Globalization and the Human Condition
Globalized capital will drive globalized labor down to a globalized subsistence level.
What do you think?
Globalization and the Human Condition
Globalization and the Human Condition
Foolish dreamer.
I would say that Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism.
‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning and can be confusing. Most people seem to use the word to mean the domain of knowledge connected with syllogism and fallacies but ‘logic’ can also mean the principles of any domain of knowledge. To be clearer in some uses one might use the metaphor ‘logic is grammar’.
When I say ‘Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism’, I mean ‘Wal-Mart is the grammar of capitalism’. Also I mean that Wal-Mart has become what the principles of capitalism could be expected to produce if the principles of capitalism are extended to their logical conclusions.
I suspect that Globalism is the grammar of capitalism. Consumerism might also be regarded as the child of capitalism.
Let’s examine the logic (principles) of capitalism.
This is off the cuff but I would say that the principles of capitalism are:
1) Ever maximizing productivity
2) Ever minimizing cost
3) Constant competition via prices
4) Off putting cost to a maximum
5) Control local governments to avoid regulation
Wal-Mart might be a useful corporation for describing my meaning that Globalism leads to subsistence labor.
Globalism is primarily about capital and corporations. Corporations are legal entities that live forever either in their original form or in another corporate form through a process of merger and acquisitions. Today capital is fluid globally. There are few if any places that money cannot move easily and with many powerful friends.
If we use the method I call ‘follow the money’ I think we can get an idea of what a corporation is about by examining ‘means, motives, and ends’.
The corporation comes in many forms and Wal-Mart is perhaps one of the best for accomplishing what corporations are for, which is accumulating profits and growing ever stronger and more independent.
Corporations have great means in the form or organization, life expectancy, and money. Corporations can easily make or break any community or any politician.
Corporations have only one responsibility and that is to provide profits for its share holders. Their motives are clear and uncomplicated. They owe nothing to anyone but their share holders. If war increases the bottom line then war is good, if not war is bad. If costs can be transferred to the local community rather than absorbed by the corporation then that is a good.
It seems to me that the logical end for all of this is that corporations thrive on ever expanding populations, governments easily controlled, and cheap labor that eventually reaches subsistence levels. If it enhances profits the definition of subsistence is edged forward as required. An example is the minimum wage that exists in the US. There is consideration being given to increasing that minimum if the corporate stock holders have their taxes reduced.
I would say that Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism.
‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning and can be confusing. Most people seem to use the word to mean the domain of knowledge connected with syllogism and fallacies but ‘logic’ can also mean the principles of any domain of knowledge. To be clearer in some uses one might use the metaphor ‘logic is grammar’.
When I say ‘Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism’, I mean ‘Wal-Mart is the grammar of capitalism’. Also I mean that Wal-Mart has become what the principles of capitalism could be expected to produce if the principles of capitalism are extended to their logical conclusions.
I suspect that Globalism is the grammar of capitalism. Consumerism might also be regarded as the child of capitalism.
Let’s examine the logic (principles) of capitalism.
This is off the cuff but I would say that the principles of capitalism are:
1) Ever maximizing productivity
2) Ever minimizing cost
3) Constant competition via prices
4) Off putting cost to a maximum
5) Control local governments to avoid regulation
Wal-Mart might be a useful corporation for describing my meaning that Globalism leads to subsistence labor.
Globalism is primarily about capital and corporations. Corporations are legal entities that live forever either in their original form or in another corporate form through a process of merger and acquisitions. Today capital is fluid globally. There are few if any places that money cannot move easily and with many powerful friends.
If we use the method I call ‘follow the money’ I think we can get an idea of what a corporation is about by examining ‘means, motives, and ends’.
The corporation comes in many forms and Wal-Mart is perhaps one of the best for accomplishing what corporations are for, which is accumulating profits and growing ever stronger and more independent.
Corporations have great means in the form or organization, life expectancy, and money. Corporations can easily make or break any community or any politician.
