Yeah, literacy is so lame.

Poetry =/= literacy. Idiot.

Hostility =/= Intelligence. There are more definitions of literacy than the simple ability to read and write. It is often used to mean versed or talented in literature, which would include poetry, bb.

As I just said below, no, it's not. It's the ability to read and write, or comprehend something well (ie. computer literacy). You're thinking or literary, a word that clearly wouldn't be applied to you.

Understanding takes a bit more talent than the simple ability to copy/paste a definition from dictionary.com, though that is a start. :) Let's try to expand this definition a bit, shall we? If literacy can be used to mean the ability to comprehend something like a computer, could it not be used to mean the ability to comprehend literature? Let me do some copypasta here, to help you understand: literacy - the quality or state of being literate literate - versed in literature; dealing with literature Therefore, while someone's literacy MAY simply refer to their ability to read/write, it also has other meanings. The more you know!

Jesus, go get a ******* dictionary you retard. If you want to make up new definitions for words, submit it to the Oxford dictionary to print in their next edition. They're going to tell you to **** off, because it's a retarded idea, but it's still going to be a lot more constructive than trying to convince people your make believe definitions actually apply in real life. As you said, pretty ironically since I haven't copy pasted anything whereas you just did - Understanding takes a bit more talent than the simple ability to copy/paste a definition from dictionary.com. You might have noticed while copy pasting your grounds for creative reinvention of word definitions from dictionary.com that they source real dictionaries. I suggest you head down to your local library, pull one off the shelf and look up "literacy" rather than just words that you think sound the same, and then proceed to stfu.

I didn't just look up words that I thought sounded the same. If you'll just take one second to pull your head out of your own ass and read what I posted, you'll see that it makes perfect sense. You see, the definition for the word "literacy" clearly lists the word "literate." Seeing as understanding the word "literate" was quite important to understanding the definition of literacy, I also quoted the definition of literate. Following me, sweetheart? Also, I don't have to go to the library to get a "real" dictionary, (since obviously online sources are now no longer creditable, even though they cite the "real" dictionaries you so trust in?), because, unlike you apparently, I keep those, (and other books, too!) in my house. If it would make you feel so much better to hear what it says in the "real dictionary," here you go bb: literate: 1. Having the ability to read and write. (this is the one you're referring to!) 2. Cultured: Educated. 3. Familiar with literature: WELL-READ. (this is included in my argument, as well as the next definition...) 4. Well-written: polished. So sweetie, obviously it does have multiple definitions, one of which would include writing poetry, (in case you're not sure which ones, see 3 and 4). But since you obviously have a hard time recognizing (or admitting?) when you're clearly wrong, I'll just let you go on this one.

You copy and pasted from dictionary.com, and then, despite the fact I haven't copy pasted anything, went on to accuse me of doing what you did while pretending you had? That's not just a horrible grasp of English, that's plain retarded. Ignoring that for a minute, what is actually an even worse source than dictionary.com which is checked on a regular basis and cites it sources, is you claiming to be quoting the third and most obscure meaning of the word literate(not literacy, the word we actually started out discussing) from a "real dictionary". Let's make this simple. The only definition for "literacy", (the word we're actually discussing because you decided to disagree with the widely known definition) from Oxford English Concise Dictionary - Eleventh(and latest) Edition is as follows. "literacy. n. the ability to read and write." If you have any further disagreement, you're basically saying your nonsensical extension to the most obscure definition of "literate" from some un-named source is more credible the the most recent edition of the most widely known English dictionary in print.

Look, if it would make you feel better, I'll name the dictionary I was using. It's the Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary. Not credible enough for you? And just because you aren't aware of that definition doesn't mean it's the most obscure sweetheart. Stop projecting your own ignorance on everyone else, ok? Also, if you want to know the reason why that is the ONLY definition listed in your dictionary, I'd just like to point you to the word "concise" in the title. That doesn't mean it's the ONLY definition of the word out there; the other definitions were simply left out of that version to preserve its conciseness. Get it? So please stop acting like your dictionary, which clearly doesn't contain every definition of every word due to its being CONCISE, is the only credible source out there. P.S. - In case you aren't aware, literate and literacy are two versions of the same word; literate being the adjective and literacy being the noun. So stop bitching about my arguing over the definition of literate instead of literacy.

theanonimouse - Shut up. You ****** up and corrected someone else wrongly. Now you're just embarrassing yourself more, and making anyone who reads your idiocy cringe.

