The problem with this comment is that you're not saying anything. You're merely repeating what I said with the erroneous notion that it somehow supports what you said. This is beyond hilarious and I will try to illustrate how retarded you are. Observe:

You said:

Mexicans have large families. If I meet Rosa, a Mexican woman, and I say to myself,** "Rosa is a Mexican; she must have a large family,"** I am stereotyping her.

Now you seem to think that this is stereotyping, even though it clearly is NOT "a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group". It is, however, a proposition asserting something to be true of Mexicans, in that they "have large families". Thus, the hypothetical person in your example assumes that "Rosa", being a Mexican, has a large family. A stereotype of a Mexican would be something like a sleepy Mexican man wearing a poncho and sombrero, just like a stereotype of an American would be a fat, flag-waving idiot. Stereotypes are like general, often exaggerated place-holders for groups of people. Generalizations are traits of one person, or a small group of people, that are applied to large groups of people simply because of their relationship.

Word qualifiers. Use them.

Qualifiers. Fucking look them up. You don't know what that means either.

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/qualifierterm.htm

A word or phrase that precedes an adjective or adverb, increasing or decreasing the quality signified by the word it modifies.

Here are the most common qualifiers in English (though some of these words have other functions as well): very, quite, rather, somewhat, more, most, less, least, too, so, just, enough, indeed, still, almost, fairly, really, pretty, even, a bit, a little, a (whole) lot, a good deal, a great deal,

More importantly, talking about "word qualifiers" changes nothing about the fact that you're utterly confused and simply trying to not lose the argument at this point.

I don't need a hyperlink once I have cited my info.

Yes, you do need to provide a link, otherwise your info could be improperly written or simply non-existent. At any rate, it's simply wrong, as I've demonstrated.

You cited an online dictionary. Amazing.

Yes, that's right. Why? Because you don't know the definitions of the words you're using. See how that works? So in my argument, I back up my assertion with the definitions of the words in question, whereas you cite some random source from somewhere (improperly, I might add), and it doesn't even follow the standard definition of the words either! Just because someone got their ideas published in a book doesn't make it correct.

To top things off, you're arguing with an English teacher here, so if you really think you're going to teach me a lesson in grammar, you've got quite another thing coming.

QUALIFIERS!!!