|
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ddabak$581$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 8-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Some people prefer the function of dictionaries to act as authorities.
> Heck,
> at least one country does this.
One president was famous for trying his luck with with this.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
(Washington, D.C., January 26, 1998)"
I have never checked before but I think we would find him vindicated if we
used m-w as the authority...but then what fun would that be.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...tions&x=18&y=19
> Authorities are comfortable - if you know what is right, you don't have to
> think, and certainly don't need to understand.
>
> One trouble with dictionaries is that they don't adequately show context -
> look
> up "database" and see what the general public thinks of this word compared
> to
> what programmers use.
I'll never forget the Dilbert when the pointy haired boss wanted a
blindingly super database..."what color do you want that database?"
"...I think mauve has the most RAM"
Point is, I don't even have to look as far as the general public ;-)
> Or learn why someone says "evolution is only a theory".
> Authority has scope, and authoritarians don't want scope.
People can say evolution is only a theory, because it is a theory. People
say it because of the other scope creep...we as a group generally cannot
separate evolution from "in the beginning...."
JCE
|
|