Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[LogGrad98]

Personally, if you must rank authorities, Merriam-Webster outranks dictionary.com.

Unless dictionary.com agrees with SaltyDawg and Merriam-Webster does not, of course.

Credentials:
https://content.dictionary.com/?__u...cct=/showthread.php&__utmv=-&__utmk=158676154

"the world’s largest and most authoritative free online dictionary and mobile reference resource." "Dictionary.com was launched in 1995, under the name of Lexico Publishing, LLC and was acquired by IAC in 2008. Today, it is the most-visited, most trusted, online dictionary. Located in Oakland, CA"

Contact info:
https://content.dictionary.com/about/contact


You may agree or disagree that this is the absolute highest authority on the English language. But what isn't really debatable is they are a legit dictionary. They also claim to be the #1 most used (and I know it's the only online dictionary I ever use, and the only one I ever see linked to) so we can stop the "only use them when they agree with you" nonsense. I used the word the way I thought it was defined, when a couple people disagreed the first place I looked had it defined the way I always thought it was defined. And a case could be made that all of the other posted definitions are similar enough to be used that way too. It's not cherry picking definitions. It's more like I had the correct definition in the first place.

Merriam-Webster may be the standard for print dictionaries, but dictionary.com is the standard for online. Incidentally, I checked two separate print dictionaries and neither one of them said a weapon was only for offensive purposes. Both basically said "an instrument for use in a fight." So even under those definitions, cropping a dog's ears so they don't get damaged in a fight could be considered a weapon.

If you have an instance of me saying I disagreed with dictionary.com, please post it. If you have an instance of me posting some other dictionary site's definition instead of dictionary.com's, post it. Otherwise, stop this nonsense of saying I cherry picked the definition and only consider them a high authority because they agreed with me this one time.

Actually, my comment was about ranking the dictionaries, not using the dictionaries. I have no trouble believing you prefer dictionary.com (my preference is to start at OneLook and procede to the American Heritage). I firmly believe that when you see a definition you like, you will pick the dictionary that uses that definition and rank it as the mnost reliable for that discussion, feeling no need to be consistent from discussion to discussion, based on your history.

However, if you say that you always think dictionary.com is the best resource, I'll take your word for it.



Does the meaning of words change between being in print and being on-line? This ranks right up there with the stupidest things people have said on this forum. Taking your word for something only goes until you contradict your own position in the same post.

Personally, I like Merriam-Webster for inclusive English, Oxford for British English, and the aforementioned American Heritage for American English.

No, the meaning of words don't change if it's posted online, lol. I'm pretty sure Merriam-Webster doesn't put much focus into their online business. For example, of the 2 print dictionaries I looked up "weapon" one was a Merriam-Webster, and the definition was not the same as the one on their website.

The website is actually different than the print dictionary (at least different than the one I checked). Dictionary.com doesn't even make a print dictionary anyway, at least not one that I'm aware of.

When I was saying it's the "standard" I mostly just meant it's the most widely used. Dictionary.com is the most widely used online, Merriam-Webster is the most used print.

I never argued that any other source was questionable, and I didn't cherry pick. I didn't see any that contradicted mine either.

I just argued that I wasn't cherry picking, and my source is valid.

If you want to use your own dictionary, that's fine. Knock yourself out. It doesn't mean mine isn't valid.

Your dictionary site had roughly the same definition as dictionary.com anyway (especially the one I posted from that site). It's not like they were totally different.

Oh really?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Oh really?

Correct. At no point did I suggest that any other source anyone used was questionable. I only argued that my own source was valid, and that it was not cherry picked but was actually the first and only source I normally ever use. If you want to use some other source, fine by me.

Also, you quoting One Brow's personal ranking of online dictionaries doesn't mean I was arguing one was invalid or questionable.

 

[LogGrad98]

Correct. At no point did I suggest that any other source anyone used was questionable. I only argued that my own source was valid, and that it was not cherry picked but was actually the first and only source I normally ever use. If you want to use some other source, fine by me.

Also, you quoting One Brow's personal ranking of online dictionaries doesn't mean I was arguing one was invalid or questionable.

You very clearly call the validity of the Miriam-Webster definition into question.

Merriam-Webster may be the standard for print dictionaries, but dictionary.com is the standard for online.

If you have an instance of me saying I disagreed with dictionary.com, please post it. If you have an instance of me posting some other dictionary site's definition instead of dictionary.com's, post it.

I'm pretty sure Merriam-Webster doesn't put much focus into their online business. For example, of the 2 print dictionaries I looked up "weapon" one was a Merriam-Webster, and the definition was not the same as the one on their website.

The website is actually different than the print dictionary (at least different than the one I checked).

Not exactly great votes of confidence there. Oh and the middle one is clear cherry-picking. Who cares if your opinion is not supported by definitions from any soure but dictionary.com?

 

[SaltyDawg]

You very clearly call the validity of the Miriam-Webster definition into question.

Not exactly great votes of confidence there. Oh and the middle one is clear cherry-picking. Who cares if your opinion is not supported by definitions from any soure but dictionary.com?

I did not call the validity of Merriam-Webster into question. I just said I prefer dictionary.com. Just because I use dictionary.com doesn't mean I'm saying every other dictionary is invalid.

And I don't care if any other dictionary site supports my opinion or not. For the record, many of them do support it. When the most widely used dictionary site on the net had the same definition as me, it was enough to justify my opinion on the definition of that word. If you don't like that site, fine by me.

I never made an argument that any other site was questionable. I only posted the definition from the site I used, argued that it is a valid source, and gave my reasons for using that site (as proof that I wasn't just cherry picking for whatever site I could find that would agree with my opinion).

I guess you're out of actual arguments so you decided to post a bunch of straw men and snarky comments?

 

[PearlWatson]

We need some Jazz basketball for hell's sake!

 

[bigb]

If your helmet was invented specifically to help you win a fight, then yes, it's a weapon.

What about my ski helmet? Is it a weapon? What about the helmet I wear when I ride my mountain bike? Is it a weapon?

 

[SaltyDawg]

What about my ski helmet? Is it a weapon? What about the helmet I wear when I ride my mountain bike? Is it a weapon?

I wouldn't say those are weapons. Unless you use it as a tool to help win a fight, then you'd be using it as a weapon.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I wouldn't say those are weapons. Unless you use it as a tool to help win a fight, then you'd be using it as a weapon.

Why not, what if it's a race? A race is considered a fight, or battle isn't it?
I would think a large bladder is a huge weapon in Nascar.
An awesome helmet would be a gigantic weapon in the Tour de France, that's not just a fight, that race is a war!

Salty, you have converted me! I am totally on your side now. All you idiots that think cropped ears is not a weapon, prepare yourselves! We could not beat Salty alone, now Salty and I will be unstoppable. Surrender now or I shall taunt you a second time! I am armed and will cut you down with a herring!

 

[LogGrad98]

I did not call the validity of Merriam-Webster into question. I just said I prefer dictionary.com. Just because I use dictionary.com doesn't mean I'm saying every other dictionary is invalid.

And I don't care if any other dictionary site supports my opinion or not. For the record, many of them do support it. When the most widely used dictionary site on the net had the same definition as me, it was enough to justify my opinion on the definition of that word. If you don't like that site, fine by me.

I never made an argument that any other site was questionable. I only posted the definition from the site I used, argued that it is a valid source, and gave my reasons for using that site (as proof that I wasn't just cherry picking for whatever site I could find that would agree with my opinion).

I guess you're out of actual arguments so you decided to post a bunch of straw men and snarky comments?

Did you even read your own quotes about Miriam-Webster that I quoted in that post? How is this to be interpreted?

I'm pretty sure Merriam-Webster doesn't put much focus into their online business. For example, of the 2 print dictionaries I looked up "weapon" one was a Merriam-Webster, and the definition was not the same as the one on their website.

The website is actually different than the print dictionary (at least different than the one I checked).

That is directly critical of the correctness of Miriam-Webster online. If not then you would have said something like "sure, miriam-webster is every bit the authority that dictionary.com is", but that is not what you said. That is you doing exactly what you said you didn't do, in your own words.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Did you even read your own quotes about Miriam-Webster that I quoted in that post? How is this to be interpreted?



That is directly critical of the correctness of Miriam-Webster online. If not then you would have said something like "sure, miriam-webster is every bit the authority that dictionary.com is", but that is not what you said. That is you doing exactly what you said you didn't do, in your own words.

One Brow basically asked why I used dictionary.com instead of Merriam-Webster's website, after I said I thought Merriam-Webster was the best print dictionary. He asked if the definitions changed when posted online. I answered by saying their website was different from the printed dictionary (at least the one I own).

That doesn't mean the website is not valid, just explains why I use the other website (prove I wasn't just cherry picking).

