>And I *also* supported the use of "transpire" to mean "happen" on the basis that it had been used that way for two centuries -- it was the incorrectly ingrained inappropriateness of that definition that made me reluctant about it. But just "reluctant" not "unreceptive."

Hm. I must have read that too fast.
A thought: As one puts more effort into ones language, two things happen: Your vocabulary increases, and you become more aware of the exact meaning of things. The last of those mean that you become "reluctant" towards certain words, forcing you to make use of the first to find alternative wordings.

> > In danish the meaning of "godt og vel" has changed from "a little bit less than" to "a little bit more than" in something like 50 years.
>
> Is it accepted usage, though? I would imagine there's all kinds of remnant uses of the old definition lying around, plus staunchy linguists that refuse to adhere to current usage.

I picked it up from a newspaper article about some institution which gathered statistics on the language, so I'll conclude that it at least is the most common usage.


> > ...can a single message generate enough response to fill a whole page...
>
> Nope. A "page" is defined as a fixed number of threads, not messages. (Currently, eight, but I have the option of changing that whenever I get the whim to.)

Have mercy on us, oh great master-of-the-number-of-threads-on-each-page. I bet that would make a great name if you translated it to latin or some indian language. Or something.

Jul"damn... (in a kind of subdued way)"ian