Yeah, in light of the way that the whole "yappari" thing is developing, I'm inclined to want to take it back.

Since their argument seems to be that Morita was just trying to go along with the crowd, you'd think that pointing out how "yappari" can function as a statement of agreement would support their case, rather than undermine it. Yet they still both devote pages and pages of comments to defending proglution's statement that "yappari" doesn't mean agreement. It's just boggling. Absolutely boggling.

NGL, though, I do appreciate the sources they've been linking me to. That thesis in particular was kickass awesome. It doesn't actually support either of their wankery positions, but it did make for some excellent reading.