Are you claiming the most obscure definition for literate (again, not the word we were actually discussing) from Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary is reason enough to render the entry for the word we're ACTALLY talking about from the latest edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary untrue? That's pretty stupid... It's the third definition from your dictionary, by your own quote. They are listed from most relevant, to least, so yes, that does make it the more obscure definition. Neither of which, just by the way, give any indication that being poetic is a definition of being literate. Perhaps you need a tutor because I'm not really interested in constantly having to correct your misguided claims of what words definitions "actually" are, but concise means "brief but exact". Not simply "brief". In a dictionary that means they don't go on to include lengthy examples of how it's used. Not that they exclude definitions. Anyway, it seems you're unable to stick to your original retarded argument so lets try and get you back on track. What you started out saying(incorrectly) was - "There are more definitions of literacy than the simple ability to read and write." so how about you go ahead and give the definition of literacy from your dictionary instead of going off topic.

Look sweetie, I never said your definition was untrue, ok? I said there are multiple definitions. I'm sorry if you're incapable of grasping anything that isn't "this is true and that is untrue." Also, you're telling me the only difference between your "concise" dictionary and the full Oxford English Dictionary is that they've left out "lengthy examples of how [words are] used," and not a single definition? Oh, okay. And I have given you the definition of literacy from my dictionary: the quality or state of being literate. Seeing as it's four o'clock in the morning, I don't feel like finding my dictionary for you and reading off the other three or four, which include being educated and having knowledge in a particular field. You'd think, given this definition of literacy, you'd understand the importance of my defining literate, but obviously I'm giving you entirely too much credit. Also, claiming the third out of four definitions as the MOST obscure? And you say I need a tutor? Lrn2Count. Even if it WERE the MOST obscure definition available, (which it obviously isn't, seeing as it can be found in a number of sources), that doesn't discredit it. See bb, the English language is a beautiful, nuanced and multi-faceted language, which is apparently something you have yet to understand. Again, I'm not saying that literacy CAN'T mean the ability to read/write, I'm only saying that that isn't its ONLY definition. You'd think citing the other definitions would be enough to get it through your "thick skull," but again... giving you too much credit. Also, speaking of not being able to stick to a single argument, how did you manage to go from claiming literacy had two definitions (the ability to read and write OR comprehend something well), to only one, (the ability to read and write)? And then you claim your "real" dictionary doesn't leave out any definitions... hm, like maybe the one you cited earlier? I guess your "single" definition from the only "real" dictionary available discredits the multiple definitions included in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Webster's New World College Dictionary, The Wordsmith English Dictionary-Thesaurus, and any other dictionary listing multiple definitions (or even a single differing definition)? I think the Cambridge University Press sums up my point quite well: "Literate: the ability to read and write. Literate also means having a good education or showing it in your writing: He wrote a literate, colorful column and reviewed plays." Although obvs this wouldn't apply to poetry, amirite?

Clearly you have reading comprehension issues, so I'm just going to copy and paste the main point of what I said above and I want you to take a few deep breaths and call mommy over to the computer to help you read through it before replying. -Anyway, it seems you're unable to stick to your original retarded argument so lets try and get you back on track. What you started out saying(incorrectly) was - "There are more definitions of literacy than the simple ability to read and write." so how about you go ahead and give a definition of literacy from your dictionary instead of going off topic and quoting the more obscure form of "literate" from it. You attempted to correct my definition of literacy. If you can't find a dictionary to agree with your ****** up idea of what you think the word "literacy" should mean, then stop embarrassing yourself and shut up, as has already been so kindly suggested above.

