I'm not a vindictive man QC Chevalier, but I will let members be the judge of this.
That's because you know you are wrong. And I'm sorry, Steve, but you are nasty, malicious and vindictive. You started this - as usual - and I can't now let this drop without having my final say.
There are two issues here:
(i). First, am I correct that 'immoveable' is good English? It is completely lunatic and barmy that you make an issue of this, not to mention a total waste of time; and, it is also deeply hypocritical given that you - falsely- accused me of taking issue with other people's spelling, when I have never done so. In fact, it has been you all along.
You are a lying hypocrite, Steve, but quite apart from that, I am also correct in what I say: immoveable is good English.
In addition to what’s online, my hard copy dictionaries confirm I am correct.
My copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary confirms that immoveable is a perfectly good spelling and interchangeable with immovable.
My copy of the Chambers Dictionary also confirms that immoveable is good English, but only in the context of law. I’m not sure why that is, and I disagree and side with the OED, as there seems to be no basis for limiting usage of the alternative spelling. While law was the context of the relevant remark in my post anyway, I suspect Chambers think (though they don't say so) that 'immoveable' should only be used in the context of property law - i.e. in reference to chattels - but, if so, that would be an archaism.
If you don’t believe me about any of the above, please feel free to use google, consult your own dictionaries, or make enquiries at your local library.
This is not the first time you have wrongly tried to correct my spelling and made a fool of yourself. I regard it as goading and I think your intention is to waste my time, provoke me, and disrupt discussions. You have been goading me since almost the day I started posting on the Forum.
(ii). That brings me to the second issue, which is your behaviour on the Forum. You are obviously here to 'do a job', as previous members have observed, or if that's wrong, then you clearly have mental health issues. Lots of members have come into conflict with you in the past, in one or two cases suffering bans, in most cases they have fallen by the wayside and stopped posting as they came to the disturbing realisation that the moderators would not act against you - which raises its own interesting questions.
To be clear, the issue here isn't your views. As far as I'm concerned, you can think what you like and post what you like, as long as you are not attacking or goading other people. The problem with you is that you can't adhere to this basis precept of cultural civility. Instead, you want to abuse people while hiding behind free speech.
In my case, the honest truth is that I have more important things to do anyway, and as we now enter the autumn (my favourite time of year), I am going to be busy with all sorts of things; and, since the moderators can't or won't control you, that means that any continued involvement here on my part is going to draw me into time-wasting Pythonesque exchanges like this, where we argue over the spelling of words like a couple of dorks.
Steve, we have just spent an hour and several messages arguing over the spelling of immovable/immoveable, not because of any genuine etymological or orthographical controversy, but because you just want to cause trouble. And the worst thing about it is that you are clearly wrong and you do not have the decency to admit it. There is a word for people like you that begins with 'c' and that I will not utter here.
I've got better things to do Steve.
So, I'm off. Bye!
