On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:41:15 -0500 "Walter Dnes" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:42:30PM -0800, [email protected] wrote > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:32:03AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:01:57 -0600 > > > Dale <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Since this is > > > > depreciated, which generally means no longer maintained > > > > > > <nitpick> > > > > > > The word you want is "deprecated". > > > > > > "depreciated" is something else entirely, it's what your employer > > > does to the book value of your company car over 5 years to get > > > the value down to nothing. > > > > > > </nitpick> > > > > "Depreciated" is perfectly cromulent in this instance. > > You really think it's copacetic? > I never heard of copacetic till now, had to look it up. What a wonderful word, I feel embiggened by it's correctness -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