Insulting me and then copy/pasting your previous argument doesn't work here. How about you respond to what I've said? It's a really, REALLY simple and clear logical argument. Even you should be able to do this. DEFINITION OF LITERACY: THE QUALITY OR STATE OF BEING LITERATE LITERATE CAN MEAN HAVING A GOOD EDUCATION AND SHOWING IT IN YOUR WRITING. SEE THE END OF LITERACY? WHERE IT SAYS THE WORD "LITERATE"? THIS IS WHERE THE TWO CONNECT, LOL There it is in all caps for you, bb. Does that help you understand, or would you like me to draw a picture with little arrows so you can follow me here? Not to mention the fact that you completely disregarded everything else in my above post, and then you feel that I have reading comprehension issues? I kind of feel bad for arguing with you now... it's like picking on a handicap kid. :/

I copy pasted it because you didn't respond to it and it was the main point. When a definition refers to another word it is generally assumed (by anyone who isn't brain damaged or clinging to straws to prove a dumb argument that they started that is) that it is referring to the widely used definition and most common definition (the definition they put first), and not the more obscure one from a bad dictionary(my favourite criticism of it is "a dictionary's embrace of the word 'ain't' will comfort the ignorant, confer approval upon the mediocre, and subtly imply that proper English is the tool of only the snob"). I honestly can't even believe I'm having this conversation. The word you were thinking of is literariness. You getting creative with the obscure definitions of literate when a dictionary references it as it's second definition(according to you anyway seeing as you didn't even bother using quotation marks, but hey, who cares about decent grammar when you're being retarded about English anyway) isn't clever, creative or correct in anyway. It's just retarded. Get a word a day calender or something rather than making up new definitions for existing words when you don't know the one you actually want.

I like how you automatically dub anything that isn't the exact dictionary you're using a "bad dictionary," regardless of where it comes from. I mean, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster? Complete retards if you ask me, right? Yeah, okay. I'm done here, since you're obviously the most obstinate **** on this website.

I wasn't asking you, and I'm not dubbing it bad. Plenty of other people have for me. The Globe and Mail(It's a newspaper. My bet is you don't pick them up very often) - "a dictionary's embrace of the word 'ain't' will comfort the ignorant, confer approval upon the mediocre, and subtly imply that proper English is the tool of only the snob". The New York Times(This is another newspaper) - "Webster's has, it is apparent, surrendered to the permissive school that has been busily extending its beachhead in English instruction in the schools ... reinforced the notion that good English is whatever is popular" and "can only accelerate the deterioration" And if that's all you can disagree with about what I just said, I'm going to presume that's as close as an admission to being wrong as you're going to be able to manage. After you finish those ESOL classes perhaps you can work on the important life skill of gracefully accepting when you're very much in the wrong.

No, that isn't all I disagree with. And it's not an admission that I'm wrong; I simply don't feel like wasting any more time arguing with you. It's pointless, and it should be obvious by now that neither of us is going to gain anything from this but frustration. You believe you're right, I believe I'm right, and no amount of bitching at each other is going to change that. At this point it's just petty.

You're still replying and disagreeing with me so obviously it's not that and is just the fact you can't defend your retarded point.

Well now I'm just arguing with you because you've pissed me off. I'm not going to argue the original point any longer because, yes, it simply would be pointless to try and drill that particular point into your skull any longer.

Also: * You're still replying and disagreeing with me, so obviously it's not that and is just the fact you can't defend your retarded point. Honestly, we're in a grammar debate. At least try to use correct grammar.

My grammar is fine and we're not in a grammar debate. You're replying because you're cut you tried to correct me on the definition of a word and were wrong. Are you saying there's more point "arguing" because my ' key sticks and you're upset you were wrong than there is in defending your original (incorrect) point? That's some wonderful logic right there.

* My grammar is fine, and we're not in a grammar debate. (If this is the case, maybe you shouldn't have tried to correct my grammar on multiple occasions, hm?) No, you see, there's no point in arguing at all anymore. But I am enjoying this particular argument, whereas the other argument has definitely played itself out. I'm sorry you can't understand this.

Yes, it played itself out when you were wrong and could no longer cling to straws defending yourself. I didn't correct your grammar until after you started (understandably) trying to change the subject. This is usually where people take the above posters advice and stop embarrassing themselves. You thought literacy meant literariness and were wrong and continue crying and trying to change the subject. And as with my word usage, please stop trying to correct my grammar incorrectly.