Corporations have only one responsibility and that is to provide profits for its share holders. Their motives are clear and uncomplicated. They owe nothing to anyone but their share holders. If war increases the bottom line then war is good, if not war is bad. If costs can be transferred to the local community rather than absorbed by the corporation then that is a good.
It seems to me that the logical end for all of this is that corporations thrive on ever expanding populations, governments easily controlled, and cheap labor that eventually reaches subsistence levels. If it enhances profits the definition of subsistence is edged forward as required. An example is the minimum wage that exists in the US. There is consideration being given to increasing that minimum if the corporate stock holders have their taxes reduced.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Globalization and the Human Condition
coberst wrote:
Let’s examine the logic (principles) of capitalism.
This is off the cuff but I would say that the principles of capitalism are:
1) Ever maximizing productivity
2) Ever minimizing cost
3) Constant competition via prices
4) Off putting cost to a maximum
5) Control local governments to avoid regulation
the logic of capitalism:
1) produce a product or service that fills a need.
2) be compensated for that product or service based upon what the market will bear
3) the producer enjoys the fruits of their labors
4) the consumer enjoys the fruits of the producer's labors
that's not so hard, is it? describing the 'logic' of capitalism only in terms of its potential for doing certain things is incorrect. not all capitalist enterprises attempt to control local government. most do not, as a matter of fact.
Wal-Mart might be a useful corporation for describing my meaning that Globalism leads to subsistence labor.
using the extreme to describe the mean is a faulty construct.
Corporations have great means in the form or organization, life expectancy, and money. Corporations can easily make or break any community or any politician.
demonstrably false. broad generalizations apparently derived from the activities of the extremes of corporate behavior don't help your argument. i'm part of a corporation of two people. the community and politicians can (and have) easily broken *us*, not the other way around, through absurd taxation that sapped most profits.
Corporations have only one responsibility and that is to provide profits for its share holders. Their motives are clear and uncomplicated. They owe nothing to anyone but their share holders.
again, demonstrably false. simply reducing it to "to provide profits for its shareholders" conveniently negates all the other requirements necessary to generate profits. in order to generate a profit you must provide to the consumers what they want. all the products, services, convenience, etc in the world won't do a bit of good for profits if the customers don't want what you're offering. it's as if you seem to see the corporation - business - as this entity that exists only to somehow make money appear which then goes to the shareholders. for a great many businesses and corporations, the motive is not *only* profit, it is a motivation to provide something of value to customers. there are actually - believe it or not - corporations that make little profit, do so year after year, and the shareholders are happy, the customers are happy, and those who run the business are happy. i know, it's a puzzler isn't it! people who actually do things that aren't 100% profit driven. who'd have thought!
If war increases the bottom line then war is good, if not war is bad. If costs can be transferred to the local community rather than absorbed by the corporation then that is a good.
more sweeping generalization, apparently to paint capitalism and corporations as entities that exist without the guidance of humans behind them. many corporations will not participate in activities that facilitate war, whether or not they could make more profit. many corporations specifically give *back* to their local community via charity. the cynical would say that that's all about improving the image of the business, to drive profits. certainly that's the case at times - heck, the last large corporation i worked for included community giving in the business plan as a means of getting the name out there. that doesn't mean that all corporations do that.
It seems to me that the logical end for all of this is that corporations thrive on ever expanding populations, governments easily controlled, and cheap labor that eventually reaches subsistence levels. If it enhances profits the definition of subsistence is edged forward as required. An example is the minimum wage that exists in the US. There is consideration being given to increasing that minimum if the corporate stock holders have their taxes reduced.
oof. minimum wage is absurd. the minimum wage is zero. that is, not working. artificially created values for labor don't help people get out of poverty. if anything, they make it harder to escape poverty.
can you see no good that corporations do?
Let’s examine the logic (principles) of capitalism.
This is off the cuff but I would say that the principles of capitalism are:
1) Ever maximizing productivity
2) Ever minimizing cost
3) Constant competition via prices
4) Off putting cost to a maximum
5) Control local governments to avoid regulation
the logic of capitalism:
1) produce a product or service that fills a need.
