Microsoft Rewards?

"Ed Cryer" wrote

| The crucial words are "Microsoft Rewards basically pays you to browse
| the web with Bing. You can use any browser that uses the Bing search
| engine".
|
| The more people use Bing, the more ads get viewed. The more people use
| Bing, the more Bing's status rises together with its power to attract
| advertisers; paying advertisers, that is".
|

If you read down you'll see that using Bing is just
the first thing listed. Using Edge also qualifies you to
be awarded nothing in particular. As does shopping
at the MS Store. The idea seems to be not only
showing ads and making money. The primary motive
seems to be creating a loyalty system; getting
people to stay with MS products in whatever they do.

That's basically the Win10 plan as well. And it's
been the basis of their advertising for some years
now, presenting the Tile City GUI as being what you'll
want to use in all situations -- with computer, tablet,
or phone. Microsoft, somewhat comically, is trying to
sell a superior lifestyle by claiming that their products
will provide superior "experiences". Their use of that
word is peculiar, clearly defining an experience as
a retail consumer product that can be rated in terms
of quality.

(Of course, their phone is kaput, their tablets are
crazy overpriced, and win10 is busy installing
updates. But that hasn't swayed them from their
plan. They can afford to keep screwing it up
because they're doing very well with corporate
web services.)

There was another site that said using Edge requires
one to actively use it, which implies that Win10,
Edge, or something is calling home to report when,
and for how long, Edge is the active window. So that's
another interesting twist. Like drug store loyalty cards,
getting some kind of kickback requires giving up a
lot of salable, personal data.

Considering that people can get 1-2% back just for
using a charge card, it's hard to see how anyone
would go out of their way to log into Microsoft and
use only MS products, just to maybe get a discount
on a Starbucks latte after a couple of months.

(That would also be the ultimate in ninny-brained
frugality: Spending $5 for a cup of kiddie coffee while
spending weeks of effort to "earn" a few fractions of
a cent.)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
snip
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer practice
to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as Microsoft but
with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I would have assumed it
was a scam anyway.

(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)

That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been acceptable
to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a well-known name such
as . . .".

Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ". . .
practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as Microsoft or
Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long since I had English
Grammar, LOL!!
--

SC Tom

On 06/26/2018 08:56 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Ed Cryer" wrote

| The crucial words are "Microsoft Rewards basically pays you to browse
| the web with Bing. You can use any browser that uses the Bing search
| engine".
|
| The more people use Bing, the more ads get viewed. The more people use
| Bing, the more Bing's status rises together with its power to attract
| advertisers; paying advertisers, that is".
|

If you read down you'll see that using Bing is just
the first thing listed. Using Edge also qualifies you to
be awarded nothing in particular. As does shopping
at the MS Store. The idea seems to be not only
showing ads and making money. The primary motive
seems to be creating a loyalty system; getting
people to stay with MS products in whatever they do.

That's basically the Win10 plan as well. And it's
been the basis of their advertising for some years
now, presenting the Tile City GUI as being what you'll
want to use in all situations -- with computer, tablet,
or phone. Microsoft, somewhat comically, is trying to
sell a superior lifestyle by claiming that their products
will provide superior "experiences". Their use of that
word is peculiar, clearly defining an experience as
a retail consumer product that can be rated in terms
of quality.

(Of course, their phone is kaput, their tablets are
crazy overpriced, and win10 is busy installing
updates. But that hasn't swayed them from their
plan. They can afford to keep screwing it up
because they're doing very well with corporate
web services.)

There was another site that said using Edge requires
one to actively use it, which implies that Win10,
Edge, or something is calling home to report when,
and for how long, Edge is the active window. So that's
another interesting twist. Like drug store loyalty cards,
getting some kind of kickback requires giving up a
lot of salable, personal data.

Considering that people can get 1-2% back just for
using a charge card, it's hard to see how anyone
would go out of their way to log into Microsoft and
use only MS products, just to maybe get a discount
on a Starbucks latte after a couple of months.

(That would also be the ultimate in ninny-brained
frugality: Spending $5 for a cup of kiddie coffee while
spending weeks of effort to "earn" a few fractions of
a cent.)


I started that rewards program and when I hit about 5,000 points I
though...wow, here come the rewards. NO!. I did spend some on the
chance of give aways to no avail of course. I gave up after a while,
haven't tried for a year now. I'm on Linux so I can't use Edge. The
quizzes and edge searches was my main points source.

The same was with Coke rewards program except at least I bought 2 free
tee shirts (granted they had the Coke logo and that's free advertising
to them), and one gift card, and one set of photos from shutterfly.

They just don't reward ME that much. Maybe some other people but not me!

