[DiapDealer]

I tend to not worry overly about having commonly shared definitions of easily mutable words. Certainly not when I understand perfectly well what some is trying to say.

When the guy on TV says "don't touch that dial!" I feel no need to explain to him that my TV has no "dial."

I know very few phones around today are capable of being "dialled" yet I feel no urge to correct anyone who says they're dialling theirs.

I know a newspaper article didn't really "say" anything.

I pointed to the NEC when someone asked if they could use the xerox.

Words rarely stay stagnant in a living language.

And while I agree that "listening is the new reading" is a bit of a problematic statement for me, It doesn't help me in the least to know whether someone "read" a book, or "listened" to one when we're discussing said book.

In this context, I have no problem whatsoever with someone who listened to an audiobook claiming that they've "read" the book. If I'm unaware they were talking about an audiobook, it changes nothing, and if I AM aware, I understand perfectly what they meant anyway.

When asked, "Did you read Stephen King's latest?", I think it would be silly (and quite counter-productive, actually) to expect someone to respond, "No, I didn't. But I did listen to it."