Comment on dictionary batting averages

Being that there are control-freak, dictionary-loving, CEO-worshiping but almost otherwise useless individuals hanging around some of these newsgroups, I thought I'd share another beautiful-example-recent-finding in my 2" thick, hardback, 1724 page, Websters New World (collegiat edition) Dictionary (from my college days, starting 1962):

page 687:

Hindu:....2. a follower of Hinduism

Hinduism: the religion and social system of the Hindus....

Beautiful example of using a word in the definition of that word, and an example showing and proving the almost total uselessness of a dictionary.

For all of my life, I would say that the use of a dictionary to satisfy my curiosity about how one authority defines words (keeping in mind that there are many authorities and authoritative sources for what a word means and-or how it should be defined eg. slang dictionaries), has failed me in at least 50% of the times that I was attempting to learn something about the meaning of a word. Outside of that, dictionaries might be useful in determining the correct spelling of a word. My dictionary, for example, says that the word "develop" can also be (legally) spelled "develope." Another person I know, insists that "develope" is incorrect.

Now, lets go back to some of those dictionary-loving, CEO-worshiping toads that can be found on some newsgroups. OH.....excuse me.... we need a definition for "toad" don't we? Just to make sure I had the right definition (I thought I knew, but I decided to check for sure), I looked that up, too. Here is what I found (on page 1530):

toad, ...2. a person regarded as loathsome, contemptible, etc I'll take that "etc" and suggest that "dictionary-loving, CEO-worshiping" be included. And, just to remove all doubt, I absolutely did not mean that category of little, large rear footed, frog-like amphibians that can be found in various places.

And, what are toads good for? Oh, they may "croak" and "chirp" once in a while, just as you would expect, eh?