From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Dec2.203756.10142@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Dec8161841@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec8.202958.4957@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec8.224944.7275@mtu.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:44:20 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 1992 22:49:44 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> (Andy Freeman) writes:

>>(Tim Lambert) writes:
>> >Now here's an interesting argument.  If Andy had claimed that the
>> >Earth was flat and standard references on the subject and most other
>> >people were wrong, it is conceivable, if unlikely, that he could be
>> >correct.  However, when he tells us that the dictionary and everyone
>> >else is wrong about the meaning of the term "Saturday Night Special"
>> >he cannot possibly be correct.  Usage defines meaning.
>> 
>> That's an interesting leap by Lambert.  A dictionary has a definition
>> so he assumes that "everyone" uses it that way.  The dictionary's
>> definition is wrong BECAUSE usage does define meaning and the usage is
>> "guns owned by niggers".

> An interesting (and correct) concept, Andy.  I wonder if Tim can explain
> why my _Webster's_Unabridged_Dictionary_ calls "Saturday Night Special"
> *SLANG*.

Gee, Charles, is that the entire definition?  I'm going to go WAAY out
on a limb here and suggest that Webster's defines it the same way as
Random House, else you would have told us about it.  Let's just review
what happened:

1. Andy claims that Random House definition is wrong.  Check.
2. Charles looks up the definition in his Websters.  Check.
3. Charles discovers that Websters gives the same definition as Random
   House.  Check.
4. Charles concludes that Andy is right and Random House is wrong.  Whee!

Hey Charles, you do realise that you could have saved yourself the
bother of actually opening the dictionary?  If the dictionary had
agreed with Andy, you would have concluded that he was right.  It
didn't agree with him, but still you concluded that he was right.
Notice that what the dictionary actually says is irrelevant to your
conclusion that Andy is right.  So don't just stop with Webster's --
you can cite every dictionary that you *haven't* looked at  in your
proof that Andy is right.  

> Could it be because it's definition is is not unique, or widely accepted?...

Gee, when you opened up the dictionary at the S's, I think you should
have looked up "slang" instead of "Saturday Night Special" (we already
know that you were wasting your time when you looked up SNS).  Since
"slang" does not mean that the definition is not unique or widely
accepted, the answer to your question is NO.

> Does "cheap" mean "shoddy", or "inexpensive"?

> An interesting point is that when they were banning import of "Saturday
> Night Specials", one of them included in the list was the Walther PPK.
> Now there is nothing *SHODDY* about Walther's manufacture, and they make
> some very fine hardware; Likewise, there is nothing *INEXPENSIVE* about
> a Walther, either.  They were generally some of the most expensive pistols
> on the market.  Nor was the PPK "readily available"; It was quite popular
> (as fine equipment tends to be), and getting delivery was difficult.  I
> can only assume that the PPK's *CRIME* was that it is "small and easily
> concealable".

Since you claim that a SNS is a handgun used by a black, this is
irrelevant.  Now if you could demonstrate that Walther PPKs were owned
exclusively by blacks, you would be on to something.

> Now, Tim, what exactly is a "Saturday Night Special"?...

a cheap, small caliber handgun that is easily obtainable

Tim