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-26 09:12, SC Tom wrote:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
snip
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.

(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)

That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".

Avoid the passive voice.

Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ". .
. practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!



In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".

BTW, we differentiate between "practice" and "practise". The former is a
noun, the latter a verb.

Ed

Mayayana wrote:
"Ed Cryer" wrote

| The crucial words are "Microsoft Rewards basically pays you to browse
| the web with Bing. You can use any browser that uses the Bing search
| engine".
|
| The more people use Bing, the more ads get viewed. The more people use
| Bing, the more Bing's status rises together with its power to attract
| advertisers; paying advertisers, that is".
|

If you read down you'll see that using Bing is just
the first thing listed. Using Edge also qualifies you to
be awarded nothing in particular. As does shopping
at the MS Store. The idea seems to be not only
showing ads and making money. The primary motive
seems to be creating a loyalty system; getting
people to stay with MS products in whatever they do.

That's basically the Win10 plan as well. And it's
been the basis of their advertising for some years
now, presenting the Tile City GUI as being what you'll
want to use in all situations -- with computer, tablet,
or phone. Microsoft, somewhat comically, is trying to
sell a superior lifestyle by claiming that their products
will provide superior "experiences". Their use of that
word is peculiar, clearly defining an experience as
a retail consumer product that can be rated in terms
of quality.

(Of course, their phone is kaput, their tablets are
crazy overpriced, and win10 is busy installing
updates. But that hasn't swayed them from their
plan. They can afford to keep screwing it up
because they're doing very well with corporate
web services.)

There was another site that said using Edge requires
one to actively use it, which implies that Win10,
Edge, or something is calling home to report when,
and for how long, Edge is the active window. So that's
another interesting twist. Like drug store loyalty cards,
getting some kind of kickback requires giving up a
lot of salable, personal data.

Considering that people can get 1-2% back just for
using a charge card, it's hard to see how anyone
would go out of their way to log into Microsoft and
use only MS products, just to maybe get a discount
on a Starbucks latte after a couple of months.

(That would also be the ultimate in ninny-brained
frugality: Spending $5 for a cup of kiddie coffee while
spending weeks of effort to "earn" a few fractions of
a cent.)



There used to be an advertising slogan for Carlsberg lager; "Probably
the best lager in the world".
When I was a student we used to raise our glasses of Kronenbourg lager
in the student bar and chant "Kronenbourg, possibly, maybe and could
well be the second-best lager around these parts".

Are they still allowed to do it? Use value terms that can't be
quantified (and thus not disproved)?

Ed

"Ed Cryer" wrote

| There used to be an advertising slogan for Carlsberg lager; "Probably
| the best lager in the world".
| When I was a student we used to raise our glasses of Kronenbourg lager
| in the student bar and chant "Kronenbourg, possibly, maybe and could
| well be the second-best lager around these parts".
|
| Are they still allowed to do it? Use value terms that can't be
| quantified (and thus not disproved)?
|

The Carlsberg one is clever. I don't think I've ever
seen an ad like that.

I don't think I've ever seen actual claims in the US,
except those quoting some kind of survey. ("4 out
of 5 dentists agree....". But we don't actually know
what the survey was. Were 4 of the dentists someone's
brother in law? Was it a trick question?)

But qualifiers with no context are ubiquitous, comparing
a product to either itself or an undefined other:

"Better flavor without the bitter aftertaste"

Better than what? What bitter aftertaste? That's
up to you to fill in and thus not legally their claim.

"Now with 20% more whitening power"

What does that mean? I assume it means
something, to satisfy the lawyers. But not
something meaningful. Maybe it's toothpaste
that used to have .5 grams of hydrogen
peroxide per tube and now it has .6 grams.
It has no whitening effect but does, technically
have 20% more whitening "power".

But I would point out that this post is a new
and improved version of what I normally write.

In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-26 09:12, SC Tom wrote:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
snip
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.

(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)

That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.

Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ".
. . practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!


In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".

I'm in UK, and NO IT ISN'T! Well, I suppose it is with language change -
and I suspect (what I think of as) the wrong form - i. e. with "of" -
may even be commoner than the correct form (i. e. without), nowadays. To
me, "comprise" and "comprises" should _never_ be followed by "of". If
you feel an overwhelming urge to use "of", then use "consist(s)";
"consists of" _is_ synonymous with "comprises" (_without_ "of").

Think of "comprise/comprises/comprised" as similar to "contain(s)". You
wouldn't (yet!) say "contains of", would you?

BTW, we differentiate between "practice" and "practise". The former is
a noun, the latter a verb.

Ed

I (and SC Tom quoting me) _was_ using practice as a noun: "it's a common
scanner practice to ...". Note the "a", which goes with "practice". (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-26 09:12, SC Tom wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
snip
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.

