while you were not expecting to be discovered, it would be more appropriate to describe your state of mind as astonished.
There’s a story about Noah Webster, the noted lexicographer (probably apocryphal). His wife walked in on him while he was enjoying a slap-and-tickle with a comely wench, and exclaimed, “Why, Noah. I am surprised.” Webster responded, “No Madam, I am surprised. You are astonished.”
Ouch! That’s harsh! No need for the lynching, dude! I think I’m going to have to stoically retire to my spartan cell (though it’s not that spartan; my roommate—strictly platonic! She says she’s a lesbian, though I’m, um, incredulous; her tastes seem more catholic than that—will keep me company) and begin the sisyphean task of rebuilding my lilliputian psyche. It will take a herculean effort but if I keep myself well fueled (with sandwiches, say; I’ll boycott more epicurean fare till I feel I’ve earned the right) and warm (just knitted a new cardigan!), I think I’ll be up this olympian undertaking.
lissener, I always assumed you were an Epicurean. 
But I admit that the proper usage of words is a sisyphean task. Perhaps your roommate might assist with some Sapphic verse, such as Ar Hyd y Nos?
Well, when I’m deciding not to agree with anything, I call myself a “grouch”, but I know that’s not getting me any dictionary writing jobs.
Liberal, in a perfect world you’d only have to interact with people through the moderation of your Philosophy forum. However, in the real world it’s unrealistic to expect every one else to abandon the common usage of “skeptic”. Yes, some people even bend the bounds of the common usage, but as [post=8305124]I pointed out earlier[/post], you aren’t particularly one to talk.
Yeah, I’m aware that you keep referencing that, but I don’t argue against it because it proves my point. Each time you link it, people can see that I used the dictionary itself to show that “pretentious” means full of pretense or pretension and that “pretense” means pretending or feigning. Therefore, to say that someone is pretending is to say that someone is being pretentious. You don’t have to have a masters degree in logic to be familiar with the transitive property of implication. It’s just like the one arithmetic uses for equality.
Are you tone-deaf? Pretentious has entirely different connotations than pretending. It’s not a straight-line substitution. Really, Liberal, sometimes I do wonder if we’re speaking the same language.
If that dictionary is unacceptable, is American Heritage okay? Pretentious: “claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified”; i.e., pretending to be something you aren’t. (No need to link; nobody clicks them anyway.) Also, “v. intr. To make pretensions: pretends to gourmet tastes.”
I know; I was just being a bit silly, as I don’t feel particularly passionate about this issue, nor do I harbor the desire for angry debate that this thread seems to be bringing out in people.
Hah! Now that one’s funny.
No! Really? Who’da thunk it.
“Pretentious”, as you well know, carries more than just a strict dictionary drilldown meaning. Let’s see if we can get at the problem. Answer me one simple question, yes/no answer.
Are a group of kids playing Cowboys and Indians* pretentious?
Personally I’ve always been too insouciant to use words like cromulant ,except maybe when I’m feeling particulary ebullient.
But actually I do see Libs point about Homophobia technically meaning a hatred of man rather then homosexuals…
I’m afraid you’re asking the wrong guy that question, Kimo Sabe. 
In other news, it has come to my attention that “literally” may now mean “figuratively”. I officially give up.
And by “officially” you mean … ?
Your last sentence contains a dangling preposition.
Only when used ironically and idiomatically.
Not just pretending to be something you aren’t. Pretending to be something greater than you are.
One can pretend without being pretentious.
Unfortunetly, language is neither mathematical, nor particularly logical. You’re totally wrong on this one, Lib. There’s a substantial difference between saying someone is pretending, and saying someone is pretentious. Pretentious carries heavy connotations of egoism and unearned superiority. It is always a negative. Pretending is more akin to play acting, and carries no particular ethical or moral connotation. At worst, it connotes a mild childishness.
Not according to Gene Weingarten in the Washington Post…
I found this quote from a man who had just witnessed privation in Africa: “I was literally torn apart.” He was literally torn apart? As by lions? Yes, this, too, is now accepted. It’s in [Webster’s] dictionary. “Literally” may now be used to mean “figuratively”, which is roughly as accurate as if “happy” were defined as “sad.”
…and not according to this usage note:
Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries.
Sure. So what? One can doubt without being skeptical, but who cares. 
Sounds to me like the dictionary is recording an idiomatic usage, which is what good dictionaries do. Quite obviously, literally “literally” does not mean “figuratively.”