2) be compensated for that product or service based upon what the market will bear
3) the producer enjoys the fruits of their labors
4) the consumer enjoys the fruits of the producer's labors
that's not so hard, is it? describing the 'logic' of capitalism only in terms of its potential for doing certain things is incorrect. not all capitalist enterprises attempt to control local government. most do not, as a matter of fact.
Wal-Mart might be a useful corporation for describing my meaning that Globalism leads to subsistence labor.
using the extreme to describe the mean is a faulty construct.
Corporations have great means in the form or organization, life expectancy, and money. Corporations can easily make or break any community or any politician.
demonstrably false. broad generalizations apparently derived from the activities of the extremes of corporate behavior don't help your argument. i'm part of a corporation of two people. the community and politicians can (and have) easily broken *us*, not the other way around, through absurd taxation that sapped most profits.
Corporations have only one responsibility and that is to provide profits for its share holders. Their motives are clear and uncomplicated. They owe nothing to anyone but their share holders.
again, demonstrably false. simply reducing it to "to provide profits for its shareholders" conveniently negates all the other requirements necessary to generate profits. in order to generate a profit you must provide to the consumers what they want. all the products, services, convenience, etc in the world won't do a bit of good for profits if the customers don't want what you're offering. it's as if you seem to see the corporation - business - as this entity that exists only to somehow make money appear which then goes to the shareholders. for a great many businesses and corporations, the motive is not *only* profit, it is a motivation to provide something of value to customers. there are actually - believe it or not - corporations that make little profit, do so year after year, and the shareholders are happy, the customers are happy, and those who run the business are happy. i know, it's a puzzler isn't it! people who actually do things that aren't 100% profit driven. who'd have thought!
If war increases the bottom line then war is good, if not war is bad. If costs can be transferred to the local community rather than absorbed by the corporation then that is a good.
more sweeping generalization, apparently to paint capitalism and corporations as entities that exist without the guidance of humans behind them. many corporations will not participate in activities that facilitate war, whether or not they could make more profit. many corporations specifically give *back* to their local community via charity. the cynical would say that that's all about improving the image of the business, to drive profits. certainly that's the case at times - heck, the last large corporation i worked for included community giving in the business plan as a means of getting the name out there. that doesn't mean that all corporations do that.
It seems to me that the logical end for all of this is that corporations thrive on ever expanding populations, governments easily controlled, and cheap labor that eventually reaches subsistence levels. If it enhances profits the definition of subsistence is edged forward as required. An example is the minimum wage that exists in the US. There is consideration being given to increasing that minimum if the corporate stock holders have their taxes reduced.
oof. minimum wage is absurd. the minimum wage is zero. that is, not working. artificially created values for labor don't help people get out of poverty. if anything, they make it harder to escape poverty.
can you see no good that corporations do?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Globalization and the Human Condition
can you see no good that corporations do?
Yes. There are many useful things that corporations accomplish.
However, my interest is in awakening people to the negative side of what corporations accomplish. Corporations control most of the wealth and power in America and can toot their own horn quite well without my help. If however the citizens do not comprehend the down side they cannot change things that need changing.
Citizens generally tend to behave much like bovines. They are either staring vacantly into the distance or they are runing foolishly with the herd. It is both of these instinctive behaviors that I wish to challenge.
Yes. There are many useful things that corporations accomplish.
However, my interest is in awakening people to the negative side of what corporations accomplish. Corporations control most of the wealth and power in America and can toot their own horn quite well without my help. If however the citizens do not comprehend the down side they cannot change things that need changing.
Citizens generally tend to behave much like bovines. They are either staring vacantly into the distance or they are runing foolishly with the herd. It is both of these instinctive behaviors that I wish to challenge.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Globalization and the Human Condition
coberst wrote:
However, my interest is in awakening people to the negative side of what corporations accomplish.
i wasn't aware there was a shortage of anti-corporate cant on the net. in fact, i'm quite sure there isn't.
that said, in what way does the above thesis have anything at all to do with the ostensible focus of this topic. it sounds to me like the title of the topic was a convenient canard to mask the true focus.
