So it reflects poorly on your character, that you are unable to move on as I have done. It also says something about who is to blame for instigating these feuds long after they've ended.

<I find it wildly humorous that you have the nerve to tell me that you've gotten "under my skin">

Hah! This is fantastic! So if I've "moved on", I should suddenly be your buddy? You've got a weird notion of "moving on".

I never claimed that being included in scholarly articles is sufficient evidence by itself. Clearly the fact that it is included in dictionaries is more important evidence. But it's not irrelevant, either. To claim that just because "seductivity" is found in some scholarly articles (and very few by comparison, I'm certain) does not suddenly prove that "aggressivity" isn't a word -- because "aggressivity" IS found in numerous dictionaries.

Um, no, that's not what it means. You and your deductive skills... I don't want you to be my buddy. I want you to behave in a civilized manner, even if we don't like each other. To behave like an adult. This means not insulting me months after a feud has ended and then adopting a "Who, me?" attitude when people point out that you're just stirring up trouble.

<I'm not even sure what "moving on" is supposed to mean in this case. I suppose amnesia is an extreme form of "moving on", but I remembered that you're an ass, and I said it. Nothing more to it.>

Egads, it's slow progress with you. No, it doesn't prove that "aggressivity" isn't a word. It forces you to abandon one of your pieces of evidence.

<I never claimed that being included in scholarly articles is sufficient evidence by itself.>

Well it surely isn't necessary. And you're saying it isn't sufficient. So it's neither necessary nor sufficient. So why mention them at all, other than to pad your "evidence"?

<The burden of proof is on you to explain how a word that is found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (amongst others) is misspelled.>

Fine. Good. But we need to get rid of those "scholarly articles" that you love to cite, since they're distracting and they include at least some non-words.

So your claim is now that "aggressivity" is a word, because *some* (but not all) major dictionaries include it. Well, this entails the following: A) Publishing companies get to determine what is and what is not a legitimate word. And it also presupposes the following:
B) The methodology of all major publishing companies (which produce dictionaries) is accurate in determining word legitimacy.

Now, I don't think most people would like to accept (A), and I think the fact that the OED dissents from other "major dictionaries" refutes (B). This is further helped by our historical knowledge of the arbitrariness of "dictionary inclusion", which also weakens (B).

And what makes you think you were on my mind before <Jess> mentioned you?

<or if you didn't, then I'm not sure what you were expecting when you suddenly popped up and insulted me again on your second post after returning>

Exactly that. It simply pads the evidence, but it is not necessary nor sufficient in itself. But since it does pad the evidence (scholarly articles usually not misspelling words, the exceptions being quite rare compared to the number of times words like "aggressivity" are used), I will continue to mention it as I see fit.

<So your claim is now that "aggressivity" is a word, because *some* (but not all) major dictionaries include it.>

Most. You have only given one which doesn't, and even that one, according to another kibitzer, has at least one edition which includes it.

<The methodology of all major publishing companies (which produce dictionaries) is accurate in determining word legitimacy.>

As I've stated before, it doesn't matter whether it is a "legitimate" or marginalized word (like ain't). In both cases it there would be a proper and an improper way to spell it.

We made progress when you admitted that you consider "ain't" to be a misspelling. There we have a word that's included in ALL major dictionaries, including OED, so you've lost your "trump card" of one dictionary not including the word. If ain't is also a misspelling, then clearly the issue of whether or not OED includes a word would be irrelevant to whether or not it is misspelled.

You have yet to relate to a very simple question that I have posed to you repeatedly: If someone were to claim to you that "passivity" is misspelled, how would you refute him? Would you point out that it's included in dictionaries, for starters?

When people want to learn how a word is spelled, they turn to the dictionary. Standard dictionaries are the best sources we have when it comes to word spelling. And even if you manage to find exceptions and come up with an example of a misspelled word in a standard dictionary -- which you have not and will not be able to do -- even then you wouldn't be able to conclude that all other words are therefore illegitimate.

You gave a few indications that you were following my posts during this month or more. You also returned with your insults at the precise moment when I had stopped regularly posting on CG for a few days. And like I said, she mentioned me in a positive way. There was no reason to use that as an excuse to start insulting me at will.

< Furthermore, I had previously expressed my opinion of you on Jess's page, and this elicited no response. Why do you assume that I would expect anything different this time?>

Stop jumping the gun. I'm trying to figure out what evidence you require, defeating that, establishing a positive case against legitimacy, and then connecting it to "misspelling"- in that exact order. I have no interest in moving to the later topics, until we settle the prior.

You're trying to have a reiteration free-for-all, which doesn't get us anywhere. Disagree where you disagree, but don't just keep deluging me with the same repetitive, disorganized claims.

<As I've stated before, it doesn't matter whether it is a "legitimate" or marginalized word (like ain't)>

Are you granting that "aggressivity" is not a legitimate word? How can the methodology of dictionary inclusion not matter?

Before we proceed, I'd like to see you endorse one of three things:

1) Publishers determine word legitimacy, and they use a consistent and accurate method of gauging the appropriateness of a word's legitimization. 2) Publishers determine word legitimacy, but the method for selecting words for inclusion is unimportant. 3) Dictionaries don't determine word legitimacy.

