<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Use &#8216;em or lose &#8216;em</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5791/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5791</link>
	<description>I couldn&#039;t possibly fail to disagree with you less.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:23:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobbert</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5791/comment-page-1#comment-10996</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobbert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5791#comment-10996</guid>
		<description>I Googled &#039;nitidity&#039; and it asked:Do you mean &#039;nudity&#039;?  Oddly enough, since I was on your site, the answer was no.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I Googled &#8216;nitidity&#8217; and it asked:Do you mean &#8216;nudity&#8217;?  Oddly enough, since I was on your site, the answer was no.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CGHill</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5791/comment-page-1#comment-10990</link>
		<dc:creator>CGHill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5791#comment-10990</guid>
		<description>In point of fact, I knew only seven of them before I started that piece; the idea, of course, was to work in as many of them as possible.  (All except &quot;desuetude&quot; and &quot;neologisms&quot; are defined in the linked article.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In point of fact, I knew only seven of them before I started that piece; the idea, of course, was to work in as many of them as possible.  (All except &#8220;desuetude&#8221; and &#8220;neologisms&#8221; are defined in the linked article.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Pergiel</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5791/comment-page-1#comment-10982</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles Pergiel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:08:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5791#comment-10982</guid>
		<description>desuetude
embrangled
recrement
exuviated 
abstergently
roborant
fatidical
nitidity
caducity
caliginosity
mansuetude
malisons
neologisms
oppugnant
niddering

15 words I don&#039;t know, that&#039;s more than I usually encounter in a year. Some of them I get the gist of from context/sound/spelling, like niddering. I have heard of mansuetude before, but I don&#039;t recall what it means. This stuff is not my forte.

If you did this off the top of your head, as I suspect you did, I am impressed. I would look them up, but I think it would be a waste of time. My brain is already full.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>desuetude<br />
embrangled<br />
recrement<br />
exuviated<br />
abstergently<br />
roborant<br />
fatidical<br />
nitidity<br />
caducity<br />
caliginosity<br />
mansuetude<br />
malisons<br />
neologisms<br />
oppugnant<br />
niddering</p>
<p>15 words I don&#8217;t know, that&#8217;s more than I usually encounter in a year. Some of them I get the gist of from context/sound/spelling, like niddering. I have heard of mansuetude before, but I don&#8217;t recall what it means. This stuff is not my forte.</p>
<p>If you did this off the top of your head, as I suspect you did, I am impressed. I would look them up, but I think it would be a waste of time. My brain is already full.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fillyjonk</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5791/comment-page-1#comment-10976</link>
		<dc:creator>fillyjonk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:26:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5791#comment-10976</guid>
		<description>Dangit, Charles, now I&#039;m going to be looking for opportunities to use those words. &quot;Embrangled&quot; is actually kind of pretty-sounding, not unlike &quot;spangly,&quot; which is one of my favorite words. 

I guess I&#039;m OK with words being replaced. Just as long as they don&#039;t replace them with text-speech abbreviations or some similar recrement. (And I have to say now, I think &quot;recrement&quot; would be a lovely euphemistic substitution for an Anglo-Saxonism of four letters and beginning with &#039;s,&#039; which means approximately the same thing.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dangit, Charles, now I&#8217;m going to be looking for opportunities to use those words. &#8220;Embrangled&#8221; is actually kind of pretty-sounding, not unlike &#8220;spangly,&#8221; which is one of my favorite words. </p>
<p>I guess I&#8217;m OK with words being replaced. Just as long as they don&#8217;t replace them with text-speech abbreviations or some similar recrement. (And I have to say now, I think &#8220;recrement&#8221; would be a lovely euphemistic substitution for an Anglo-Saxonism of four letters and beginning with &#8216;s,&#8217; which means approximately the same thing.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McGehee</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5791/comment-page-1#comment-10964</link>
		<dc:creator>McGehee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5791#comment-10964</guid>
		<description>Nah, it&#039;s cromulent with me if they remove those words.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nah, it&#8217;s cromulent with me if they remove those words.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