As stated before: 1) I realize you still think I'm wrong. I still think you're wrong. I have stopped arguing over this because neither of us is going to change in this respect. 2) You corrected my grammar first. Stop trying to justify your corrections and then bitch at me about mine. 3) I know what literariness means. I also know what literacy means, despite your objecting to this fact. And unless in Australia you don't combine two independent clauses with a comma and conjunction, I'm not incorrect in this respect.

1- No. You still think I'm wrong. I, and everyone else here, knows that you're wrong. 2 - And look at your post - 125. 3 - You don't. You don't need to in America either. "Two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) or having a complementary relationship[5] may or may not be separated by commas, depending on preferred style, or sometimes a desire to overcome ambiguity. "

1. and 3. Okay, bb. Really, if it makes you feel better, you just go ahead and refuse to admit to ANYTHING. :) 2. Not sure if you noticed, but that comment wasn't even remotely directed at you, just FYI. Oh, and did you get that grammar rule from the Oxford book of grammar? Because, (and I'm not sure if you've heard this or not, so I won't hold it against you), anything that doesn't come from Oxford is completely unreliable and untrue.

1 and 3 - You're wrong. You haven't found a dictionary or person to agree with you. I mean, you'd be more successful claiming fairies were real. At least some people would probably agree with you and there's an actual definition for them in the dictionary. You're basically crying because I won't "admit" something you've provided a less plausible argument for than there is for fairies. No. I got that out of grade four English. I quoted from wikipedia because it has citations provided and was easier than explaining why you're retarded yet again.

Okay, sweetie. Whatever you say. :)

That's right.

mobius8 and theanonimouse, I think you two need to get a room! I've seen flame wars, but you two make them look like pillow fights. Your arguments over grammar are "Mac vs. PC" on steriods! After all is said and done, I think you two could become real close. Just don't forget to invite ol' Plexico, the matchmaker, to the wedding!

holy shit, mother *******! spam up my inbox, why don't you.

That's an idea, but I have standards and unfortunately an IQ of over 80 is one of them so I just don't think it could work.

I've got to tell you, mobius8, because it is so counter-intuitive, it is almost impossible to believe: when you get into a bitter, nasty argument with a woman, it often makes them incredibly hot. We men are usually put off by a woman we are angry with, but they must be wired differently. It seems that all of the passion and excitement and drama of a heated argument makes us more attractive and desirable. It has happened to me many times and every time is a surprise to me. Your "enemy" is this argument is undoubtedly boiling over for you. I don't know how you two could ever get together, but if you do, look out! Make sure you close the blinds.

Yeah... unfortunately, I don't get involved with narcissistic assholes, so no luck here. :/

No luck for who? For Plexico, who's point you're proving by being unable to restrain your hysterical self from responding, or for me, who has already stated your sub-80 IQ is pretty off-putting?

*whose Yeah, I'm definitely hysterical. I'm surprised you could tell. I'm just tearing up this keyboard over here, lost in tears. It's hard to see the screen. And obviously no luck for me, asshole. If you had even the slightest notion of what reading comprehension entails, you would be able to glean that from my previous statement. But I should know better than to expect that from you, shouldn't I? P.S. - I can't help but notice you're responding too... does that make you hysterical, or does that only apply to women?

Ah, so you're saying you'd be lucky to be attracted to me. I can't disagree with that I suppose. And if I wanted to "be creative" with word definitions I'd have a lot more reason to say that yes, you're only hysterical if you're a women than you would to try and say literacy really means literariness. But seeing as how I'm not as silly as you, I won't, and will just say no, it doesn't apply to only women, just the hysterical ones.

I might be lucky to be attracted to you if you weren't a narcissistic asshole with a smarmy douche goatee and avoidance issues, sure. :) And I'm not understanding how I'm being hysterical here... unless there's a new definition for hysteria in the Oxford dictionary that I'm unaware of?

Plexico - You're very, very right. Wanna fight? : )

"The term originates with the Greek medical term, hysterikos. This referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus, hystera in Greek. The term hysteria was coined by Hippocrates, who thought that suffocation and madness arose in women whose uteri had become too light and dry from lack of sexual intercourse and, as a result, wandered upward, compressing the heart, lungs, and diaphragm. Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus". And as I said, while it's still not as much of a "creative" usage as your twisted reasoning for reassigning the definition for literariness to literacy, it's not really how I would use it. Just that I could use it easily like that within your standards of twisting the English language out of comprehensible use if I wanted to.

