Yes Dan, it's wrong

Well done Dan S de Merengue.

You have managed to fill an entire post with an explanation of how you managed to misstate "exponential" as "expodential", without once saying those magic words "I was wrong".

It isn't a good look, you know.

Deny, deny, deny. Then, when your back is against the wall and you have nowhere left to hide, attempt a justification of your denial by saying "I'm not the only one to have made this mistake - look, here are some others."

Once again, I recommend that you ask yourself, "Michael, what does this say about me?"

I must have been correct in the first place. It seems like Dan had a cold. :-)

This is my favourite line so far in this spelling debate.

"Clichés I also avoid like the plague."

Yes Dan, a teacher of mathematics, which you used in another thread to attempt to bolster a claim about summed probabilities, despite having used the wrong model for the situation described. A basic mistake you tried to whitewash with your presumed "authority".

On this most recent example, I am certain you have never perused the type of papers you offer, nor have any routine understanding of the content. You have never been exposed to the word "expodential" such as to regard it as an "acceptable term". As you yourself point out, the only usage is in discussions and articles where the typo is beneath notice, not the sort of materials with which you were "taught in school". That is two deliberate lies. It is a trivial part of intellectual conduct to just not do so. An old textbook would have been a good place to start if you are claiming "acceptability" or archaic origins. BTW, my *full* OED has many rare terms even centuries out-of-date.

You were trying to snow your audience, using a technique that works on creationists, but not on people deserving of being regarded as adults. Do you routinely lie so "expedientially" to audiences that don't know better? To so blithely think a real adult might be sucked in by such a sham? Are you so ignorant of routine rigour as to think this normal?

As with most people of poor powers pretending to be more, you attempt to co-opt a gravitas you do not deserve. When your nose is completely rubbed in the fact that you were wrong, it is not just a rebuke of the mistake, it means you have been severly derelict in conducting yourself. I regard this as typical of creationists, and reflective of the bereft nature of their theology and of their character.

I do appreciate the coining of "expediential". It is entirely apposite that You Yourself have accidentally invented a term that accurately carries the whiff of nakedly unashamed opportunism displayed by creationist marketing and apologetics.

Rusty

OK, so "expediential" came out of a spell-checker. The word is still wonderfully evocative.

A pity, I should like for Dan to have coined such a descriptively clumsy word.

Rusty

PS Apologies to Burqa debate, perhaps the thread could be re-railed?