(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)

That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.

Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ".
. . practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!

In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".

I'm in UK, and NO IT ISN'T! Well, I suppose it is with language change -
and I suspect (what I think of as) the wrong form - i. e. with "of" -
may even be commoner than the correct form (i. e. without), nowadays. To
me, "comprise" and "comprises" should _never_ be followed by "of". If
you feel an overwhelming urge to use "of", then use "consist(s)";
"consists of" _is_ synonymous with "comprises" (_without_ "of").

Well, '_never_' is a bit strong, but indeed Collins English Dictionary
(i.e. British/UK English) says:

"The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises
(not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts"

And indeed Random House Dictionary (i.e. US English) is somewhat more
lenient:

"Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In
addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, to
include and to consist of ( The United States of America comprises 50
states ), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning to
form or constitute ( Fifty states comprise the United States of
America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive
constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original
meanings to consist of, be composed of: The United States of America is
comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they
occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing."

Both from:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comprise?s=t

--
Frank Slootweg, A Dutchie interested in the English language.

Frank Slootweg wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-26 09:12, SC Tom wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
snip
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.

(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)

That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.

Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ".
. . practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!

In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".

I'm in UK, and NO IT ISN'T! Well, I suppose it is with language change -
and I suspect (what I think of as) the wrong form - i. e. with "of" -
may even be commoner than the correct form (i. e. without), nowadays. To
me, "comprise" and "comprises" should _never_ be followed by "of". If
you feel an overwhelming urge to use "of", then use "consist(s)";
"consists of" _is_ synonymous with "comprises" (_without_ "of").

Well, '_never_' is a bit strong, but indeed Collins English Dictionary
(i.e. British/UK English) says:

"The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises
(not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts"

And indeed Random House Dictionary (i.e. US English) is somewhat more
lenient:

"Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In
addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, to
include and to consist of ( The United States of America comprises 50
states ), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning to
form or constitute ( Fifty states comprise the United States of
America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive
constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original
meanings to consist of, be composed of: The United States of America is
comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they
occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing."

Both from:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comprise?s=t


https://goo.gl/T2vWDj
About 1,010,000,000 results (0.58 seconds)

From the first entry, Wikipedia;

"Comprised of is an expression in English: X "is comprised of" Y means
that X is composed or made up of Y. While its use is common in writing
and speech, it has been disparaged by some language professionals and
style guides as an inappropriate substitution for comprises. The Oxford
English Dictionary regards the construction "comprised of" as
incorrect,[1] while Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Collins
English Dictionary do not regard it as such, mentioning "comprised of"
among the examples.[2][3]"

My addition.
Grammatically "comprise" is an active verb, and transitive. X comprises
Y & Z. Ergo it can be turned into a passive voice; Y & Z are comprised
by X. I suppose that the "of" has replaced the "by" in the same way that
it has in "composed of" and "made up of".

Ed

On 06/26/2018 09:57 AM, Mayayana wrote:

[snip]

I don't think I've ever seen actual claims in the US,
except those quoting some kind of survey. ("4 out
of 5 dentists agree....". But we don't actually know

I seem to remember "4 out of 5 dentists WHO RECOMMEND GUM agree....".
Any dentist who doesn't recommend gum is not part of their statistics.

[snip]

I also remember an impossible one. An ad for energy efficient light
bulbs that claimed "uses 200% less electricity". Consider that 100% less
would mean it doesn't use any electricity at all.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now."

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-26 09:12, SC Tom wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
snip
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.

(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)

That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.

Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ".
. . practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!

In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".

I'm in UK, and NO IT ISN'T! Well, I suppose it is with language change -
and I suspect (what I think of as) the wrong form - i. e. with "of" -
may even be commoner than the correct form (i. e. without), nowadays. To
me, "comprise" and "comprises" should _never_ be followed by "of". If
you feel an overwhelming urge to use "of", then use "consist(s)";
"consists of" _is_ synonymous with "comprises" (_without_ "of").

Well, '_never_' is a bit strong, but indeed Collins English Dictionary
(i.e. British/UK English) says:

"The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises
(not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts"

Glad they agree with me (-:

And indeed Random House Dictionary (i.e. US English) is somewhat more
lenient:

"Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In
addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, to
include and to consist of ( The United States of America comprises 50
states ), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning to
form or constitute ( Fifty states comprise the United States of

Nice examples. Note there is no "of" after "comprise(s)" either way
round in those.

America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive
constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original
meanings to consist of, be composed of: The United States of America is
comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they
occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing."

