Split from: Uri Geller to be sued by EFF

[CFLarsen]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81732

I'm not the one doing the defining. That honor goes to the claimant.

[CFLarsen]

I'd like to see proof that this word is treated differently in legal circles. Evidence?

Ask NoZedAvenger. He made the claim that Uri Geller could be forced to appear.

Sure it does. :)

Dictionaries define both a word's meaning and it's usage (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictionary).

The meaning of the word "Dictionary" - according to Merriam-Webster - is:

(Italics and bolding mine)

As for the rest... again, I'd like to see proof of your assertion that the word is treated differently in legal circles. Evidence?

Where does it say that dictionaries define words?

You must have been replying to someone else and mixed up the quote feature.

Here were the questions:

You seem to be making a claim about what "forced" means in this context (i.e., "legalese" regarding jurisdictional matters).

What definition of "forced" are you using? What is your source?

If you say that you are making no claim about the definition of "forced" in this context, then can you still state what definition of "forced" you are using (and detail your source)?

If you are saying that you don't know what it means in this context, then could you explain what this big semi-derail and virtually complete waste of time is for?

Hey, if you want to chicken out, chicken out. No skin off my nose.

[NoZed Avenger]

Hey, if you want to chicken out, chicken out. No skin off my nose.


You're stopping even the pretense that you bother to read anyone else's posts, aren't you?

Not that we couldn't tell, but it's refreshing to have it out in the open.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

". . . could you explain what this big semi-derail and virtually complete waste of time is for? "

QFE

[NoZed Avenger]

Not "forced to appear", then.



In the above quote, you make a claim: that Geller would not be "forced to appear."


Unlike you, I will ask (again) the direct question: What definition of "forced" are you using when making this statement? And by the way, what is your source?

[CFLarsen]

You're stopping even the pretense that you bother to read anyone else's posts, aren't you?

Not that we couldn't tell, but it's refreshing to have it out in the open.

In the above quote, you make a claim: that Geller would not be "forced to appear."


Unlike you, I will ask (again) the direct question: What definition of "forced" are you using when making this statement? And by the way, what is your source?

If you don't want to take responsibility for your own claims, fine with me.

Like I said: No skin off my nose.

[wahrheit]

Claus, what's the big deal in admitting you apparently misinterpreted forced in the given context, and also did not know or understand the expression term of art? Because that's exactly what happened. wtf. :mgbanghead

[chillzero]

Where does it say that dictionaries define words?


...anywhere that suggests you look up a dictionary definition, perhaps?

[CFLarsen]

Claus, what's the big deal in admitting you apparently misinterpreted forced in the given context, and also did not know or understand the expression term of art? Because that's exactly what happened. wtf. :mgbanghead

I have yet to hear this from NoZedAvenger.

[CFLarsen]

...anywhere that suggests you look up a dictionary definition, perhaps?

Are you seriously claiming that dictionaries define words?

You don't do that, do you?

[chillzero]

Are you seriously claiming that dictionaries define words?

You don't do that, do you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=define&ia=luna) de·fine http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fdefine) /dɪˈfaɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-fahyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb -fined, -fin·ing. –verb (used with object)
1.to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define “liberal.”
2.to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe: to define judicial functions.
3.to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly: to define one's responsibilities.
4.to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of: to define property with stakes.
5.to make clear the outline or form of: The roof was boldly defined against the sky. –verb (used without object)
6.to set forth the meaning of a word, phrase, etc.; construct a definition.

American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=define&ia=ahd4) de·fine http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fdefine) (dĭ-fīn') Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
v. de·fined, de·fin·ing, de·fines

v. tr.

To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain: define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes.
To delineate the outline or form of: gentle hills that were defined against the sky.
To specify distinctly: define the weapons to be used in limited warfare.

To delineate the outline or form of: gentle hills that were defined against the sky.
To specify distinctly: define the weapons to be used in limited warfare.
To give form or meaning to: "For him, a life is defined by action" (Jay Parini). v. intr.
To make or write a definition.
.... and so on. :rolleyes:

[NoZed Avenger]

I have yet to hear this from NoZedAvenger.


You have yet to state what you believe the definition of "forced" means in this context.

I could swear someone asked you that.

