Wordsmith.org
Posted By: RhubarbCommando today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 02:09 PM
Have you seen today's worthless word, WO'N?

EDIT: sorry, all - this is a big mistake!
Posted By: Faldage Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 02:19 PM
'Cept today's word isn't absquatulate, it's expiscatory (or something like that).

Not on my machine, it ain't!

absquatulate is printed there, in red letters as large as life and twice as natural.

The button for word-searching is entitled "expicate" - perhaps this has caught your eye in stead?

Posted By: Faldage Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 02:45 PM
I's talking about the wwftd I got in my email this morning. I'm sure tsuwmbody can clear up this little bit of confusion.

Posted By: tsuwm Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 03:05 PM
RC, if you'll go back and read the whole thang you'll note that the site you quote has been absquatulated therefrom--in fact, that's rather the whole point of using the word. actually(!), I have had no luck getting AoL (ha!) to take the site down since it was abandoned last March. You might not think that this is such a bad thing in that it links to the current site, but 1) it also still has links to the old and woefully outdated archives and word list, and 2) SOME PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO GET THE POINT THAT I'VE MOVED!

http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/

HTH.

p.s. - I've just looked at the respective site meters for the two sites, and since the changeover Aol(ha!) has recorded 23,750 hits and RR 43,350 hits. This begs asking the following question: what %age of the former hits never went on to the new site? (As long as I'm being pedantic about all this, I will tell you that I've only just this month convinced Google to change its search rules to give the new site some precedence over the old, particularly on searches such as "a+word+a+day" which goes a long way toward explaining the numbers.)

-joe (so you want to be a webmaster?) friday
Oh, dear!

I hadn't updated my bookmark, I fear!

Posted By: Faldage Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 03:11 PM
Thanx, tsuwm. I am vindicated.

Posted By: AnnaStrophic missing links - 01/13/03 04:12 PM
Yo, Rhuby, maybe you'd better edit your top post so you don't send hundreds (ha!) of folks to the old site.

Posted By: musick Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 08:04 PM
tsuwm - My only guesses as to why are: you have retained your membership/email address at AOL, or they *love all the free marketing info you're still giving them.

Posted By: tsuwm Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 08:06 PM
must be the latter then, musick..

Posted By: Faldage Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 08:09 PM
Do you still have any control over the content of the site?



Posted By: tsuwm Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/13/03 08:22 PM
control? absolutely none.

Posted By: Jackie Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/14/03 02:17 AM
control? absolutely none.

Posted By: Jazzoctopus Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/14/03 03:04 AM
control? absolutely none.

Ah, but now that Steve Case has resigned . . .


P.S. So you really can't log back in and just put a blank page with a link there?

Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/14/03 07:09 PM
Good work, Rhuby! Three absquatulates on one thread! (four now)

Posted By: wwh Re: today's worthlessness (Hi, WO'N!) - 01/14/03 10:36 PM
Dear RC: "The button for word-searching is entitled "expicate" - perhaps this has caught
your eye in stead?"
What's fishy about "expicate"? (feeble jest by typo tycoon)

Three absquatulates on one thread! (four now)

I've sort of lost count: what's the running total, now? , I think it is around twenty-four or -five, but.

© Wordsmith.org