From: "John Beamish" 

They're called synonyms.  (My dad preferred Hartramf's Vocaulary Builder to
Roget's Thesaurus because Hartramf's tried to show the subtle shades of
meaning that you're referring to.)

Language is not static (especially English) and words frequently change
meanings over time (see 'decimate' for example).

And, of course, there's "cleave" - a word which is an antonym to itself ;-)




On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:42:54 -0500, Rich  wrote:

>    Duh!  If the words had exactly the same meaning and connotations then
> we wouldn't likely have different words.  If you and geo would like to
> play word games instead of discussing the actual content go ahead.
>
> Rich
>
>   "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message
> news:45eb07a4{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>   ?
>   Not true.
>
>   Critical CAN be needed as unneeded CAN be critical.
>   Says my grandmother.
>
>   ...
>
>   ---
>   M.
>
>
>
>   "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e9d602$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>      Roget's Thesaurus disagrees.  See
>   http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed.
>
>   Rich
>
>   "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message
>   news:45e9a6fd{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>   unneeded != not critical.
>
>
>   ---
>   M.
>
>
>   "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e6f39e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>      unneeded == unnecessary == optional == not critical.
>
>   Rich
>   "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45e6b7c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>   Hmmm... "unneeded", "auxiliary", "not
critical", I don't see the term
>   "unnecessary optional" in there at all Rich.
>
>   Would you say the dns client service is unneeded, auxiliary, not
> critical? I
>   certainly would unless you are on a large corporate LAN and you argued
> with
>   me about it. See your idea of unneeded and mine are vastly different.
> To you
>   unneeded is something that is not used at all, to me it's anything you
> can
>   shut down without breaking the functionality you need.
>
>   I would think the security guys at Symantec (the ones who made that
>   recommendation) would think like me and judging from the size of their
>   products lately, management and the programmers think like you.
>
>   That would explain why they make such a recommendation and at the same
> time
>   get exploited as a virus entry point..
>
>   Geo.
>
>   "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e66bb5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>      Better understanding, I don't think so.  Different opinion,
> absolutely.
>   There is nothing wrong with disabling unnecessary optional services.
> What
>   you do is flailing.
>
>   Rich
>
>     "Geo."  wrote in message
> news:45e64067$2{at}w3.nls.net...
>     "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e4eb2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>     >>   Now you are trying to read more into what symantec wrote.
>
>     Or perhaps I just have a better understanding of that line of
> thought.
>
>     Geo.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5