This morning, Ryan accused me of making up a word when I said, “non-communicative.” He then doubled down on his claim by saying, “I think that is how you play scrabble, too!” I probably could have let the first comment go, but when someone takes on the moral code with which I play Scrabble, it’s “game on!”
Certainly, Ryan should know that I would not let the issue rest without properly proving my point. However, he was working on stuff in the garage blissfully unaware that I was preparing a case in my defense. (This is what Cruz would refer to as a “one-player game.”)
According to Oxford, non-communicative is defined as, “unwilling to talk or impart information.” Vindicated. That was a slam-dunk victory.
However, I thought about the lengths with which I went to establish dominance in this “one player” game. (I acknowledge that one cannot establish dominance in a “one player” game because the lone player would be both the dominant and subordinate player. No need to point it out, but thank you anyway!)
Realizing that I was taking this way too seriously, I decided to wave a white flag and admit that I was being pitifully petty. “Pettiful.” There, I made up a word. I am sure Merriam Webster will be knocking on my door any minute now to gain the rights to “pettiful!”
Or maybe not. “Pettiful” is a fabulous word on paper, but to say it out loud changes the connotation a bit. When it rolls off the tongue it bears an uncanny resemblance to the word “pedophile.” Never mind, Madame Merriam, this word should not be included in any lexicon!
And this brings my argument full circle as the defense rests. I am gonna admit guilt and confess that sometimes I am better off just being “non-communicative.”