Yes, they're common enough now that the usage probably counts as
correct. (Another fine distinction lost.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
[]
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
[]
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
[]
https://goo.gl/T2vWDj
About 1,010,000,000 results (0.58 seconds)

I suppose it would be difficult to google occurrences _without_ the "of"
(and I fear that even if you did figure out a way, they'd be in the
minority now).

From the first entry, Wikipedia;

"Comprised of is an expression in English: X "is comprised of" Y means
that X is composed or made up of Y. While its use is common in writing
and speech, it has been disparaged by some language professionals and
style guides as an inappropriate substitution for comprises. The Oxford

Exactly. "Comprises" = "Consists of"; therefore
"comprises of" = "consists of of".

English Dictionary regards the construction "comprised of" as
incorrect,[1] while Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Collins
English Dictionary do not regard it as such, mentioning "comprised of"
among the examples.[2][3]"

I'm surprised: my brother is Associate Editor on the OED, and on the
whole the OED does not express opinions on what is "correct" or not (in
common with most dictionaries, and contrary to what most people think is
the case); it just _records_ usage. (There _are_ "prescriptive"
dictionaries, mainly aimed at those learning the language.) I expect
"comprises of" is already in the OED.

My addition.
Grammatically "comprise" is an active verb, and transitive. X comprises
Y & Z. Ergo it can be turned into a passive voice; Y & Z are comprised
by X. I suppose that the "of" has replaced the "by" in the same way

I suspect you're right ...

that it has in "composed of" and "made up of".

.... though not in that example: you would never even in the past have
said "is composed by", if you were discussing what something is made
from (or "up of"); the only time you'd use "composed by" would involve
"Mozart, or one of that crowd".

Ed


John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-06-26 20:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
[...]
My addition.
Grammatically "comprise" is an active verb, and transitive. X
comprises Y & Z. Ergo it can be turned into a passive voice; Y & Z
are comprised by X. I suppose that the "of" has replaced the "by" in
the same way
I suspect you're right ...

If X comprises Y & Z, then X is comprised of Y & Z. Horrible, I know,

I don't _think_ your inversion is correct - try it with "includes":
X includes Y and Z, but X is included of Y and Z? I think not. (Wouldn't
work with "contains", either.) I think comprise (and include, for that
matter) are verbs that can't _be_ passivated. (?!) Although "... is
included" I have heard - tax, for example; if something follows, I think
"in" gets added - "is included in the price". ("Contained in" too - "is
contained in a nice leather case".) Though I don't think "is comprised
in" works either.

but that's current usage.

And current usage becomes accepted, and eventually "correct". [But not
where I'm around it doesn't (-:!]

One that I avoid. Well, actually, I avoid "comprise", it's one of
those supposedly literary words that anxious writers use instead of the
more common one.

Yes, I tend to think people who use "comprised of" are _trying_ to be
literary by not using "consists of". I'm not sure why I used "comprises"
(_without_ "of") in the example that started this thread; it just "felt
right", which I know isn't an explanation.

Strunk & White, Elements of Style: "Avoid the passive voice."

Yes, the passive voice is to be avoided (-:

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A perfectionist takes infinite pains and often gives them to others

cameo wrote:

I keep getting this email from
, but the email does not
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds like
some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of you got
it, too?

If you no longer want to get those e-mails, you can unsubscribe from
them. Login and see if the following URL works:

https://account.microsoft.com/profile/communications

Else, somewhere in your account should be communication preference
settings where you can opt out of all of their superfluous messages.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I don't _think_ your inversion is correct - try it with "includes":
| X includes Y and Z, but X is included of Y and Z? I think not. (Wouldn't
| work with "contains", either.)

My Websters dictionary lists both usages:

1) include. contain.

2) to consist of (a nation comprising 13 states)

3) to make up; form; constitute (a nation comprised of 13 states)

At the end of # 3 it then says this: "In this
sense regarded by some as a loose usage."

I kid you not. Though one wonders what they
mean by loose here, doesn't one? It sounds like
a passive-aggressive moral judgement, accusing
someone of conjugating with shady characters.
Then again, what isn't loose by British standards?

| I think comprise (and include, for that
| matter) are verbs that can't _be_ passivated.

I do hope they shoot people in England for such
lawless verbification.
Interestingly, passivate actually is a word. It
means to put a protective coating on metal.

One of the MS pages about their rewards
suggests that people can visit the rewards
options page when they feel "spendy". But
MS are comprised of techies, who have never
been famour for literacy. MS have a long history
of artlessly contorting the language in the
interest of marketing. Even Bill Gates, who
comprises the most geniussy guy in his own mind,
seems to limit himself to only one, adolescent,
superlative: super. As in, "That chick is super
well comprised."