[ajarnbarryd]

I absolutely agree with the spirit of both comments, though I also confess not to absolutely follow one of the string of arguments.

Although I do "see" some absolutes, I confess not to agree with every example of an absolute I come across. Plus, I could suggest a whole list of "absolutes" and not see how someone could argue against them following the same logic they use to create their own "grammatical" lists.

For example, "expensive." No one ever complains when someone says "very expensive." But I could argue, Either it's expensive or it isn't. Without a comparison or a specific price listing, how can someone say this if you follow the "absolute" rule. I can say this one is more expensive than that one (relativity). But either something is expensive or it isn't, isn't it? I see no difference with that than saying "absolute truth," following the argument you guys made so well.

We're not robots...sometimes we use words for emphasis. I say that if it conveys meaning then it's absolutely fine. I would also absolutely agree that too many adverbs and adjectives, of absolutely any kind, can be mind-numbing as well.

I could also argue that 2 plus 2 is not always 4. What if the 2 stands for a pair of -1s. Then 2+2 is not 4. In that case, it would be -4. In algebra I can make the symbol X stand for anything I want, and 2 is just a symbol. And I could also argue that 10+6=4. If it's 10 oclock and six hours pass, then it's 4 o'clock. But what time is it on Mars? Anyway, I digress. I certainly don't want to adhere to the school of "overthought" that asks, "'it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.'"

And what about death? Why can't someone be almost dead? I completely understand what that modification means. Yes, barely alive is better grammatically I suppose, but which is more dramatic? If I'm a writer, I want to convey meaning, not prove I studied grammar in college. Of course, I also want to avoid such cliches as I used for this example.

My real point is: some people treat "grammar" as an abolute and don't realize that "English" is an ever-evolving and very adaptable language. Just read some original Shakespeare and you'll see what I mean. I'm all for a set of consistent rules (but even Journalism and English majors can't agree on every grammar point, or England and the U.S. or Singapore for that matter.) Consistency is a good thing but it shouldn't become a dogma or a false badge of superiority. Try reading some prose written by former slaves, just as one minute example, and you'll see you're not as smart as you think you are. (universal you)