Oh yeah, let's pull out the antiquated Greek usage I'd hope everyone knows about, not that it has anything to do with what I asked. That makes sense. And no, referencing the "history" section of the dictionary is not the same as using only two (2) modern definitions to make your point. I don't understand how my using more than on definition lost you, but I definitely wouldn't consider it "twisted reasoning."

You asked if there was some new definition of hysteria. There's not, because I'm not making stuff up like you. It's the original definition, that yes, most people who took history or biology at school at some point would probably know. It was the reasoning behind performing "hyster"ectomies on women in psych wards in the early 1900s. You didn't find any definition agreeing with you for literacy. You found one referencing the commonly used definition for literate, which you decided to ignore and use an obscure one, not even listed in more respectable dictionaries, while ignoring the existence of the word literariness.

It's called sarcasm, sweetie.

No, it's actually just called being retarded.

Sure, twinklestar, But if you start throwing Flemish curses at me, I'm going to have to give up. OK, where to start? I can't believe you are taking the side of the boyfriend! His misusing his gift for poetry (which is undoubtedly marginal at best, if you want to see great poetry, go to post #131) to toy with girls' emotions! You are shallow, insensitive and horrible! ;) Now let me have it!

She knew she was dating an artistic guy. If she wasn't doing enough in the relationship to satisfy his overly-passionate and creative nature, that's hardly his fault. Clearly his masterful "literariness" was of a high standard if it's managed to hook him two women(although admittedly probably not as masterful as post 131). And for all you know, the first poem he read might not have been a love poem. It might have been describing the virtues of a friend or his, or his sister and purely platonic. She deserved it for flattering herself by thinking a poem written about someone else could be applied to her. She's clearly an egotistical and selfish lover. But I guess as a guy, you'd be able to sympathize with those traits so no wonder you're taking her side!

How does being artistic give the boyfriend the right to be a two-timing playah? We don't know that his poetry was so good, maybe the girls he dumped it on aren't very discerning. Personalized love poetry is like oral sex -- you'd prefer good quality, but you are so happy that the other person is making the effort, you dare not criticize them even it it is lousy. She had good reason to believe that the poem was for her. He was reading it to her face-to-face and I doubt it could be confused with a sisterly elegy or an ode to platonic friendship (unless he is a really crappy poet, which is possible.) She's a selfish lover for wanting him to herself? Maybe she wants to have sex with him without wrapping herself head-to-toe in Saran Wrap and dipping him in latex, so she doesn't catch the diseases he's picking up from the back-alley skanks he's nailing all over town who are charmed by his truck-stop poetry. Is she selfish or smart? I don't know why you are taking up for the guy. He's too stupid to remember which poem was for which girl. Isn't that just a little too much to forgive (on top of all the other crap)? I hope you are not one of these self-loathing women who think they deserve to be treated like garbage, and urge other women to accept things like letting their boyfriends cheat because they are "overly creative." Are you one of those kind? I hope not because you appear to be a fine, attractive woman who deserves better. So, whose side are you on now?

His passions are just too much to bestow on just one woman. Lot's of great artists and writers through history have had mistresses. That's not being a "playah". That's needing a muse, and perhaps he'd found someone to play that part better than her. She said his poetry was "beautiful". You're taking her side, so you might as well take her word that it was beautiful. And go on and pretend you know anything about oral sex. It's pretty obvious no one would give you oral, lousy or otherwise. The poem could have been about the person, not about his relationship with them, and therefor now obviously a "sisterly elegy" or an "ode to platonic friendship". Regardless, the fact was it was about someone else and most likely their qualities and she was thinking they applied to her and "how beautiful", not "hey that's not quite right". I didn't say she was a selfish for wanting him all to herself. I said she must have been a selfish lover to have driven him into the arms of another. She already obviously thinks the world revolves around her if she's happy taking credit for someone else's virtues. It's not about remembering which was which. They were obviously both in his bag and in his own handwriting, probably a similar length and probably written on the same type of paper or pages of a journal or something. Mistaking one for the other isn't forgetting. It's just making a mistake. And he's writing her poetry for gods sake. That's hardly treating her like crap, and she obviously wasn't aware of another woman or even thinking it was a possibility before hearing the poem. Perhaps he is just a sensitive guy who dedicates poetry to anyone in his life who means something to him, instead of just writing it to get his gf into bed or impress girls in FML comments sections.