Since you've declared positively that there was no forcing, surely you had *some* kind of definition, no matter how indistinct and hazy, in mind. I mean, you wouldn't make definitive, declarative statements like that based on complete ignorance and then refuse to admit it. That would be so atypical.

[rwguinn]

If you don't want to take responsibility for your own claims, fine with me.

Like I said: No skin off my nose.

How is this crap different from spamming the forum that everybody else gets zinged for?

[CFLarsen]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define

.... and so on. :rolleyes:

skepticism
Main Entry: skep·ti·cism
Pronunciation: 'skep-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
synonym see UNCERTAINTY
(Webster)

See the problem?

[Zep]

No, Claus. I don't see any problem. It's quite simple - you misunderstood a couple of idiomatic English terms that we DID understand. And now you won't back up and admit you did, and you are looking more and more foolish to continue that way.

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus. I don't see any problem. It's quite simple - you misunderstood a couple of idiomatic English terms that we DID understand. And now you won't back up and admit you did, and you are looking more and more foolish to continue that way.

Since nobody is totally incredulous, everyone can call themselves a "skeptic".

Now, how are you going to distinguish yourself from, say, Sylvia Browne? You can only do it, if you go with what we consider "skepticism", namely modern skepticism as "embodied in the scientific method", as Shermer puts it.

Where, in the dictionary, is skepticism described as being embodied in the scientific method?

Nowhere. Yet, our usage of "skepticism" is quite different from what the dictionary says.

[Zep]

Since nobody is totally incredulous, everyone can call themselves a "skeptic".

Now, how are you going to distinguish yourself from, say, Sylvia Browne? You can only do it, if you go with what we consider "skepticism", namely modern skepticism as "embodied in the scientific method", as Shermer puts it.

Where, in the dictionary, is skepticism described as being embodied in the scientific method?

Nowhere. Yet, our usage of "skepticism" is quite different from what the dictionary says.You misunderstood some phrases the meanings of which were not obvious by their individual words alone. Trying to turn it into a nit-pick does not become you.

[ponderingturtle]

Since nobody is totally incredulous, everyone can call themselves a "skeptic".

Now, how are you going to distinguish yourself from, say, Sylvia Browne? You can only do it, if you go with what we consider "skepticism", namely modern skepticism as "embodied in the scientific method", as Shermer puts it.

Where, in the dictionary, is skepticism described as being embodied in the scientific method?

Nowhere. Yet, our usage of "skepticism" is quite different from what the dictionary says.


The problem here is that force and art are precise terminology. Your argument is a linguistic cousin of saying that evolution is just a theory and as ID is just a theory they are equivalent. Disregarding that they are different definitions of the word theory

[jmercer]

Where does it say that dictionaries define words?



Ok, Claus... the definition I provided for dictionary had this entry:

"1 : a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses "

Note that I've bolded "meanings".

I will provide you the definition of the word "definition" (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/definition) from same Merriam-Webster source:


: an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/defining)
3 : the action or process of defining (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/defining)
4 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/definite) and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition> Please note item 2b, where I have bolded and italicized it for easy identification. In particular... Please pay attention to the example <dictionary definitions>, and to the fact that the description references the word "meaning".

This closes the circle, Clause, because it conclusively proves (from an authorative source) that dictionaries define words.

Thank you for playing, and won't you please come again soon, sir? :D

[CFLarsen]

Where can I see a dictionary definition of skepticism described as being embodied in the scientific method?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Where can I see a dictionary definition of skepticism described as being embodied in the scientific method?
Red herring. This entire tangent is about the use of the word "forced".

[jmercer]

Hell, Arkan - the entire derail is a red herring by Claus. I mean - "dictionaries don't define words"?

In addition, Claus never offered his definition of force. He simply challenged it's use by someone else without any specifics, and when presented with evidence that it was properly used, cooked up some vague trollish excuse that it means something else in "legalese", as he put it.

This is why nobody takes Claus seriously in these forums - except, perhaps, as a serious nuisance. It's really sad, because it's clear he's intelligent and could contribute substance to discussions... rather than simply amuse himself by disrupting them to spin people up.

[CFLarsen]

How about truthiness (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/New-Words/060213-truthiness.htm)?

Is that defined by the dictionary?

[NoZed Avenger]

Give up.

