The following is a re-post:
:WARNING:   This message contains *many* multi-syllabic   :WARNING:
:WARNING:   words, many of which have multiple meanings   :WARNING:
Little Stevie Fragner was overheard whining to Robert Plett:
 -> The onus is on you.
SF> Again ,why the double talk? Onus: 1.Blame 2.Obligation 3.Burden
SF> A typical Rushie word....
 -> We simply communicate using proper words instead of just the
 -> grunts and monosyllables you evidently are accustomed to.
 -> That last statement of yours marks you unequivocally for what
 -> you are. Congratulations.  You have achieved drive-by status.
SF> A word with 3 meanings..........I rest my case........
What kind of case did you make, Steve?
Virtually every word in the English language has multiple meanings
-- some are quite disparate, while other words' meanings reflect the
subtle differences and nuances to each definition. The words with
multiple meanings are often better defined through those multiple
meanings, which serves to CLARIFY as opposed to OBFUSCATE (uh, oh
-- obfuscate has multiple meanings, and ALL could apply here!).
Anyone with HALF a BRAIN, could look at at Mr. Plett's statement
and COMPREHEND that contextually at least TWO of the definitions
for "onus" could appropriately be applied. Your protestations to
Mr. Plett about his choice of word indicates:
1) lack of the aforementioned "half a brain"
2) lack of the aforementioned "comprehension"
3) high probability that, in spite of quoting a dictionary,
   you still did not grasp the meaning or use of the word
   "onus" in the simple context used by Mr. Plett
4) barring shortcomings in your IQ or comprehension skills, and
   if your expertise with a dictionary is NOT as you so ineptly
   demonstrated, then we can only assume that:
   a) you were being deliberately obtuse
   b) you did so as a smoke screen to provoke/sustain an argument
   b) you did so as a smoke screen to flame and insult not only
      Mr. Plett, but to also do the same toward ALL participants
      on this echo as well as Rush Limbaugh himself. Disingenuous.
The bottom line, Steve, is that you failed to address the question
put to you. Rather than intelligently meet the challenge to support
your untenable comments, you chose to be picayune about individual
words. You could have gracefully accepted the opportunity to defend
your position -- instead you seized upon an age-old child's trick:
evading through attack, insult, or feigned ignorance (actually, a
combination of all three) -- obfuscation at it's worst.
So... just WHAT kind of pathetic case DID you make?
 [ Shoshona Bieman, Sysop: Shofar BBS  @  714-838-3837 ]
 [  Such a *NICE* Messianic Jewish, conservative Gal!  ]
 [ California "Got Ilk?" Contingent _ Fido @ 1:103/505 ]
--- Aeolus v1.2.1 (#49820837)
---------------