Sounded pretty good until I realized that you talk out of both sides of your mouth! Does he get a free pass from his exclusivity arrangement with the OP because he's just too damned passionate or because she is a selfish lover? Educate me, what does it mean for a woman to be a selfish lover? Typically, it is the woman who requires more time, effort and emotion to reach satisfaction, so usually the "selfish" label applies to men who take care of their business quickly and leave the woman high and dry. For the record, I have received plenty of oral. Don't underestimate me. At rare times, I have received really bad oral -- it was like being with a cheese grater. Ouch! Maybe we have a cultural difference here. We are very uptight about keeping our relationships monogamous, even before marriage. I know the French have a lot more relaxed attitude about mistresses, etc. I don't know what your code is. I am also not saying which is the best, because I find that our rigidity leads to explosive disasters. Nevertheless, the OP seems to have been playing by the American rules, so finding out that she was sharing her boyfriend felt like she was being treated like crap. If she were cool with it, there would never have been an FML. I think the remembering which girl was which is significant. You said yourself that the poems were probably on similar paper and of similar length. This means that he is cranking out these poems like a Xerox machine! The girls are so generic to him that it takes until the last line with the name to realize he's got the wrong one?! I can't believe his art has much integrity -- your fantasy man no doubt has a career in the greeting card industry waiting for him!

Neither of us know the whole situation, and neither possibility excludes the other. It could have been solely his passionate nature that needed a mistress and muse like almost every well known artist, or it could have been her unimaginative and selfish affections that drove him into the arms of someone warmer and more attentive or it could have been both. It's a bit silly just to jump to the conclusion that she was the perfect companion and he was playing the field just because he could. Sure he could have left her for this other women (presuming there was one) but perhaps there were reasons he felt obliged to stay, and he wanted to at least make an effort while they were together. Regardless of what their moral expectations of a relationship were, simply cheating isn't treating someone like crap. It's being unfaithful sure, but there's no actual treatment of that person that is particularly crappy, especially if she wasn't even suspicious of another woman being on the scene. Mistaking the poem isn't significant. I know it takes me a few moments to tell pages of my writing apart, even if they're for very different things. Perhaps he was nervous reading it aloud to her, or perhaps the name was on a couple of lines in. You're just assuming the poems are generic and the girl isn't being egotistical and imagining the qualities of someone else are her own. But of course you want to jump to the conclusion the guy is the one entirely at fault her, and that your damsel in distress OP would be better off with a sensitive and monogamous guy like you who can at least get the names in his limericks correct.

In one respect, I really like the way you think. I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic, but I wish I lived in a world that works like you say. I think it is a great idea that a man who is creative and passionate gets relieved of the obligation of monogamy. I'm not that way by choice, I am just in a society that demands it. I am very creative in several different areas and I am quite passionate, so I believe I deserve a harem! If that is true where you live, has Belgium accepted their quota of American immigrants for the year? Seriously, I would think that I could be a lot more successful if I had a muse to inspire me for some of my projects. I actually had one for one of my ideas, but she suddenly disappeared. We weren't romantic, but that's a long story. Our local newspaper hosts a blog by a sex therapist. Her last column began: I think cheating is the worst thing married people can do to each other. I wrote as a comment, "Worse than physical violence?" Maybe this shows you how American society views that issue. Here, if you are led to believe that you are in an exclusive relationship and find out that it is not true, you are supposed to be crushed. I'm just going to have to write this off as a cultural difference because you don't think that cheating counts as crappy treatment. I still think you give the guy too many excuses. If I were to write poetry to women, I would make them very personalized and very specific to mention their unique qualities and attributes that I admire. I might even lightly rebuke them about a flaw to keep if from getting too maudlin. I still maintain that his poems to his bevy of women are somewhat generic, and I wouldn't be surprised if he plagiarized parts of the poems, too! They probably weren't as dirty as mine, either. ;)

