2 ms·

That link is the weakest possible support. The previous poster is correct. Look elsewhere.

• castis 10y ago
  Incorrect, the weakest possible support would have been me just backing up the idea with my own words, which is not what happened. If you need further proof then that is your burden, not mine.
  • smacktoward 10y ago
    OK, I'll bite. * http://grammarist.com/usage/learnings/ http://grammarist.com/usage/learnings/ * http://www.johnsmurf.com/jargon.htm http://www.johnsmurf.com/jargon.htm * http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-the-heck-are-learnings/ http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-the-heck-are-learnings/ * http://customerthink.com/16_marketing_terms_to_ban_in_2011/ http://customerthink.com/16_marketing_terms_to_ban_in_2011/ * http://valleywag.gawker.com/dear-dummies-learnings-is-not-a-word-1482696634 http://valleywag.gawker.com/dear-dummies-learnings-is-not-a-... * http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/9_completely_pointless_corporate_words_45629.aspx http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/9_completely_pointless_co... Learnings is a plural version of a singular noun that does not exist. And there's already a perfectly good word you can use to get at what it attempts to communicate, namely lessons. (You can even call them lessons learned if you absolutely must shoehorn the idea of learning in there.)
  • logingone 10y ago
    I think that would have been an absence of support.