Tom Knapp wrote: TK) The ACTUAL entry, as opposed to your context-stripped excerpt, includes no fewer than four references to the governmental origin and meaning of the term -- two to "officials" and two to "magistrates" (TK
I've never denied that the noun "censor" can be used to describe a government force-initiator. You, however, have denied that it can describe anyone else. That's just silly. You're quoting the entry for the noun "censor", I'm talking about the verb derived from it. The entirety of the M-W entry for the verb is: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>" The fact remains that a textual substitition of either of these two definitions for how I used the verb "censor" retains the meaning I intended. It's just laughable to call me "petty, trite and deceptive" for using a word as shorthand for the exact phrase that M-W uses to define it. Case closed. P.S. Note that even the M-W noun definition supports my usage: "an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter". A moderator of LPradicals is obviously "an official" of the group. Again, you've quoted precisely nothing to support your contention that the word "censor" can only connote government force initiation.
