This post will prove you wrong, once and for all, and expose you as the farce that you are. You've asked us to prove you wrong? Ok, gladly.

You cited the Oxford English Dictionary as your source for 'waiste.' You also indicated that we should NOT use 'waste of time.'

Here at our university library we have in the reference section the Oxford English Dictionary, by Oxford University Press, prepared by J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner, Second Edition, 1989 (our issue printed in 2001.) It comes in twenty volumes.

We took Volume XIX, Unemancipated--Wau-Wau, off the shelf and took a look for 'waiste,' page 818.

Nothing.

The listings jump from waistcoateer to waisted.

So we went to 'waist' on page 816 and found the forms listed for the spelling of waist: waast, wast, waste, west, wayst, waist. Waiste is not listed. We did however see a separate listing for waist on page 817; 'oscure form of waste.'

Then we looked for an annotation for 'waste of time.' On page 956 we find Huxley: "The maxim that metaphysical inquiries are barren of result, and that the serious occupation of the mind with them is a mere waste of time and labour."

Then we went to ESL Teachers Board to search for examples of 'waste of time.' We put 'waste of time' in the search bar and discovered twenty instances of the use in these forums of that exact phrase on just the first four pages. It seems it is not such an obscure or incorrect phrase. Then we searched for 'waiste of time' and, other than the current thread, we found only one other similar post "waisted my time" from August 2, 2005 by La Cher.

It seems you are wrong in both instances. Your were also wrong to falsely quote from legitimate sources, either because you purposely tried to deceive others, or you were wrong to use an illegitimate source (as you claimed you may have done with a illegal Chinese version of the dictionary.) Either way, the fault was yours, not of the dictionary. You were the user of the source, and to cite sources you must first verify them for accuracy of content.

At this point we will ignore your lip about 'angst' from another thread.

Turnoi, consider yourself corrected. We have used the same source that you cited, and we have cited it correctly and academically. You have impugned your own self for the last time, and anything you have to post will not be taken seriously by the rest as it just cannot be trusted.