I'm actually a kiwi living in Belgium, so I'm not sure my views are a very good representation of Belgium, and to be honest, I would leave my partner if I knew he was involved with someone else as well, but that doesn't mean I would consider it being treated badly, because it's not. The word "news" in America seems to be used pretty loosely so I don't think that being published in your newspaper gives it much credibility. My guess is that columnist had probably just been cheated on. Cheating isn't something that's directed at the person they're with. It's generally not something that is done with the intention of hurting them, or even of them finding out. Perhaps it's a blow to your ego that you're not the only one in your partners life, or not the person they care about the most anymore, but it can't really be called bad treatment of them. And you're still making a pretty big assumption in saying that all his poetry is similar and cliche. He still could have been only a few lines in, or she could have been overly egotistical and imagining parts of it which were blatantly about another girl were meant for her. And dirty poetry is almost never original an d pesonalized, so no, it probably wasn't as yours.

We're starting to agree too much here, twinklestar. "News" in America has become a disaster. The worst is this right-wing, corporate (borderline fascist) propaganda that goes by the Orwellian name of Fox News. This abomination foisted upon us by that Aussie Rupert Murdoch makes Joseph Goebbels jolly as he roasts in the seventh level of Hell. You can go to the sex therapist's website http://www.maryjorapini.com and judge for yourself whether she is a quack or not. Her site has a blog, but the one I respond to is hosted by the Houston Chronicle. If you are interested, I can point you there. I ream her out regularly for the absurd things she says, so she's probably hot for me. I think we've exhausted this FML because the remaining points of contention -- whether she has an icebox between her legs and whether he is a lousy, hack poet -- cannot be ascertained without any further evidence. I faithfully write comments about several FML's per day and I try to be funny, but sometimes I can do that in an outrageous way. Please feel free to jump down my throat and let me duke it out with you there. I'm sure you're ready to go off on any little thing I say, you seething rageaholic.

Mobius, I realize that these posts were made a long time ago, but I have to say that you were being one ignorant, stubborn fool right here. You are completely incorrect, were proven so, but still defended your point just because your opponent didn't have the #1 definition for the word? Grow up and admit when you're wrong.

I read through that whole argument. Well done. I don't think I've ever seen a debate/ argument get this far.

lol, that's great

BEST COMMENT EVER, ABACK. I laughed my friggen ass off!

Yeah that's not slutty at all

Well, not it's not slutty, considering that she only has to touch one dick (her boyfirend's) to execute this plan. THINK! for one minute.

Um yeah, but knowing what she knows now, how sure is she that she's the only place that dick's been?

This is pure win.

Literacy is the ability to read AND write.

As stated before, it can also be used to mean being versed/talented in literature. So saying someone is literate could literally (haha) mean they can read/write, but it can also mean that person is well-versed in literature. So you see, in the English language, many words have multiple meanings/nuances. Knowledge is power!

No. Literacy is the ability to read and write. You're thinking of the word literary, not literacy. Honestly, if you don't know something would it really be that much of a challenge for you to just pick up a dictionary before making an ass of yourself?

See above. Also: congrats on learning the word "literary." It is an adjective that could possibly be used in this argument, (for example, "mobius8 could not exactly be referred to as a literary genius, though he does seem to be literate using the most basic of definitions"). However, it is not the specific noun I am referring to. Hopefully you have a better understanding of this word than you do of "literacy."

Boooooo to your silly definition argument! Stop acting like stuck up AP english kids. Booooooooo.

Yes literary is an adjective. Very good of you to observe. Its noun form is literariness. "He was literary. She was not." or " He possessed literariness while she did not." That's how we use those words. We use literate and literacy when describing someone's ability to communicate in the written language. "He was literate, while she was not." or "Literacy - some people get it, some people don't". Different words for different things. I know it's a weird concept, but that's just how language works. Honestly now, you're making yourself look pretty stupid. I'd just shush now if I was you.