Citizens generally tend to behave much like bovines. They are either staring vacantly into the distance or they are runing foolishly with the herd. It is both of these instinctive behaviors that I wish to challenge.
you *are* aware how elitist and condescending that sounds? i do hope so.
However, my interest is in awakening people to the negative side of what corporations accomplish.
i wasn't aware there was a shortage of anti-corporate cant on the net. in fact, i'm quite sure there isn't.
that said, in what way does the above thesis have anything at all to do with the ostensible focus of this topic. it sounds to me like the title of the topic was a convenient canard to mask the true focus.
Citizens generally tend to behave much like bovines. They are either staring vacantly into the distance or they are runing foolishly with the herd. It is both of these instinctive behaviors that I wish to challenge.
you *are* aware how elitist and condescending that sounds? i do hope so.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Globalization and the Human Condition
coberst wrote: Globalization and the Human Condition
Globalized capital will drive globalized labor down to a globalized subsistence level.
What do you think?
i think it's already been demonstrated to be false. globalized capital has created a massive middle class in india, taiwan, korea, indonesia, etc, that did not exist thirty years ago. millions of people have been pulled *out of* subsistence level existence thanks to global capital.
next question?
Globalized capital will drive globalized labor down to a globalized subsistence level.
What do you think?
i think it's already been demonstrated to be false. globalized capital has created a massive middle class in india, taiwan, korea, indonesia, etc, that did not exist thirty years ago. millions of people have been pulled *out of* subsistence level existence thanks to global capital.
next question?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Globalization and the Human Condition
anastr..says "you *are* aware how elitist and condescending that sounds? i do hope so."
I do not concern myself with such nonsense. (how about them apples of eliteism and condensencension?) But I do concern myself with the validity of what I write.
I do not concern myself with such nonsense. (how about them apples of eliteism and condensencension?) But I do concern myself with the validity of what I write.
Globalization and the Human Condition
anastrophe wrote: i think it's already been demonstrated to be false. globalized capital has created a massive middle class in india, taiwan, korea, indonesia, etc, that did not exist thirty years ago. millions of people have been pulled *out of* subsistence level existence thanks to global capital.
next question?
You are correct and that is the upside of the matter. When it all levels out many poor people in the world will have raised their standard of living. Some boats will rise and some will fall.
next question?
You are correct and that is the upside of the matter. When it all levels out many poor people in the world will have raised their standard of living. Some boats will rise and some will fall.
Globalization and the Human Condition
The Case for Breaking Up Wal-Mart http://alternet.org/workplace/39251/
For those who are interested in this problem the above article will be very interesting.
The following are a few excerpts from this article.
There is an undeniable beauty to laissez-faire theory, with its promise that by struggling against one another, by grasping and elbowing and shouting and shoving, we create efficiency and satisfaction and progress for all. This concept has shaped, at the most fundamental levels, how we understand and engineer our basic freedoms -- economic, political, and moral. Until recently, however, most politicians and economists accepted that freedom within the marketplace had to be limited, at least to some degree, by rules designed to ensure general economic and social outcomes.
It is now twenty-five years since the Reagan Administration eviscerated America's century-long tradition of antitrust enforcement. For a generation, big firms have enjoyed almost complete license to use brute economic force to grow only bigger. And so today we find ourselves in a world dominated by immense global oligopolies that every day further limit the flexibility of our economy and our personal freedom within it. There are still many instances of intense competition -- just ask General Motors.
But since the great opening of global markets in the early 1990s, the tendency within most of the systems we rely on for manufactured goods, processed commodities, and basic services has been toward ever more extreme consolidation.
The stakes could not be higher. In systems where oligopolies rule unchecked by the state, competition itself is transformed from a free-for-all into a kind of private-property right, a license to the powerful to fence off entire marketplaces, there to pit supplier against supplier, community against community, and worker against worker, for their own private gain. When oligopolies rule unchecked by the state, what is perverted is the free market itself, and our freedom as individuals within the economy and ultimately within our political system as well.
Popular notions of oligopoly and monopoly tend to focus on the danger that firms, having gained control over a marketplace, will then be able to dictate an unfairly high price, extracting a sort of tax from society as a whole. But what should concern us today even more is a mirror image of monopoly called "monopsony." Monopsony arises when a firm captures the ability to dictate price to its suppliers, because the suppliers have no real choice other than to deal with that buyer. Not all oligopolists rely on the exercise of monopsony, but a large and growing contingent of today's largest firms are built to do just that. The ultimate danger of monopsony is that it deprives the firms that actually manufacture products from obtaining an adequate return on their investment. In other words, the ultimate danger of monopsony is that, over time, it tends to destroy the machines and skills on which we all rely.
For those who are interested in this problem the above article will be very interesting.
The following are a few excerpts from this article.
There is an undeniable beauty to laissez-faire theory, with its promise that by struggling against one another, by grasping and elbowing and shouting and shoving, we create efficiency and satisfaction and progress for all. This concept has shaped, at the most fundamental levels, how we understand and engineer our basic freedoms -- economic, political, and moral. Until recently, however, most politicians and economists accepted that freedom within the marketplace had to be limited, at least to some degree, by rules designed to ensure general economic and social outcomes.
It is now twenty-five years since the Reagan Administration eviscerated America's century-long tradition of antitrust enforcement. For a generation, big firms have enjoyed almost complete license to use brute economic force to grow only bigger. And so today we find ourselves in a world dominated by immense global oligopolies that every day further limit the flexibility of our economy and our personal freedom within it. There are still many instances of intense competition -- just ask General Motors.
But since the great opening of global markets in the early 1990s, the tendency within most of the systems we rely on for manufactured goods, processed commodities, and basic services has been toward ever more extreme consolidation.
The stakes could not be higher. In systems where oligopolies rule unchecked by the state, competition itself is transformed from a free-for-all into a kind of private-property right, a license to the powerful to fence off entire marketplaces, there to pit supplier against supplier, community against community, and worker against worker, for their own private gain. When oligopolies rule unchecked by the state, what is perverted is the free market itself, and our freedom as individuals within the economy and ultimately within our political system as well.
Popular notions of oligopoly and monopoly tend to focus on the danger that firms, having gained control over a marketplace, will then be able to dictate an unfairly high price, extracting a sort of tax from society as a whole. But what should concern us today even more is a mirror image of monopoly called "monopsony." Monopsony arises when a firm captures the ability to dictate price to its suppliers, because the suppliers have no real choice other than to deal with that buyer. Not all oligopolists rely on the exercise of monopsony, but a large and growing contingent of today's largest firms are built to do just that. The ultimate danger of monopsony is that it deprives the firms that actually manufacture products from obtaining an adequate return on their investment. In other words, the ultimate danger of monopsony is that, over time, it tends to destroy the machines and skills on which we all rely.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalization and the Human Condition
Walmart broke Sears, JC Penney, and KMart.
Microsoft broke IBM.
They will fall in their turn
It is the way of capitalism. It's a pile of sand; when the top gets too top-heavy, it collapses and the wealth spreads.
Microsoft broke IBM.
They will fall in their turn
It is the way of capitalism. It's a pile of sand; when the top gets too top-heavy, it collapses and the wealth spreads.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Globalization and the Human Condition
coberst wrote: The ultimate danger of monopsony is that it deprives the firms that actually manufacture products from obtaining an adequate return on their investment. In other words, the ultimate danger of monopsony is that, over time, it tends to destroy the machines and skills on which we all rely.
this is where the whole, well built-up argument, falls flat on its face. this stream of rhetoric, thinking through all these consequences - and it ends there? laughable!
so tell me, what happens when those manufacturers go out of business? can you say "walmart can no longer supply the product to the consumers"? i knew you could! and what happens then? walmart loses revenue and profit.
christ, this is so fundamental, but it seems like it's being wilfully ignored. there's a little thing called symbiosis. walmart cannot exist without its suppliers. is the price driven down by walmart's pressure? you bet! will the supplier allow them to push the price down so far that they start losing money? nope. oh - if the supplier makes many different products, they might accept a loss on one product while continuing to make profit on the others. but the supplier is a business too, often with shareholders, always with employees, and rarely with only one buyer. so, you say, walmart just finds another manufacturer, right? what happens when they do the same to them?
