Good for the phrase to have died off, for practical purposes.
Scientific education has made some progress, after all.

Also, with our millions and millions of immigrants from the German-speaking countries of Europe, much of the logic of modern German has been absorbed into American English. German is a VERY logical language -- no kidding. Among many other things, its comparatives and superlatives of adjectives and adverbs are formed in an extremely logical way, no matter how long the word is.

In American English, the comparatives and superlatives of the one and two syllable adjectives and adverbs are formed in almost exactly the same way that they are in German: by adding "r" or "er" for the comparative, and by adding "st" or "est" for the superlative, and then there are some irregular ones in both languages.
Ha - ha: it is all very logical. Here are some examples of the regular ones, where changing a "y" into an "i" is considered to be regular.:
free, freer, freest. corny, cornier, corniest. dry, drier, driest. easy, easier, easiest. great, greater, greatest. horny, hornier, horniest. hot, hotter, hottest.

Here are some examples of the irregular ones:
bad, worse, worst -- good, better, best --- little, less, least --- many, more, most -- little, less, least -- far, farther, farthest.
D.A.W.

Correction of a typo"

For example, in a plane, any ideal pair of parallel lines never intersect each other.
If they are not ideal parallel lines, then they intersect each other somewhere.

I will mention that things are graver in the polonium section, and they are gravest in the plutonium section.
Have a nice flight!
D.A.W.

goofy:

You are not very scientific, are you? Mathematics & statistics must be difficult, too.

For example, in a town that has no murders in a year, it is a murder-free town, for that year.

If there is even ONE murder, then it is NOT murder-free for that year.

Either murder-free, or not murder-free -- and expressions like "more murder-free" are completely absurd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you like you dinner in the polonium section or in the polonium-free section?
D.A.W.

Hello, I thought that I was being clear when I stated "American TV network" -- and then with no explantation whatever. The responsibility was clearly on the TV network because otherwise I wouldn't have even mentioned "American TV network".

1. The TV network should have taken a moment to mention that a "petrol bomb" is a really Molotov Cocktail. However, their reporters were simply too dog lazy to do so.
Something that you need to watch out for is that most American TV and news reporters nowadays (except in the big, big cities) are very lazy and not very well educated, either.

Years ago, we used to have people in those positions who were the cream of the crop: Murragh, Brinkley, Huntley, Crockite, Barbara Walters, Garrick Utley, Tomn Brokaw, or else they emulated the creap of the crop (for the smaller cities). Now most of them don't care.
Perhaps they care about their looks, but that is about it.

2. The reporter for the network should have asked the British man what he was going to say, and they could have told him, "Oh, no, nobody in our audience knows what a 'petrol bomb' is. Call it a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL, and then everyone in the American and Canadian audience will understand what you mean."

"You can call it whever you want to for the British and French audiences."

What is it called in French? Maybe a "De Gaulle Cocktaik" ? LOL.

DAW

So -- Accidence: chance, unforeseen or unexpected eventuality, mishap (OED)

Some situation is either accidence-free, or it is NOT accidence-free.

Similarly, your dinner is either polonium-free or it is NOT polonium free.

There are now claims (published ones) that Yassir Arafat was fed a dinner that was NOT polonium free -- or perhaps several such dinners.
If so, this probably finished him off. The news is that his widow has given her permission for his remains to be exhumed and studied for this radioactive element.
D.A.W.

In English, we need to either create a singular sexless pronoun, or to use the traditional ones for a person of unknown sex, which are {he, him, his}.
There is no reason other than laziness for grabbing plural pronouns and trying to make them singular.
We have a huge amount of ignorace around the work concerning people who do not know how to conjugate third-person singular verbs in the present tense.
I have even told people, "These all end in 's'," but then five minutes later they have messed it up again. For the regular verbs, it is very easy to put the "s" in the right place, and then for the really irregular verbs, we have these in the third person singular:
is, has, does, gives, lays.

Here are nearly all of the exceptions: can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, would. Actually, I have included some extras because I have included several in the subjunctive mood, such as "could", which is a past-tense form.
D.A.W.

Calling "Webster's Third International Dictionary" "Webster's dictionary" was definitely jumping to a conclusion. Like I said, "Webster's" is just a generic name that doesn't belond to anyone. You needed to state "Webster's Third International Dictionary published by company X", where you filled in the X with the right name.

It is just like the word "Cola" is not a registered trademark of anyone.
Then, very oddly now, "Coke" is a registered trademark, and so is "Pepsi".

That other kind of "coke" is either an illegal opiate OR it is a material (made from coal) that is used as a fuel for making iron and steel.
D.A.W.

"The dictionary therefore one of American English, not proper English."

1. English-speakers in North America have you FAR OUTNUMBERED. Therefore, anything about the common language of the British Isles is definitely a small minority viewpoint.

2. Bob Hope was a naturalized American citizen, and he resided in the United States for many more of his 100 years than he resided anywhere else. Furthermore, he was absorbed in American culture -- much more than people like Einstein, Fermi, Goedel, Von Neumann, etc., who remained Europeans in their hearts even when they were residing here.

D.A.W.

1. "Times" - British

2. General purpose comment: Just because somone did it wrong a century or more ago does not make it right now.

3. What is "accidence"? Is that a mistyping of "accidents".

4. "much more free from accidents" is silly and illogical. Someone in that situation is either
A. Free of accidents (NO accidents) , or
B. Somene who has suffered from an accident or accidents.
In other words, someone is either accident-free or not accident-free, and there are not any comparatives or superlatives of this.
Even having one small accident cancels out the possibility of being "free of accidents".

I have noticed other such things by British writers, such as ones who have written "more ideal" and "most ideal".
Wrong. Something is either IDEAL or not ideal.

For example, in a plane, and ideal pair of parallel lines never intersect each other.
If they are not ideal parallel lines, then they intersect each other somewhere.
D.A.W.