Paywalls, podcasts, and pajamahadeen

A super nitpick:

job creator, n. This euphemism of for a wealthy person appeared in 2004 as a justification for maintaining low taxes on them.

I don’t think the “of” after “euphemism” is needed.

(I, personally, would be tempted to apply an even more negatively-charged adjective to the term “job creator” than “euphemism”, but “euphemism” certainly works, and stronger language would probably just be a needless distraction.)

Another super nitpick:

Pajamahadeen, n. (with various spellings) A blend of pajama + mujahedeen, the pajamahadeen were bloggers who rigorously fact-checked and challenged mainstream media reporting of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the stereotypical image of blogger wearing pajamas.

“Reporting of” should be “...on.”

It seems to me that “of” or “on” are both acceptable here. (Well, either one, not both together.)

Agreed. I wondered if it made any difference if you regard “media” as a noun or an adjective, but I don’t think it does. Both “of” and “on” are acceptable to my UK ears, too.

edit: Why is the verb “text” included in 2004 if its first citation is 1998?

I’ve been finding antedated terms throughout as I’ve been doing this (although more for these later years than earlier). When I go back and edit this for the book I’ll put them in the proper year.

Dave: one of the greatest satisfactions I have derived from this series, has been from watching your reaction to nitpicking: invariably good-humoured, tolerant, courteous (frequently with explicit “thanks”, and always with corrections, wherever these were called for) --- in short, the reaction of a civilized and cultivated individual.  The participants in this forum are not ordinary, everyday people - they’re a special breed. Their - our - nitpicking is not everyday nitpicking; it’s nitpicking à l’outrance; nitpicking pushed to the limit, as far as it will go. No typo, however trifling; no ambiguously-worded explanation, however debatable; no ill-chosen preposition --- no misplaced comma, even, is allowed to pass unnoticed, but is immediately hunted down and torn to pieces by a furiously baying, all-seeing, unforgiving, microscopically meticulous pack.

Let there be no mistake - i’m not in any way knocking the nitpicking; on the contrary, I love it. It’s part of what makes participation in wordorigins.org such a special pleasure. All I’m doing here is offering appreciation, where appreciation is due. Keep it up, Dave. Misplaced commas and all, you do a great job.

Salve Dave! Nitpickituri salutamus te! Hail, Dave! We who are about to nitpick, salute thee!

a furiously baying, all-seeing, unforgiving, microscopically meticulous pack

I don’t recognize anyone of that description.  Does anyone else here?

I spoke in jocular hyperbole, ElizaD. Had you recognized, or thought you recognized, any mention of any individual member of this forum, I should have felt very distressed indeed at the misfiring of my attempt at a joke. That was not my intention. My use of those terms was made in the same spirit as that of the Over-75 Ladies’ Croquet team of Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, who called themselves The Erinnyes (a name which they later changed to The Hellhounds, as being easier to spell and to pronounce). I am sorry if what was intended as innocuous (indeed, admiring and affectionate) banter has caused you (or any other member of this forum) the slighest pain or anger. It was certainly not meant to.

Not as a literal description, no, but then it isn’t meant as that. It’s caricature (in the best sense of the word).

lionello himself beat me to the draw!

We all know what this series is about and while a typo is nothing in blog post, it matters in a scholarly work. So I don’t see any nitpicking. I see open source editing, done by those with respect for the message, the medium, and the author.

Like everyone here, I feel fortunate to get this sneak peek at a book I will surely want to have.

I’m with happydog.

First, I don’t consider pointing out typos to be nitpicking. That’s just proofreading, for which I am glad to be getting so cheaply.

Second, while some of the picking could be qualified as being directed at nits, I appreciate that as well. Not only does it help me avoid death by a thousand small cuts, it is gratifying in that no one is finding major problems.

So again, thanks all.

There will be one more installment, covering 2006 to the present. It will be longer than usual, but there aren’t enough new words yet documented to justify separate years.

Dave, In the spirit of the foregoing, don’t forget the ‘water skies’ in the 2001 selection.

Lionello, aldi et al: I also spoke in jocular hyperbole, in response to lionello’s jocular hyperbole.  It takes one to know one. 

Now it’s for you all to work out whether by “it takes one to know one” I meant a fellow hyperbole-user or a fellow nitpicker. I’m saying nowt. edit: Which reminds me of a good old Yorkshire saying:

Hear all, see all, say nowt.
Eat all, sup all, pay nowt.
And if tha ivver does owt fer nowt,
Do it fer thissen.

Reporting of and reporting on are both perfectly cromulant but they don’t mean the same thing.