Considering the misinformation regarding Og, I wonder if it makes sense to mention using the generic search engine of your own choosing and using a search term like this:
No more having to wait two minutes and–in my experience–better results. Which leaves you free to use “New Posts.” Not to mention spelling errors that are caught for you.
choie, I await my avalanche of admiration and praise.
I had posted to complain about that very thing–totally forgetting that I wasn’t tied to the search engine of the board. Sad thing is that I’ve recommended (and used) the site qualifiers in other places but it just didn’t sink in to my brain to use it here. :smack:
Thanks for reminding me, SiXSwords. Although since you addressed choie instead of me, maybe I should complain about that? Nah.
Heh, I’ll certainly praise you, SIXSwords! I already knew about the Google site search, and I do use it quite a lot. I’m thinking more along the lines of searching through specific forums and (even more particularly) for specific users’ posts. I know there’s a method for homing in on one forum, but for the life of me I can’t remember it.
Someone even made a form for searching the SDMB through Google back in 2009, with a dropdown box for searching specific forums and everything, and I remember saving it to my own hosting service so I could use it, but it doesn’t work anymore (or I didn’t save it correctly, more like).
We all work on spam-fighting, but a huge amount of that credit has to go to Marley. At this point, I think he’s killed as many spammers (both live and bots) as the rest of us combined, and we’ve banned well over 10,000 of them since we started counting in 2005.
It doesn’t happen much in my personal experience on the boards anymore because I choose to stay away from GD and the Pit. But when I used to go into those areas to participate, yeah, I noticed it. And your response is part of the problem… whether or not the person **is **actually what he/she have been labeled, once someone tosses that into the fray, the discussion, whatever it may be, derails immediately. So, by your way of thinking, if someone calls me a homophobe, and I deny the charge and try to demonstrate that I’m not (I have gay friends, I went to a gay wedding, or whatever) becomes a pointless exercise for those that believe the charge. Unless someone actually comes out and admits what they are, I think it’s very dangerous to label them… even if you think you know what they are.
Thanks! So few people get the reference, so I appreciate it when someone lets me know. Frank Burns had a unique way with words.
As for the jewish references, I had to look back. Not really… they are part of a list of folks that others can and have been told they are biased against. You could substitute “black” or “homosexual” for the word jewish (and I think I did) to get the point I was making. There has not been any targeting by them at me as far as I know.
Actually, the one actual gripe I had that referred to jews specifically (the Og thing) was completely wrong and debunked by Colibri. You can read my mea culpa upthread.
The current (online) edition of the AHD lists “meme”, and Firefox, Chrome, and Word 2010 recognize it just fine. So it seems to me that your resources are just badly outdated.
Do you have a suggestion for a word that I should use instead?
I disagree. For one thing a trope is not a value judgement on the facet whereas cliché is used to imply a familiar feature being used to the detriment of the work.
Regarding meme, I suggest you might want to buy a new dictionary (or use an on-line one) and maybe invest in an up-to-date spellchecker. Your AHD was out of date even in 1994, since the word was coined 18 years earlier. Meme appears in the current American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and the Oxford Dictionary, and Word 2007’s spellchecker recognizes it.
I agree that memeplex sounds pretty pretentious, but meme itself fills a linguistic niche. Maybe my appreciation of the word is just a memetic disorder, which is likely to be maternal since I got it from memome.d&r
