- This topic has 66 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sorry for the confusion. I was being sarcastic, which if you follow my dialogue with Zdad I’m sure you’ll notice.
But I’m glad somebody is finally getting defensive about this. And now I’m being genuine.
I can probably make a case for being the most liberal person who posts here with any regularity and I think that this lawsuit is a disaster that will waste money and accomplish nothing.
I saw the text of the sign
There is no way there is any merit to the case
It says
Dress Code for the Store
No Shorts
No Barefoot
No Sleeveless
No Low Cut Neckline
Allowed in the Store
It also has the rules in Spanish
I cant even see how this is aimed at women
Mammele: oops, my mistake
No, Haifagirl’s mistake.
flaunt
1 : to display ostentatiously or
impudently : parade <flaunting his
superiority>
2 : to treat contemptuously
Untermeyer>
Merriam-Webster
Wow, you finally agree with me. We could have avoided some back and forth if my original link was allowed through. Oh well…
DY: Haifagirl was right. That Merriam Webster (and other dictionaries) decided to pander to illiterates and define flaunt incorrectly because a lot of unlettered people do is unconscionable. Their incorporation of the incorrect definition should not be cited as proof to anything.
Well, what does the Oxford English Dictionary have to say about this word? That ought to settle this dispute one way or the other.
If any business didn’t want my business, I wouldn’t want to give it to them, just like I wouldn’t want to join any club that didn’t want me as a member.
Chevron, I’m glad you asked. Although I would still maintain my position no matter what the OED says.
VM: Don’t be so sure that you’re the most liberal poster here.
DY: I think the dictionary mixed up flaunt with flout. One flouts the rules of modesty when flaunting accomplishments.
DaasYochid: You didn’t read on:
Some well-known writers mixed the two up, and since well-known writers are of course irreproachable, the word people decided to incorporate their malapropisms into canon. To which I say bahhhhhhhh.
Well, what does the Oxford English Dictionary have to say about this word? That ought to settle this dispute one way or the other.
snort. As IF.
Wait, so admitted mistakes are not mistakes if they are made by people who are otherwise good writers? That’s, well, that’s perverse.
VW, I actually deferred to HG after checking the definition online. However, I must have seen it in print used in the wrong context numerous times for it to creep in, so much so that even after HG’s pun, I still didn’t realize that the joke is on me…
Back to the discussion on hand: to clarify, the city is not — at least according to the quote I posted by the HR Commissioner– claiming that the signs are discriminatory against women. I was trying to refute some posters arguments to that effect. They’re actually claiming the shopkeepers are trying to force their religious beliefs on others, which is even more laughable.
In other words everybody may have dress codes, except if done for religious reasons the motive poisons the pot. It’s the old mish-mash of Freedom FROM Religion, versus Freedom OF Religion. That’s where my joke about converting others comes into the picture. The only good thing about this is that the city is finally FLAUNTING its true colors.
This is a famous debate, whether or not common usage of a word, even if its usage began in error, renders the word (or in this case, it’s usage for a certain meaning) legitimate. I pasken that it does.
Thanks DY, for your psak. I’ll take it, but I don’t think I’ll risk using flaunt in this way again.
And HG, I just noticed that in the post in question I also used “too” incorrectly. Just call me out on it and we’ll call it a day.
This england sounds like an interesting place. I’m wondering what happens if there is a class trip to a palace on the same day as a sports lesson. Do the boys come in shoes or slippers? What happens if they come late to school also???
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.