Caffeine addiction

Lycanthrope said:
It's a poor choice of word that has far too many supernatural and superstitious connotations. I'd love to know what kind of medical or scientific literature of our age would still make use of that word to mean anything other than bunk.



I get the feeling you're also someone who writes "timeous" as opposed to "timely" just because you think that its definition suits your purpose, therefore it fits.

Or "thankful" when you mean "grateful" or "addicting" as opposed to "addictive."

You're one of those people, aren't you?

Language use often requires cunning, tact and not throwing whatever word you think sounds adequate into whatever sentence your skull concocts.

Tl;DR: Just because you think it sounds smart, doesn't mean it is.
Click to expand...

I can tolerate grammar mistakes simply because i can understand what a person is trying to say and i'm not too arsed about them being excellent at it unless they're english teachers, but he is more than welcome to use any words he likes and it doesn't change the meaning of the words. i'm well aware of occult bleedings, which means hidden bleeding, and not bleeding through a satanic ritual :p

again, emphasis, he can use any word he likes, and it's your job to understand/translate what he is saying. facts are facts
 
anyway, i'm pretty sure i have a caffeine addiction as well :p i get moody if i do not get my energy drinks :erm:
 
Unhappy438 said:
:wtf:
Click to expand...

it's like a creationist complaining that macro-evolution and micro-evolution are too confusing to them and that we should summarise for them. even if a word has negative connotations and is open to misinterpretation like "survival of the fittest" and "monkeys and men are common ancestors" it doesn't change what is REALLY meant or trying to be said.

i don't get why people are on his case now that they know what he really meant
 
STS said:
it's like a creationist complaining that macro-evolution and micro-evolution are too confusing to them and that we should summarise for them. even if a word has negative connotations and is open to misinterpretation like "survival of the fittest" and "monkeys and men are common ancestors" it doesn't change what is REALLY meant or trying to be said.

i don't get why people are on his case now that they know what he really meant
Click to expand...

Oh like grammar Nazis , i can can understand where you are coming from with that. I don't agree with the other part though. Its up to speaker to provide the audience with the correct word, its not up to the audience to second guess.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Oh like grammar Nazis , i can can understand where you are coming from with that. I don't agree with the other part though. Its up to speaker to provide the audience with the correct word, its not up to the audience to second guess.
Click to expand...

of course, but he provided what he REALLY meant and then was called on for choosing to use that word like he was intentionally trying to mislead people, that is why i marveled at it. i've seen the word used that way before too so i expected it, i know Hum isn't into that kind of thing
 
beans100 said:
So, you felt no placebo effects?
Click to expand...

I guess that was the point I was trying to make.

I felt bad before discovering that I had been drinking decaffeinated coffee the whole day. I specifically mentioned several times during the day that I felt tired and couldn't understand why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X