See above. And if by "we," you mean, "We who can't seem to recognize that some words have multiple meanings," then sure, you're perfectly correct. :)

Copy pasting from above, in hopes this will make it easier for you to get through your thick skull - You copy and pasted from dictionary.com, and then, despite the fact I haven't copy pasted anything, went on to accuse me of doing what you did while pretending you had? That's not just a horrible grasp of English, that's plain retarded. Ignoring that for a minute, what is actually an even worse source than dictionary.com which is checked on a regular basis and cites it sources, is you claiming to be quoting the third and most obscure meaning of the word literate(not literacy, the word we actually started out discussing) from a "real dictionary". Let's make this simple. The only definition for "literacy", (the word we're actually discussing because you decided to disagree with the widely known definition) from Oxford English Concise Dictionary - Eleventh(and latest) Edition is as follows. "literacy. n. the ability to read and write." If you have any further disagreement, you're basically saying your nonsensical extension to the most obscure definition of "literate" from some un-named source is more credible the the most recent edition of the most widely known English dictionary in print.

Nope, you're still wrong! :) See above for further clarification. Thanks for reposting that, though, because I definitely wanted to read it again.

You haven't found one person or dictionary yet to agree with you that you're right about what you think literacy means, so what on earth would make you think you're right. The word you want is "literary". Say "I didn't realise. Sorry for my insistence despite being wrong. Thank you for helping me out with my severe language issues" and shut up.

Refusing to admit you're wrong, (or even address the argument anymore), and being right are two different things. :)

They are however it seems apparent you're not actually aware what that difference it. Why don't you come back when you've found a single dictionary or person to agree with you?

Actually I have. But, you know, it's your choice whether or not to acknowledge this.

Generally I don't acknowledge other peoples fantasies unless they're hot and in my bed, sorry.

*other peoples' Oh, so your smarmy douche goatee isn't just for show, then?

Are you saying you indulge the fantasies of the crazy guy in the subway warning you to prepare for the end of the world, or simply being a hypocrite? I simply mean I'm not going to acknowledge someone elses delusions as fact for no good reason. But cute you had to go to my profile and stoop to petty insults. I guess that's just what you do when you're wrong and can no longer defend your actual point(which admittedly was hardly something you could call a "point" in the first place).

*someone else's (seriously, do you have something against apostrophes?) No, I'm not saying you should indulge just anyone's fantasies. I was making fun of you. Oh, and repeatedly calling me retarded ISN'T stooping to petty insults?

Then don't get cut if I don't indulge yours. It's not petty because it's based on the fact you keep proving yourself to be retarded and I don't need to visit your profile page to see that, seeing as you're so insistent on displaying it here for all to see.

*"It's not petty because it's based on the fact you keep proving yourself to be retarded, and I don't need to visit your profile page to see that, seeing as you're so insistent on displaying it here for all to see." Oh, really? Are you even aware of what mental retardation is? And you're saying that I'm proving myself to be retarded? Oh, okay. You're right. This isn't petty at all.

Do you really want to get overly literal after calling me a douche? You were wrong and I'm not going to indulge your delusions of being right. Having a tantrum and visiting people's profile to start silly name calling just makes you look sadder than you already did.

Do you really want to get all upset over my calling you a douche after you repeatedly called me a retard? And stop acting like I did something terrible by visiting your profile. I'm assuming it's public for a reason.

I'm not upset. I'm pointing out if you're being overly literal about me calling your average level of stupidity retardation then being overly literal about you calling me a douche would make it a pretty failed attempt at name calling. It's not terrible. It's sad given your motivation.

I wouldn't have been overly literal if you had simply admitted that it WAS petty name calling - not some simple observation made on fact, as you tried to portray it. But I'm glad you're not upset. For a minute I thought I might have hurt your feelings. :(

Your comment was petty because it wasn't relevant. My comment regarding your retardation was entirely relevant given your profuse display of it and therefor, not petty.

Oh, and your "hot and in my bed" comment wasn't petty either, then, was it? You have some serious issues with narcissism here if you fail to see your fault in this.

No. It wasn't. Why would I indulge your fantasy of being right is all it implied. Get over yourself.

Oh okay, you're right, a sexual joke was completely relevant but my calling you a douche was WAY OVER THE LINE. I get it now. You're always so right all the time! It's uncanny.

It wasn't a joke. It was the conditions that would have to be present for me to go along with something so stupid. And yes I am.

wow u too should really get a room and get it over with!!! u don't know each other but u acte like a married couple! lol