By all means ignore my comments. No doubt others will be happy to read them and decide for themselves whether I am right in calling you out on some of the absurd and untrue things you say.

Tangents? Not at all. I merely quoted your assertion and disproved it with a website link. I notice that you have ignored it.

On the separate issue of nouns as adjectives, what adjectives would you use to replace these?
car door, clothes shop, race horse, accounts department, arms production, research centre, team coach, football team, dog food, coffee cup, cookie jar.... I could go on.

(Oh, please note that on this very page there is reference to "oldest" and "latest" comments...)

I wonder what "US" functions as when used (as often in the US press) in such forms as "US troops", "US Navy", "US elections", "US border", and so on. I prefer the use of US rather than "American" becuase America is a big place and the US but a small part of it. Even "North America", to my mind, includes Mexico and Canada.

Doh.... there you go again, making wild assertions: "the concept of a "car park" is completely unknown in North America."

Along with confusing "US" and "America", and now "North America", you seem fond of the idea that certain words are unknown in the US. Might I refer you to this website: http://www.carparkusa.com/ ?

25 references to "petrol bomb" in the New York Times, 31 in the Washington Post. Perhaps Americans are better educated than you assume.

You seem to be using a rather narrow definition of history here. As a discipline it can change, as can the narration of past events.

I really wonder where people get their ideas from. "Latest", meaning "most recent" or "newest", is well attested in US English. On the other hand, the meaning "deadest" is not (nor, as far as I know, is that meaning idiomatic in any form of English).

In answer to your question, did I read your prior posts, yes I did. In particular I noted two assertions you made: ‘There was a time when "of' was the only acceptable preposition to use with "enamored",’ and ‘The bottom line is that, up until about 1980 or so, "enamored OF" was the ONLY correct usage.’ Neither of these claims is true – not even on your own evidence.

Just to be clear, I have no objection to your preferring ‘of’ with enamoured/enamored. Claims that using by or with are evidence of a decline (or devolution, as you prefer) in standards of English are, though, unsupportable.

I also noted, incidentally, that you are not above a little unorthodox usage yourself. Many would argue that the sentence: ‘Perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax was required at all times’ requires a plural verb.

I’m not sure what your Ebonics remark means. My guess is that you believe it to be an inferior form of English. If I am right in that then we are unlikely to have much common ground in a discussion of our complex, beautiful and multi-faceted language.

So, there you have it: making unsupportable assertions, claiming that the language is in decline (whatever that means), and, by default, suggesting that your language choices are superior to those of others, all adds up to drivel in my book.

Nevertheless, as you seem not to like the term, I am happy to rephrase my opening remark: Why don't people check their facts before saying something which is demonstrably untrue?