CATEGORICAL

If there's one group of people who should know how to use the language it's second-hand booksellers, right? They spend their days surrounded by words, stacks and stacks of them, bound into these little paperbacked volumes. So, why is it that when they find a book with its cover detached, some writing on the first few pages, a cup of tea poured over it and the glue dried out they describe this as "good" condition?

Near mint, I get. That's, like, so fresh it still smells minty.

Fine is pretty clear, too. "How's that old book look?" "Well, it's all there and it's nice and shiny... I'd say it's fine."

Poor condition speaks for itself. With a pot of glue and a bit of imagination you might just be able to make a decent read out of that copy.

But good? Good means bad? Riiiight. And when did that happen?

If an electrician installs "good" wiring do we expect its covering to be detached and maybe a few dinks and cuts into the main cables? Wouldn't wiring that was unsafe and exposed to the elements be called something other than good?

You know who I blame? Michael Jackson. After the "Bad" album in '87 (it meant good, apparently) he started corrupting all of the words in the English language. Isn't that what he's on trial for now?