Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
From | PeterN |
Date | 03/29/2014 00:28 (03/28/2014 19:28) |
Message-ID | <lh50in1182m@news3.newsguy.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (17h & 49m) > PeterN |
SandmanOnly the times when you use an inappropriate word.
In article <2014032809363199915-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck wrote:Savageduck
On 2014-03-28 16:08:51 +0000, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>said:SandmanSavageduckTony CooperSandman
For example, a while back you said you provided an "onslaught" of substantiation about something or other. I accept "onslaught" as a word, and it's in the dictionary, but not with the meaning you seemed to have in mind.
Yes, I know you're ignorant about the word "onslaught".onslaught noun - a fierce or destructive attack: a series of onslaughts on the citadel. - a large quantity of people or things that is difficult to cope withNote, particularly, example number 2.Tony Cooper
If you found that definition, and still feel that "onslaught" is the right word choice to describe a few cites of supposed "substantiation", then your case is more hopeless than I first thought.
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described so?
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened everytime I've used the word.