Again, I never argued that Merriam-Webster was not a valid source. I only gave my reasons for going to dictionary.com first. Yes, I use dictionary.com. That doesn't mean I question the validity of Merriam-Webster.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

On a serious note, Salty, I just don't get how you seem to refuse to think about how the word is used in every day language. No matter what it says in a dictionary, I have never heard of non-weapons being referred to as weapons. I have heard of them being used as weapons, with the understanding that they are not in and of themselves weapons. It just seems hard headed to refuse to consider that you may be wrong. If even one other human being had agreed with you I would drop it... ok, I might drop it anyways after it stops being fun for me, but I have not heard anyone else approach the meaning of the word weapon like you.

The problem is that cropped ears does not fall into the definition category as you would use when defining sleep or a sharp intellect as weapons.
Cropped ears is a physical thing. It does not really work with claws, horns, etc. It also does not work with the definition of a physical tool used to cause damage.

My problem with accepting your take on what a weapon is, is that I know what a weapon is.
I see where you are going with it, and what you are trying to do... but you are stretching way too far.
Not only is the wording of the definition you are using unclear and flawed in it's wording, but you are pushing the idea of what a weapon is beyond what is useful for the english language. What is the point of calling armor armor? If armor helps you win a battle, it is called a weapon according to your logic. A horse is not an animal, it is a weapon because it helps you win a battle according to your logic. Now almost everything having to do with a fight is a weapon and the word now has essentially lost it's meaning. That destroys language and makes the word almost pointless in saying because it can mean almost anything.

bla bla bla.... whatever

 

[SaltyDawg]

On a serious note, Salty, I just don't get how you seem to refuse to think about how the word is used in every day language. No matter what it says in a dictionary, I have never heard of non-weapons being referred to as weapons. I have heard of them being used as weapons, with the understanding that they are not in and of themselves weapons. It just seems hard headed to refuse to consider that you may be wrong. If even one other human being had agreed with you I would drop it... ok, I might drop it anyways after it stops being fun for me, but I have not heard anyone else approach the meaning of the word weapon like you.

The problem is that cropped ears does not fall into the definition category as you would use when defining sleep or a sharp intellect as weapons.
Cropped ears is a physical thing. It does not really work with claws, horns, etc. It also does not work with the definition of a physical tool used to cause damage.

My problem with accepting your take on what a weapon is, is that I know what a weapon is.
I see where you are going with it, and what you are trying to do... but you are stretching way too far.
Not only is the wording of the definition you are using unclear and flawed in it's wording, but you are pushing the idea of what a weapon is beyond what is useful for the english language. What is the point of calling armor armor? If armor helps you win a battle, it is called a weapon according to your logic. A horse is not an animal, it is a weapon because it helps you win a battle according to your logic. Now almost everything having to do with a fight is a weapon and the word now has essentially lost it's meaning. That destroys language and makes the word almost pointless in saying because it can mean almost anything.

bla bla bla.... whatever

And of course there is the possibility that some people do speak this way, the multiple dictionaries got it right, and your little corner of the world is not representative of everyone.

By the way, armor is a weapon, and a horse can be a weapon too.

 

[Gameface]

I think my new boss is SaltyDawg. Once the guy says something out loud there is absolutely no amount of reason that will get him to back down from his position. It wouldn't be so bad except that his position is often ridiculous.

 

[NUMBERICA]

What the **** is happening right now?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Loooud Noises!!!

 

[Scat]

On a serious note, Salty, I just don't get how you seem to refuse to think about how the word is used in every day language. No matter what it says in a dictionary, I have never heard of non-weapons being referred to as weapons. I have heard of them being used as weapons, with the understanding that they are not in and of themselves weapons. It just seems hard headed to refuse to consider that you may be wrong. If even one other human being had agreed with you I would drop it... ok, I might drop it anyways after it stops being fun for me, but I have not heard anyone else approach the meaning of the word weapon like you.

You're asking Salty to use a little common sense. Ain't gonna' happen.

 

[Safetydan]

Salty is queen of english and all definitions... Resistence is futile =((

 

[TroutBum]

Salty is queen of english and all definitions... Resistence is futile =((

Eat a dog.

 

[Scat]

Eat a dog.

Stick with lap dogs. They are more tender.

 

[LogGrad98]

And of course there is the possibility that some people do speak this way, the multiple dictionaries got it right, and your little corner of the world is not representative of everyone.

By the way, armor is a weapon, and a horse can be a weapon too.

So there is a possibility that some people do not consider every object a weapon at all times. That is almost all people all the time. Definitely the subset that makes up this forum. So it sounds like it is your little corner of the world that is different from the rest. Pretty much everyone I know sees it far closer to the way spazz defined it than the way you do.