[WikiEN-l] Using a dictionary considered helpful

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Using a dictionary considered helpful
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Using a dictionary considered helpful
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

dpbsmith at verizon.net 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.
>
>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."
>
>Terrorist: "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism."
>
>Not an answer, not unambiguous, not unchallengable, but a starting point.
>  
>

I'm not contesting your input, I don't even follow the dispute, I just 
think it's funny to notice that corroborating the definition above with 
the subjective point of view (who determines what's unlawful?), the 
whole of US were terrorists *by the book* in regards to the old Iraqui 
regime. The eye of the beholder...

--Gutza

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Using a dictionary considered helpful
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Using a dictionary considered helpful
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]