Hell, the online dictionaries are all separated by entry for this exact reason. You're not really expected to "leaf through" the thing like you would in a science book.

You disagreed with my comment that dictionaries can't be used for that. I explained further why, and how. If you, in any way, hold the opinion that a dictionary is useful in this regard, which you do, then I think I argued against an opinion you hold. If you don't want to talk here, please email me.

With the books, you can easily flip through and find what you're looking for.

Here is the text.

http://pastebin.com/iuTQVPd2

I feel bad. Because I don't want to have this argument on the board I left out some information in the original post which seems to lead you to spend a lot of time building an argument against some positions and opinions that I don't hold.

Sorry.

Don't feel bad. By leaving a perceived spectrum of interpretation open in your words you allowed Funkmon the ability do the activities that allow him to be Funkmon. Without the occasional tangent into linguistic nuances, he may very well cease to be Funkmon. You allowed a pure expression of the Funkmon to exist.

I happen to agree with the thrust of his understanding of linguistics, but I always suspected he was waging a war against a perceived position, rather than an actual opponent.

Sorry.

You should look up "news" next. It's got words like "important" and "noteworthy." Those mean that games "journalism," when held up to real journalism (like I dunno the Pentagon Papers) don't reasonably qualify as journalism at all. Which was my point.

Feel free to look up "important" and "noteworthy" as well, if you're having trouble.

He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies.

They just used different words.

Also, Ctrl+F

*heh

Dictionaries with commentary sounds pretty damn cool, if space-consuming. On paper, I would hate them, but given our digital means, I want it everywhere.

You'd think the commentary would be nice on the PC, but the dictionary with the most commentary, the OED, it's much much worse than on paper.

Here's the OED entry for dog. The image is so large I literally cannot capture the entire webpage, so here's a video of me scrolling through it. If you change it to 720p at 60fps you can read it and pause as it goes.

This is what the top of that entry looks like.

But on paper, it's much simpler. I have a compact, earlier edition of the OED in only three volumes, down from the current 23 volumes, but the print is small.

Commentary on dog. Much more manageable.

They don't usually replace the dictionary entry for the word that has been shortened, unless it's been so long it doesn't even count anymore. An example is lord. Here is the etymology from the OED, though the entry is eight pages long.

Here is the OED entry for legit. First use: 1897.

Investigative reporting?

Come on.

I'll call it that the first time a game reviewer files a FOIA request.

So, only governmental reporting qualifies as investigative journalism? Why?
Also, why is limiting the scope of your investigation to only entities who are most easily compelled to cooperate with your investigation above the qualifying bar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism

"Investigative journalism is a form of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a single topic of interest, such as serious crimes, political corruption, or corporate wrongdoing."

I'd probably be willing to expand a definition a bit beyond that, but not much beyond.

At the very least, I'd consider public interest to be a prerequisite-- not the broad definition meaning "things the public express interest in" but the narrow definition, in terms of "things the public has a right to know" because it affects them.

Consumer fraud, labor disputes, debates about violence and sexism, these things might potentially apply.

Whether or not a game deserved a 7/10 doesn't.

Rushing to get the "scoop" on a 7 week delay for a game that's been in development for years so that you get the clicks instead of somebody else... that's not investigative journalism even if you use the procedures of that form to get your information.

I want to punch babies every time I heard someone say "legit,"

Oops...

and I think I nearly blacked out the few times I've heard someone say "legitly."

o_O

I'm specifically thinking of the word legitimate. I want to punch babies every time I hear someone say "legit," and I think I nearly blacked out the few times I've heard someone say "legitly."