2.28.19: You Can’t Argue With Results


“Kim Carsons does he exist? His existence, like any existence, is inferential…the traces he leaves behind him…fossils…fading violet photos, old newspaper clippings shredding to yellow dust…And this book. He exists in these pages as Lord Jim, the Great Gatsby, Comus Bassington, live and breathe in a writer’s prose, in the care, love, and dedication that evoke them: the flawed, doomed, but undefeated, radiant heroes who attempted the impossible, stormed the citadels of heaven, took the last chance on the last and greatest of human dreams, the punch-drunk fighter who comes up off the floor to win by a knock-out, the horse that comes from last to win in the stretch, assassins of Hassan i Sabbah, Masters of Assassins, agents of Humwawa, Lord of Abominations, Lord of Decay, Lord of the Future, of Pan, God of Panic, of the Black Hole, where no physical laws apply, agents of a singularity.”
–William S. Burroughs, “The Place Of Dead Roads”


On this date 80 years ago, the word “dord” was flagged in the Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition. It did not exist.

In 1931, the chemistry editor of Webster’s sent in for inclusion a slip of paper reading the following: “D or d, cont./density.” The intention was to add “density” to the list of words “D” could be an abbreviation of.  But instead the first 4 letters were misread as “dord” in the editing process and that was how it was listed in the dictionary in 1934 (defined as, of course, “density”).

“Dord” remained undetected and unquestioned by proofreaders for the next five years; and wasn’t finally excised from all future printings of the dictionary until 1947. Merriam-Webster editor-in-chief Philip Babcock Gove remarked years later about the mistake that it was “probably too bad, for why shouldn’t dord mean ‘density’?”



How many “dords” are accepted as truth in our established academic canon because of a simple mistake in editing or translation…because of a smear on a photograph?



Links that might be of interest to you:

you can’t argue with RESULTS!!!!!!!!


This blog will contain, at any given moment, bits of history, esotericism, bad movies, and my own personal experiences; all of the above being, at least to me, just aspects of **a larger whole**.



Well, the Dark Phoenix trailer just dropped and…well


It was fine. Mystique in the beginning had like the worst rendition of makeup and hair on her I think I’ve ever seen, and James McAvoy, like fresh from the Glass set, looks SUPER BUFF in Charles Xavier’s wheelchair like he’s going to explode…and that white-haired alien chick (???)…


Yeah, it kinda killed my childhood. It destroyed my childhood. “Dark Phoenix trailer destroyed my childhood.”



And even in X-Men: The Last Stand…you know, Magneto is the stand-in, basically, for Mastermind. But it was at least in the same **ballpark**.

You know…the *only* version of stories or characters have to be the ones from when I was a kid! Because I’m a FAN™.

The only right nostalgia is **1980s Nostalgia**. EIGHTIES NOSTALGIA: like GARFIELD PHONES, and NUCLEAR WAR SCARE MOVIES, and MY DINNER WITH FRICKIN’ ANDRE!!!!


Have a good Thursday, what is left of it tonight.

3 thoughts on “2.28.19: You Can’t Argue With Results

  1. harveyparadox

    I told my son, who loves John Mulaney and Nick Kroll, the My Dinner news and his immediately retort: You must be so happy right now!

    And yeah, if we didn’t eat them, chickens wouldn’t exist. Except eggs. And cows got milk!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s