Originally Posted by
Into the Night
YALIF.
I have all the justification I need. You simply cannot use Wikipedia as an authoritative reference for anything with me, no matter how much you stamp and scream like a little kid.
YALIF.
Never said any such thing. Lie. Dictionaries do not define any word. People define words. Etymology is a hobby of mine, you see.
YALIF.
No, it hasn't.
YALIF.
Yes it does, if you are claiming it has defined a word 70 years ago.
Nothing on the internet has defined any word before the internet.
YALIF.
Irrelevant. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference with me.
As far as the definition of any word 70 years ago? Yes. As far as any other article on Wikipedia? The question is a compositional error fallacy.
YALIF.
You simply cannot use Wikipedia as an authoritative reference of any kind with me. Neither can you use ABC, NBC, MSN, CNN, CBS, FOX, NPR, the AP, the Guardian, or any newspaper, TV station, radio station parroting the AP, or the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Politico, nor any other newspaper or network of newspapers as an authoritative reference for anything but local news for their area either. Neither can you use any dictionary to define any word, since dictionaries do not define words.
If you want to use the buzzword 'Assault Rifle', that is your choice, but it IS a buzzword, carrying only the meaning YOU have given it.
Defining a word requires the reasoning behind that definition to be given with the definition. To simply say it means X, you must declare why, and always remember that it is YOU that defined the word. It is not possible to define a word with itself.
Bookmarks