Language being a dynamic, as well as an emergent, system,
any codification thereof can only be a 'snapshot' of the moment. Why would anyone feel the need for new dictionaries, or style-book revisions, if (once aggregated) the rules are immutable?! Like AG's been patiently explaining: a language's 'instruction sheet' is not the language itself.
BTW, Chad, despite your proclivity to personally vilify those with whom you disagree (on opinion-rife topics), I didn't 'vote down all your posts'. I did the one where you misquoted me (put words in my mouth) and then deconstructed what you said I'd said, but it looks to me as though I'm not the only one who tired of the class blowhard's 'bloviations'. Not surprising, as I've found that I'm just the latest in a line of TR members you've made an avocation of vilifying for your sport. A couple of your posts here have 'rating #s' that went down 2; how'd I manage that?! On my own posts, the sole '-1s' tend to show up each time you post anew. You have a seeming penchant to accuse me of your own tactics (misrepresenting others on purpose--we saw that was you; reflex '-1s'; you....). Moreover, I didn't claim to have not read the comment I '-1ed'---that's you again. Should I post links now to other TR discussions I've read where you've 'embraced the dark side' to (hopefully) discredit those with whom you disagree?
