I understand that this may be boring you all shitless by now, but I remain unsympathetic to your plight. I have remembered another suspect word substitution whose invalidity I have investigated by way of the Macquarie dictionary. Many a time has it been that I have heard people say "in agreeance" in place of "in agreement". I had always thought this wrong, but had never sought corroborating evidence. But as the above shows, I recently consulted an officially sanctioned purveyor of the lexicon, and proved my suspicions correct. There is no "agreeance" listed in the dictionary. I would now feel wholly vindicated in my instinctive grasp of the language were it not for my recently discovered doubts about whether the Macquarie dictionary is in fact an unimpeachable collection of the words and usages that are au courant in the english language. It is certainly a weighty tome, and I never before had cause to doubt it. That is, until yesterday. Twice this week I have come across the word "maven" in worthy publications. I found myself quite enamoured with it and longed to use it. But before I could bring myself to attempt such a flamboyance, I first needed to be precisely aware of its meaning and applicability. So, yesterday, I turned to my heretofore considered steadfast pal, the Macquarie. And was aghast to find "maven" unlisted! And so I am in a world of doubt. I would like to consider the "agreeance" matter settled, but how am I to deduce for certain that the word doesn't exist by the rationale of its not appearing in the Macquarie, when the same logic could be similarly applied to discredit the word "maven", though I know that the latter does in fact exist? You see my dilemma? What's a girl to do? I hear you say, "Consult another dictionary", but where's the drama in that? I'm all in a tizz and it's faintly delightful. We must seek our pleasures where we find them, after all.