No matter how far from the original points the thread strays, no matter how many side-arguments over trivia get started, and no matter how many of pages taken to get there, distractions may take attention away from it, but it won't make people forget.

[jmercer]

How about truthiness (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/New-Words/060213-truthiness.htm)?

Is that defined by the dictionary?

Nice try, but no cigar. :)

Language evolves; new words are coined and when they become common and enduring in usage, dictionaries are updated to reflect that fact. "Truthiness" may or may not be pervasive (or enduring) enough to warrant inclusion. The same goes for various usages of words, too, such as the meaing of "gay" in today's parlance versus "gay" in the 1800's.

Another example is the word "ain't" (a contraction of "are" and "not"). This word was not considered a valid word for years - but its pervasive and enduring usage eventually legitimized it as an word. (Although grammarians may argue about the legitimacy of it's use in "proper" english.)

Slang is often defined in dictionaries as well, if for no other reason than striving for completeness. However, most dictionaries will make great efforts to indicate that a word is slang. In example, Merriam-Webster lists "gaydar" (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gaydar) as a slang word. It's in the dictionary, with a definition - but it's clearly identified as slang.

If anything, the willingness of dictionary publishers to keep their texts current adds to the authoritarian nature of the reference book. :D

[CFLarsen]

Truthiness became the American Dialect Society word of the year for 2005 and by Merriam Webster for 2006. I'd say it was pervasive!

And yes, new words are coined. In fact, what words haven't been, at some point?

Which is sort of my point.

[SimonD]

<forget it>

[Pyrrho]

Dictionaries are compilations of definitions of words. A dictionary is, essentially, an encyclopedia of definitions, collected by lexicographers. The dictionary, in and of itself, does not define words. People define words; the dictionary is a collection of definitions.

http://www.cofc.edu/linguist/archives/2005/07/how_are_diction.html

"...these days virtually all of them are built by teams of talented people. For each new dictionary, and each new edition of an existing dictionary, they collect huge amounts of written and spoken language -- from newspapers, magazines, books, plays, movies, speeches, TV and radio shows, interviews and internet -- and sift them for evidence of how language is being used: What words haven't we seen before? What words are changing their meanings? What words are used only in particular ways? What are their histories, pronunciations, grammatical quirks and foibles?

If you think this makes lexicographers sound like scientists, you're exactly right. Most of them see their primary job as data collecting. They try to capture as accurate a picture as possible of how people actually use a language at a given point in time."

A definition, therefore, is an attempt to describe how people are using a given word.

[Pyrrho]

Hell, Arkan - the entire derail is a red herring by Claus. I mean - "dictionaries don't define words"?

In addition, Claus never offered his definition of force. He simply challenged it's use by someone else without any specifics, and when presented with evidence that it was properly used, cooked up some vague trollish excuse that it means something else in "legalese", as he put it.

This is why nobody takes Claus seriously in these forums - except, perhaps, as a serious nuisance. It's really sad, because it's clear he's intelligent and could contribute substance to discussions... rather than simply amuse himself by disrupting them to spin people up.
Fascinating. I don't often agree with Claus Larsen's methods, but I do disagree with your assessment.

[jmercer]

Truthiness became the American Dialect Society word of the year for 2005 and by Merriam Webster for 2006. I'd say it was pervasive!

And yes, new words are coined. In fact, what words haven't been, at some point?

Which is sort of my point.

And this has to do with the word "forced"... and your claim that dictionaries don't provide definitions for words... exactly how?

[jmercer]

Fascinating. I don't often agree with Claus Larsen's methods, but I do disagree with your assessment.

Fair enough. :)

[CFLarsen]

And this has to do with the word "forced"... and your claim that dictionaries don't provide definitions for words... exactly how?

Two separate issues.

[Pyrrho]

Numerous Google hits for "forced to appear", as in legally required to be present in court or be subject to various penalties.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=forced+to+appear

Plenty of evidence for the argued definition of "forced" in a legal sense. Eventually the dictionaries will catch up with current usage. Or not.

The term has been defined by common usage. Whether or not that usage appears in a dictionary definition is irrelevant.

At any rate, Uri should be able to teleport into and out of court as easily as he teleported to and from Brazil, back in the day.

[jmercer]

Two separate issues.

Not at all.

[NoZed Avenger]

And that's a wrap, apparently.