I suspect that this is where the root of the problem lies. When Border gave the Order did he KNOW who was going to carry those orders out? I postulate that someone far beneath Border, (Chowder perhaps?) either handed those matches to the unwitting Drummer OR that Hoff did no such firing and was simply framed of the crime. Therein lies the afforementioned conspiracy theory. I believe Hoff to have been a victim of discrimination and of evidence planting.
I beseach you good sir! I am not a “bargain basement” anything! I’ll have you know that I’m QUITE expensive!
I was only doing my job as a writer! Gathering newsworthy bits for some rag or other.
How dare you accuse me! I did NOT have relations with that Drummer! I repeat: I did NOT have relations with that Drummer! And how is it MY fault if Mustard had those horrific mutton chops? Miss Scarlet is to blame here for luring that fashion retardate away from the battlefield…not I for repelling him! Snatch her and interrogate her. But be sure not to let her speak a word to the Tin Man prior to interrogation of them both. I think those two are dangerous!
While this thread seems to have taken a left turn (and then a right, and then just settled into a comfortable spiral), I would like to head back towards the general vicinity of the original post and ask a dictionary question.
Why is the word “dictionary” in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, look on the cover. If you don’t know what it means, how can you possibly be looking it up in the first place?
Obviously, the word dictionary has to be in the dictionary. If it were not, those fond of the annoying habit which started this thread could simply be told that the definition they are quoting comes from something which, as it is not listed in the dictionary, does not exist. Herein lies the solution to the problem, I think. Of course most dictionaries have many omissions. Few, if any, list the word “gullible”, for example.
Good ones. Very, very good ones! I just took some.
Maybe. They’re only available through a small group of suppliers. Every major city has a few, but to get them, you have to wear a red long-stemmed carnation woven into your belt loop on the left side of your pants (your left side, not the pants). But…and this is the important part…when you’re approached by someone who says “Tut-tut! It looks like rain.” you will be in grave danger unless you reply by moving your lookit all the lizards! What’s with all those lizards on the monitor? Theeeay’re pretty lizardssssapvvapeovk doav. Gudacwk, ari83kc jfe aalntlomnen fiavesrlku31. Faunbenal afew fewbcy abnn, andve.
Falcbi fiwn ly fainv! Fainv!! FAINV!
If you feel a need for drugs, just ask your doctor what he takes. Maybe they will work for you.
Has no one noticed that our friend the drummer parts his hair down the middle, has a thin-penciled mustache and a certain furtive possum look about him? Their, my friends, is our culprit. Caught red handed, in flagrante delecto (which may or may not be Latin for “in the saddle,” I’ll have to check a dictionary), as it were. What the hell was he supposed to have done? I’ve forgotten.
I recently wrote an article using the offending phrase. My argument was we can’t discuss a topic (in this case, excellence in museum exhibition) unless we first agree on what it is, what it means. The definition of “excellence” is “exceeding standards and expectations,” or some such. And I went off on a riff about how we don’t even have agreed-upon standards in this field, how can we possibly have a common definition of “excellence.”
Perhaps a tad hoary, but I felt it got the job done. So hang me.
ok this is great and all… but back to the ORIGINAL question, people who begin speeches with “[ANY DICTIONARY] defines blaahblah” should be shot not because they consider the modern dictionary to be an authority on language, but simply because it’s the most retarded and cliched way to start out a speech and by doing so you automatically render the contents of your speech subject to a) riotous laughter (not laughing with you…but at you) and b) incredibility.