you can't end your argument with this silliness. no, i'm not going to go read your link, the above was enough ideological cant for me for the time being.
i have no love for walmart. i miss a lot of the smaller local stores that they've put out of business.
i have less love for covert socialism, with its desire to "redistribute" wealth by force. and unfortunately, most of those who make these arguments against capitalism, business, corporations, want everything run by the government, ultimately.
this is where the whole, well built-up argument, falls flat on its face. this stream of rhetoric, thinking through all these consequences - and it ends there? laughable!
so tell me, what happens when those manufacturers go out of business? can you say "walmart can no longer supply the product to the consumers"? i knew you could! and what happens then? walmart loses revenue and profit.
christ, this is so fundamental, but it seems like it's being wilfully ignored. there's a little thing called symbiosis. walmart cannot exist without its suppliers. is the price driven down by walmart's pressure? you bet! will the supplier allow them to push the price down so far that they start losing money? nope. oh - if the supplier makes many different products, they might accept a loss on one product while continuing to make profit on the others. but the supplier is a business too, often with shareholders, always with employees, and rarely with only one buyer. so, you say, walmart just finds another manufacturer, right? what happens when they do the same to them?
you can't end your argument with this silliness. no, i'm not going to go read your link, the above was enough ideological cant for me for the time being.
i have no love for walmart. i miss a lot of the smaller local stores that they've put out of business.
i have less love for covert socialism, with its desire to "redistribute" wealth by force. and unfortunately, most of those who make these arguments against capitalism, business, corporations, want everything run by the government, ultimately.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Globalization and the Human Condition
anastrophe
Sorry I cannot help you if you won't help yourself.
Sorry I cannot help you if you won't help yourself.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Globalization and the Human Condition
coberst wrote: anastrophe
Sorry I cannot help you if you won't help yourself.
thankfully, i have no need, interest, or desire for "help" from a hardcore ideologue who fancies himself a philosopher.
Sorry I cannot help you if you won't help yourself.
thankfully, i have no need, interest, or desire for "help" from a hardcore ideologue who fancies himself a philosopher.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalization and the Human Condition
coberst wrote: anastrophe
Sorry I cannot help you if you won't help yourself.Help what?
Sorry I cannot help you if you won't help yourself.Help what?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Globalization and the Human Condition
coberst wrote: anastrophe
Sorry I cannot help you if you won't help yourself.
let me return the encomium to you. the first step to eliminating corporate hegemony is stop being an enabler. direct citizen action is always considered a valid path. so i ask: why not take up your own challenge? refuse to purchase products manufactured by corporations. refuse to use services provided by corporations. refuse to use products that employed corporations in their distribution. stop being an enabler.
(if coberst follows this wise path, he'll never post here on forumgarden again, as he'll have had to discard his computer, and shut off his internet access)
but it's the first step to healing, my good man. show the courage to tell the corporations you won't enable them any longer.
Sorry I cannot help you if you won't help yourself.
let me return the encomium to you. the first step to eliminating corporate hegemony is stop being an enabler. direct citizen action is always considered a valid path. so i ask: why not take up your own challenge? refuse to purchase products manufactured by corporations. refuse to use services provided by corporations. refuse to use products that employed corporations in their distribution. stop being an enabler.
(if coberst follows this wise path, he'll never post here on forumgarden again, as he'll have had to discard his computer, and shut off his internet access)
but it's the first step to healing, my good man. show the courage to tell the corporations you won't enable them any longer.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalization and the Human Condition
anastrophe wrote: let me return the encomium to you.
Hey! Hey!
English only, please. :-2
Hey! Hey!
English only, please. :-2
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Globalization and the Human Condition
Accountable wrote: Hey! Hey!
English only, please. :-2
i like that word particularly because after most people look it up in the dictionary, they think i'm using it incorrectly.
i'm not.
English only, please. :-2
i like that word particularly because after most people look it up in the dictionary, they think i'm using it incorrectly.
i'm not.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]