I said that at the beginning of every month, I would repost my comments policy for those who started visiting this site the previous month. I stopped doing so after awhile because I thought that at least long time readers would have absorbed the message. But it seems like the reminders are necessary, since there have been violations, some seemingly accidental and some so egregious that I have had to take action. But here is the general policy again.

As long time readers know, I used to moderate the comments with a very light hand, assuming that mature adults would know how to behave in a public space. It took outright hate speech targeting marginalized groups to cause me to ban people, and that happened very rarely. But I got increasingly irritated by the tedious and hostile exchanges among a few commenters that tended to fill up the comment thread with repeated posts about petty or off-topic issues. We sometimes had absurdly repetitive exchanges seemingly based on the childish belief that having the last word means that you have won the argument or with increasingly angry posts sprinkled with puerile justifications like “They started it!”

So here is one rule: No one will be able to make more than three comments in response to any blog post. Violation of that rule will result in banning.

But I also want to address a couple of deeper concerns for which a solution cannot be quantified but will require me to exercise my judgment.
[Read more…]

2025 was a no good, very bad year. I would like to think that the coming year will be better but since nearly all the things that made this year awful are all pretty much still in place, the likelihood of that happening is slight.

But despite that, I would like to hope that at least in your personal lives, the coming year brings good things. It is admittedly a very modest hope but it is all that I can genuinely summon up.

Thanks all who took the trouble to come here and read and comment.

[AD]

I knew most of this stuff but it was presented entertainingly.

I am never bored when I am at home alone because there are so many things enjoyable things that I can choose to do. While I greatly enjoy being in the company of a few people such as close friends or others whose company I find enjoyable, the times when I have been most bored is when I have been in large gatherings, such as parties, where one has a series of superficial conversations with many different people. If I am lucky, I may find a kindred soul with whom to sit in a corner and have more meaningful exchanges. It is even worse when the ambient noise is so loud that you cannot even hear anyone else and conversation just stops and you just sit there unable to read or even think. This can happen in bars and wedding receptions.
[Read more…]

Being a lexicographer compiling dictionaries in the internet age can be viewed as both exciting, because of all the new words that can quickly gain currency, or a nightmare, because one has to decide whether to include some new word or not and what the word might even mean, knowing that whatever you decide will be hotly contested by some.

In a review of the book Unabridged: The Thrill of (and Threat to) the Modern Dictionaryby Stefan Fatsis, Louis Menand looks at the history of the modern dictionary.

Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, published in London in 1755, carved out a role for the dictionary: to establish what would become known as Standard English. Johnson himself was aware that language is a living thing, always in flux. But his dictionary, with its conclusiveness, was a huge publishing success. It was considered authoritative well into the nineteenth century. In England, it would be replaced by the Oxford English Dictionary. But, in the United States, its role was usurped by Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, which made its début in 1828.

Webster deliberately set out to supersede Johnson. His ambition was to create not a dialect of British English but an identifiably American language. Johnson’s dictionary had about forty-two thousand words; Webster’s had seventy thousand. Webster added New World words including “skunk,” “boost,” and “roundabout”; words with Native American origins, such as “canoe” and “moose”; words derived from Mexican Spanish, like “coyote.” Most dramatically, he Americanized spelling, a project started in an earlier work of his, a schoolbook speller called “A Grammatical Institute of the English Language,” published in 1783. It is because of Webster that we write “defense” and “center” rather than “defence” and “centre,” “public” and not “publick.” He changed the language.

Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, announced as “unabridged,” appeared in 1934. Web. II was a doorstop—six hundred thousand entries, thirty-five thousand geographical names, and, in the appendix, thirteen thousand biographical names. 

[Read more…]

By now, I have become familiar with the signs that something that I receive via the phone or text or email is a scam but once in a while something new comes along that gets past my first layer of skepticism and gets me to go deeper.

This happened when I received an email that said that I had been nominated for an education award that would be presented at one of a series of conferences that are held twice a year. I looked into it and it seemed legitimate. The locations of the conferences were impressive, consisting of luxury hotels such as the Bellagio Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, the Intercontinental Hotel in Dubai, and the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore. The website for the organization Education 2.0 Conference that was behind these events was flashy. That was, however, a red flag that something was not quite right. Education academics (like me) are a stodgy lot and their conference websites reflect that ethos. They have static pages that feature the key speakers and topics and conference agenda. This website, however, had dynamic wallpaper showing floor shows and cabarets and the like. But it looked like these conferences had actually been held.
[Read more…]