Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sparkyfs!saturn!xanthian From: xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Vigilantism Keywords: [we don't subscribe to alt.flame] Message-ID: <10939@saturn.ADS.COM> Date: 17 Feb 90 23:39:24 GMT References: <6=R1LBDxds8@ficc.uu.net> <325@comcon.UUCP> Followup-To: alt.flame Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 960-7300 Lines: 37 In article <325@comcon.UUCP> roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >In article <6=R1LBDxds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >> >> It may not be in OED, but its presence in Webster's >> should bring forth an apology for the charge that I made it up. >> > Vigilantism doesn't appear in the Britannica-Webster Dictionary and >Reference guide, either. > >But it *does* have a nice ring to it. > From G. C. Merriam Co., the recognized authority on American English as long as there has been a dictionary published in America; Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1960 edition: Vigilantism: n. The policy or practice of vigilantes. Since it has been around as a recognized word for at least 30 years, longer than many of those arguing have been alive, it shows every sign of being a Real Word(tm). Since the ODE 1) is not a dictionary of American English, and 2) is nowhere close to "V" in completing its first revision, and since no other American dictionary has any pretense of being authoritative, may I respectfully suggest that all opinions to the contrary are worthless, and those arguing to that end could do themselves a big favor by ceasing to suck toe jam? I don't particularly like Jeff, but when he's right, he's right, and those who continue to argue for error when the right path is known to them are fools. OB New newsgroup proposals: talk.second_rate_dictionaries, alt.illiterates.rissa, alt.flame.dictionary.oneupsmanship -- xanthian@ads.com xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan) Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.