From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:17:06 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15034420@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

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

No, that isn't the entire definition, but it *is* the most important
clause in the definition, because that means that the "definition" is
*NOT* widely accepted!

> 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.

And you'll be wrong, because Webter's Dictionary does differ from
the Random House definition.

> Let's just review what happened:
> 
> 1. Andy claims that Random House definition is wrong.  Check.

Check.

> 2. Charles looks up the definition in his Websters.  Check.

Check.

> 3. Charles discovers that Websters gives the same definition as Random
>    House.  Check.

Interesting...  That wasn't what I found.  The definition someone posted
from Random House was:

>>  The 1984 (latest edition) of the Random House dictionary defines
>> Saturday Night Special as "a cheap, small caliber handgun that is
>> easily obtainable" of whiich there are many around. 

Webster's: "[From their use in weekend crime] and small, cheap,
            short-barreled handgun that is readily available [SLANG]"

No mention of small caliber there...  And Webster's points out that
the definition is considered *slang*.  True, they didn't mention
"niggers", but then that would be politically incorrect to claim
that was the origin of the definition.

> 4. Charles concludes that Andy is right and Random House is wrong.  Whee!

Andy is correct, as the definition is not widely accepted.

> Hey Charles, you do realise that you could have saved yourself the
> bother of actually opening the dictionary?

Gee, Tim, you could have saved yourself the bother by *actually opening*
the dictionary!

> 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.

False, the Webster's says it's *slang*, and any such definition is
not widely accepted; The conclusion that can then be drawn is that
Random House is wrong, since they have claimed the definition *is*
accepted (it can't be construed as widely accepted if Webster's
doesn't accept it).

> 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.

Feel free to knock yourself out.  The definition is slang, and is
not widely accepted.

> > 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).

That is true, it was a waste of time to look up SNS since you will
insist you are correct, in spite of the facts.

> Since
> "slang" does not mean that the definition is not unique or widely
> accepted, the answer to your question is NO.

The answer is YES.

Webster's:

slang: [1) and 2) refer to jargon, and shop talk]
  "3) colloquial language that is outside of conventional or standard
   usage and consists of both coined words and those with new or extended
   meaings: slang ... generally either passes into disuse or comes to have
   a more formal status."

Words with non-conventional or non-standard meanings are words whose
meanings are not widely accepted.

> > 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

Nope, I didn't claim that.  You should try to keep your facts straight.
We know it's easier to demolish your opponent's stance if you can put
words in their mouth, but I suggest you address the issue I presented.

I agreed with Andy's point about Random House being wrong.  I didn't
necessarily agree to SNS's only being used by "niggers".

> irrelevant.  Now if you could demonstrate that Walther PPKs were owned
> exclusively by blacks, you would be on to something.

No, it not irrelevent, since my issue said nothing about ownership
of PPK's by blacks.  My point was that people *EXACTLY* like you
make definitions for "Saturday Night Special", claim they're widely
accepted definitions, and then ban certain firearms (including the
PPK) based on *your* interpretation of that definition.

The PPK fits under neither Random House's defintion, nor Webster's,
yet it was banned as a SNS.

> > Now, Tim, what exactly is a "Saturday Night Special"?...
> 
> a cheap, small caliber handgun that is easily obtainable

Define "cheap", define "small caliber", and define "easily obtainable".

You have provided no definition whatsoever.  All three clauses are
relative to some undefined scale.  If you want to ban weapons of this
type, you had better be able to give a better definition than that.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns