> Do I?
> Yes you do. The appropriate authorities are waiting for you.
> I think that's just you doing what you think I'm doing. I only entered the discussion
> because you said a word was a synonym of another word, then promptly quoted a source
> listing synonyms, with that word not in evidence. I'll do that for any word.
> I've also mentioned the limitation of reference works and how they aren't always
> current with the culture for context.
No. Within that post, you did no such thing. You said they were synonyms, then gave "evidence" of that in the form of a quote that didn't say it at all.
> Only an ignoramus would deny that "gay" isn't a
> synonym for both "queer" and "happy" for instance. The only way they'd do that is to
> ignore the world around them.
If you think I said they aren't, you read too much into my post.
> Ask Henry Rollins. Or Dan Savage. Ask anyone for that matter. Or are you an
> antisocial aspie with control-freak tendencies as well? It's as if you don't learn.
> And, yes, you're also deliberately ignoring people who just happened to identify with
> being LGBT and took back that particular piece of language decades ago to the point
> that it becomes a humorous self-deprecating weapon.
If we're going into multiple posts, then I clearly did exactly NOT that when recalling Angela's old post concerning X-Men.
> Fun stuff! That means you're out
> of touch. So much for the lie that whitebred, liberal, insipid P.C. idjits are
> concerned about the welfare of others. Do-gooders are so gay!
Hah. Hah. Oh wait, in your mind people are always things they say they aren't, so I'll just have to ignore that, won't I?
> That's okay. You're still gay, P.C. boi. You are what you are. And I will never play
> by your rulllllllz. ;-)
You're still acting a lot like a Democrat, throwing around inflammatory remarks to get a rise out of people.
> EDIT: For grinz I decided to hit http://dictionary.reference.com for something a bit
> up to date when compared to my favorite circa 2003 electronic Merriam-Webster
> Collegiate Dictionary+Thesaurus (11th Edition). This should leave things to rest as
> evidence of the multiple-meanings of "gay", unless one is an antisocial aspie P.C.
> ignoramus who also happens to be functionally illiterate for the lulz:
> [gey] Show IPA
> adjective gay·er, gay·est,
> of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
> having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful,
> gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively,
> vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious,
> grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed,
> bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. Synonyms: colorful, brilliant, vivid,
> intense, lustrous; glittering, theatrical, flamboyant. Antonyms: dull, drab, somber,
> lackluster; conservative.
> Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive . awkward, stupid, or bad; lame: This game is
> really gay.
Again? My list of synonyms for "gay" covered both the "traditional" (3&4) and "homosexual" (1&2) meanings of the word, so your quote is useless here, unless you want me to call you stupid, lame, or bad. Is that the meaning you want to claim is synonymous with "queer?" Because that is relatively close, though I had thought you were going with the "homosexual" meaning of both words, said meaning not being present (for "queer") in either your post or mine.