Whatever. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about whether or not I've been reading your posts. For what it matters, I read some of your posts a couple days after our last spat, and ceased all inquiry into your activities thereafter.

<Plato>< You also returned with your insults at the precise moment when I had stopped regularly posting on CG for a few days. And like I said, she mentioned me in a positive way.>

I didn't realize that there was a "precise moment" that that you stop regularly posting for a few days. At any rate, do you suppose <Jess> was in on it? Do you suppose I got her to mention you just that it was timed right?

And what difference does it make what the context of her mention happened to be? She was addressing me, mentioning you, and I responded.

When I ask you how you would go about proving that "passivity" is a word to some ignorant person who insisted that it wasn't, you have been unable to respond.

<Are you granting that "aggressivity" is not a legitimate word? How can the methodology of dictionary inclusion not matter?>

No, I'm not granting it, here you go again with your brilliant inferences. I'm saying that even in your best case scenario you would have been dead wrong to claim that it was misspelled. Because "ain't" is an example of a marginalized word that is found in standard dictionaries, and yet it is very clearly NOT misspelled.

Why do you feel you can dodge my questions and points at will but that I have to respond to each and every one of your points? It doesn't work that way. You have failed to respond to a few very simple points, and insist on playing entirely on your own terms.

Tell me this: what source, if not dictionaries, is more of an authority to establish the spelling of words? Name a single source that we can turn to if not dictionaries. Standard dictionaries establish the spelling of both marginal/slang as well as standard words. If the dictionaries tell you that it's spelled "aggressivity," then that's how it is spelled.

Furthermore, your whole definition of what constitutes a misspelling is skewed. To misspell a word, there has to be an actual word that is being misspelled. Just like "ain't" is not a misspelling, but "aynt" is. By contrast, "spelling" a non-word is not spelling at all. Something like aoiejfapieojapoei is complete gibberish, but hardly a misspelled word because there was no word being misspelled!

You keep making such comments as if you are truly incapable of seeing anything wrong with your behavior. You can continue playing innocent, but that won't change what you did or how it was perceived.

Suppose someone says to me "I'm now friends with John."

No, it's because they follow logically from the prior ones.

<Why do you feel you can dodge my questions and points at will but that I have to respond to each and every one of your points? >

How about this, I promise to address your "passivity" and "ain't" and "misspelling=non-word" issues in the order I described. At least I gave an order. You want to tackle them all at once, which isn't very organized, since you just appeal to one point to support another. I mean, even if your argument isn't circular, you run the risk of being circular, since you're taking everything at once.

I'm trying to narrow everything down to a clear order. You're just repeating your points over and over. I can quote, but suffice it to say, you aren't adding anything in any of your posts.

If you're so sure I'm wrong, then just confidently answer my points. If I don't address your questions and concerns when the topics logically arise, you may fairly accuse me of dodging the questions, and I will admit total failure. What do you have to be afraid of? And incidentally, you've just dodged it, fugly.

The order I'm proposing (to remind you) is this:
1) Defeat your arguments *for* legitimacy
2) Establish my arguments *against* legitimacy
3) Show that "non-legitimate" words are identical to "misspelled" words.

Sure.

Person A: I met this cool guy, John.
Person B: John Winklemeyer?
Person A: Yeah!
Person B: Oh, that guy's a jerk.

Very happy to see you back, so sorry I had to leave the game for almost two months like that.

You'll NEVER concede total defeat, I know you better than that. And no, I refuse to play by your rules and what you think is "fair." You've dodged plenty of my questions over the course of these debates, over and over again.

This is really such an obvious point that it's beyond laughable that you continue with it.

"Aggressivity" is either a non-standard or a standard word that is found in almost all the standard dictionaries, and spelled exactly like that. (By the way, none of those dictionaries mark it as slang or non-standard, like they do for "ain't," but I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that it falls into that category). Regardless of which it is, it is a word that has a proper spelling, and there are plenty of ways to misspell it.

Spelling a word in exactly the same way as it appears in the dictionary is not a misspelling. The most authoritative source that we have when it comes to spelling words are the dictionaries. And the dictionaries spelled the word exactly as I spelled it. Period.

Do you have any doubt what the English professors here will think about your proclamation that "ain't" is misspelled simply because it is slang? Or what *any* educated person would think about that? Not that I need their support, anyway -- the dictionaries settle this matter once and for all. And once you admitted that you thought "ain't" was also misspelled, the point about OED becomes irrelevant -- because OED *does* include "ain't."

This is a black and white matter, as simple as opening a dictionary to check the proper spelling. Yes it's true that dictionaries contain some non-standard words, but they are still words by virtue of their inclusion in standard dictionaries, and they still have a correct and an incorrect spelling. How else to check proper spellings if not with a dictionary? What other authority can there be for how to spell words if not the standard dictionaries?

Interesting choice of openings!

We seem to be playing a wide variety of opening systems.

Good luck!

Canadian Prime Minister <Mackenzie-King> regularly asked his <dog> for public policy advice, convinced that the spirit of his <dead mother> lived in the dog.

Source? <King's> own personal diaries, published posthumously.