[ExI] !,. $#@%

[Damien Broderick]

>Should we boycott "inflammable" because it violates the prefix
>assumption that "in" means not?

No, because it doesn't--it's ambiguous, which is why the word should 
be, and largely was, replaced. Here are some "in-" words that quite 
clearly don't mean "not-":

incarcerate doesn't mean "to set free"

incorporate doesn't mean "to discorporate" or exclude from the body

inculcate, induce, indigene, indicate, inspire

Wanna ban them as well? :)

Damien Broderick