Talk:Three Witnesses (book)

message: I'm preparing new copy for this collection's stories, and I've run across the word "daddled" in the edition I own. Unfortunately, it is the Bantam paperback edition, and that series is known for its typos, perhaps induced by OCR software. I'm asking for help: does anyone reading this have a better, more trustworthy edition? The word appears near the end of chapter 2 of The Next Witness, when Wolfe is talking to Bella Velardi. She says, according to my copy of the book, "But she was so daddled on Robina Keane --" 
No source is much help for the meaning of "daddled." My unabridged says that it's merely the p.p. of daddle, meaning to totter or move slowly. My SOED adds another, similar "daddle," described as long obscure except in dialect, and meaning to quiver or tremble. That barely makes sense in the context of the story. I can't come up with a plausible alternative (coddled? muddled? dabbled? -- no.) and am hoping for some assistance. As of now, it would have to go in The Really Unfamiliar Word section. TurnerHodges (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Daddled she was, in my first edition, p. 26 — it's exactly the same. On daddled, your sources are better than mine; my American Heritage jumps from "Dada" to "daddy," but then again it doesn't have the vocabulary of a Bella Velardi. Marie quivering or trembling when it comes to Robina Keane makes sense to me, though. — WFinch (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, WFinch. First edition, eh? Well, your sources are better than mine. (I agree that quivering or trembling makes some sense, but I still think it's a stretch.) TurnerHodges (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Wait, wait. What about "dazzled"? That would make real sense, except (a) the preposition's wrong, and (b) I wouldn't expect a first edition typo to survive intact for 40 years. Oh, well -- TurnerHodges (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a first edition, but is it a first printing... No, seriously, I think the word is daddled. This excellent source, now, is something I picked up for s song in 2002, before I even had the sense to appreciate what a first edition is. I was just happy to find a hardcover. — WFinch (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Daddled?

message: Today's highhanded removal of nonfree images (soi disant) from the Three Witnesses article highlights just one of the innumerable and ridiculous problems with Wikipedia: the liberal use of personal judgment in the application of supposedly objective rules. The editor who removed the images commented that the images represented "excessive" use of nonfree images. By whose lights? The use of the images is either proper or improper under Wikipedia's rules. If it's proper, it's irrelevant whether the use is excessive and the images should stay unless other, relevant grounds exist. If it's improper, even the slightest use is grounds for removal. Where does the editor get the standing to remove in a minute or so contributions that were made in good faith, with great care, with a conscientious observance of the applicable copyright laws, and which uncounted readers have for several years found unobjectionable?
When you do that, Mr. Editor, you bring about the loss of valuable contributors -- people whose value is unquestionably and almost immeasurably greater than yours. May you take solace in your silly badges. TurnerHodges (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Excessive Use of Nonfree Images"