I am glad you appreciate the correction, but no, it is not a word. Just as "reoccuring" isn't a word, neither is "irregardless". This isn't the queen's Oxford English I am talking about. I am talking about any form of non-jewed English.
You noted it is a "non-standard" word. This is admission that it is not a real word and only came into common usage due to jew-subverted schools failing to teach actual knowledge and illiterates commonly using a word that doesn't exist. The jews also control modern (((dictionaries))). Have you taken note of some of the words that jews have added to dictionaries in recent years? They are not real words.
They have butchered the English language, they "teach" idiocy, they control what words get added to dictionaries, and they add the non-words that they "teach" to illiterates into modern dictionaries so they can point at their new jew dictionary and say "See, it's in the dictionary." No, it is not a word - never has been.
I appreciate your diligence in this matter
Thank you. Everyone needs to be diligent in our efforts to save our languages.
One thing I find interesting about this user's comment is that he was talking exactly about this situation of jews using their power to alter what is considered truth.
Pointing out his usage of a non-word resulted in him citing it being in jew dictionaries - dictionaries which jews own and "stealth-edited" to add this non-word into them. Thus, it now being in the jew dictionaries means it is suddenly a real word because the jew dictionary now says it is.
Despite it being a literal example of what he just outlined, he still claimed it was a real word as it was recently added to jew dictionaries due to its "common usage". How readily he accepted this new truth as being beyond question.
This is one reason why I think my "alternative conclusion" that I noted might be correct about this user, though I've had him marked for a very long time for other behaviors and statements.
(post is archived)