| 1 |
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:41:15 -0500 |
| 2 |
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:42:30PM -0800, felix@×××××××.com wrote |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:32:03AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:01:57 -0600 |
| 7 |
> > > Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > > Since this is |
| 10 |
> > > > depreciated, which generally means no longer maintained |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > <nitpick> |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > The word you want is "deprecated". |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > "depreciated" is something else entirely, it's what your employer |
| 17 |
> > > does to the book value of your company car over 5 years to get |
| 18 |
> > > the value down to nothing. |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > </nitpick> |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > "Depreciated" is perfectly cromulent in this instance. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> You really think it's copacetic? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I never heard of copacetic till now, had to look it up. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What a wonderful word, I feel embiggened by it's correctness |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 33 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives