I’m pretty sure the Chicago Tribune’s sense of the word “historically” is different than mine.

Via YesButNoButYes.

Well, the tyranny of the dictionary is over! Behold:

See that little question mark? Now, in order to access the useless dictionary, you have to intentionally click on that question mark. This means I can once again highlight text on the NYTimes without fear. My life has been returned to me!

Thank you New York Times web editors, you must have gotten my letter!

* porkies = pork pies = lies
* apples = apples and pears = stairs
* Barnet = Barnet Fair = hair
* brass = brass nail = “tail” = prostitute
* bristols = Bristol Cities = titties = breasts
* dog = dog and bone = telephone
* jam = jam jar = car
* water = water bottle = throttle
* china = china plate = mate
* pony = pony and trap = crap
* saucepan = saucepan lid = kid
* frog = frog and toad = road
* Rosie = Rosie Lee = tea/gypsy
* Ruby = Ruby Murray = Curry
* J. Arthur = J. Arthur Rank = bank/wank
* trouble = trouble and strife = wife
* Tom = Tom Tit = shit
* tom = tomfoolery = jewellery
* skin = skin and blister = sister
* Listerine = Anti Septic = Septic Tank = Yank = American (From The U.S.A.)

There really was no way to figure this out on your own.

Realistically, the best way too go about doing this would be to partner with a pre-existing, well established and long-published dictionary. The OED, for example, has been publishing since the 19th Century and would make a perfect source work. You’d type in a word, get their current definition, as well as every definition they’ve published in the last 150 years.

You could even do a fair amount of this work without permission. Works published prior to 1923 in the US are in the public domain and can be freely republished. Someone should start with the OED’s first edition, and digitize every version through 1923. While the OED only goes back to the mid 19th Century, other dictionaries go back even farther, and they could be added to run back as far as English words have been defined (since 1604).

Am I the only person who thinks this would be interesting and useful? Is there already a way to do this that I’m unaware of?

Save the Wig! “Various types have been threatening to abolish barristers’ wigs for decades. But to my dismay, I learned last night that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has resolved to abolish wigs in all civil courts in England and Wales. Voice your opposition.”

Perhaps those in opposition to wig abolishment want to ensure they continue to be recognized as barristers rather than solicitors, for reasons set forth by the next group.

“Barristers are better than solicitors in every conceivable way” group. “On the one hand you have barristers- dashing, glamorous, obscenely intelligent and effortlessly classy. Daily they stride forth, fearless and proud, to fight tirelessly for justice, freedom and the underdog, while nobly robed in wig and gown, which may be archaic, yet remain oddly alluring. The pitiful masses can only gaze in admiration as counsel hoist aloft their verbal lances, and engage in their rhetorical joust, intent only on victory (and on getting the £50 fee for some shitty bail application).

And on the other side you have solicitors- squinty eyed, sallow skinned desk monkeys. Clothed in their cheap, sensible suits, boasting less charisma than a volume of the white book, and more often than not impotent. Essentially glorified secretaries, these bastards still for reasons unbeknown to any reasonable man receive sickeningly generous training contracts, before starting work on a salary which would give the average pupil a wet dream. But this is clearly only a comfort blanket, a pathetic attempt to numb the awe and envy we know they all feel for their glorious legal brethren at the Bar.”

Thanks Lorelei.

Mineola, about 80 miles east of Dallas, is a close-knit, conservative bean-processing town of with more than 30 churches. Residents there want to put the scandal behind them as quickly as possible.

Is “bean-processing” a euphemism? Like being a bean-counter?