[WikiEN-l] Using a dictionary considered helpful

[Toby Bartels]

dpbsmith wrote:

>I don't regard a dictionary as holy writ, and I don't have any illusions that
>using one will settle these disputes, but I really do wish, when conducting
>arguments--particularly in writing via email--that contenders would resort
>more to the dictionary, at least as a starting point, for defining terms.

I tend to agree; but OTOH I also tend to feel that most dictionaries suck
and strongly prefer the Oxford English Dictionary (for English).

>For example:
>Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
>person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of
>intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or
>political reasons."

>From the OED:
Terrorism:
2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom
it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of
terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.

Notice the focus on how the victims /feel/ (terrorized, struck with terror)
rather than on /who/ the perpetrators (unlawful) and victims (societies) are.
Also no crap about legality; the /original/ "Terrorists" were a government!


My point here is not that you have given a bad suggestion,
just to show the limitations, which maybe you had already realised.
It is still a good suggestion!


-- Toby