from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
- n. A fanatically committed person.
- n. A member of a Jewish movement of the first century A.D. that fought against Roman rule in Palestine as incompatible with strict monotheism.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. One who is zealous, one who is full of zeal for his own specific beliefs or objectives, usually in the negative sense of being too passionate; a fanatic
- n. A member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent in the first century, who advocated the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisted the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to convert the Jews.
- n. A member of an anti-aristocratic political group in Thessalonica from 1342 until 1350.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. One who is zealous or full of zeal; one carried away by excess of zeal; an immoderate partizan: generally in a disparaging sense.
- n. [capitalized] One of a fanatical sect or party (the Zelotæ) among the Jews of Palestine under Roman dominion, who on account of their excesses in behalf of the Mosaic law were also called Sicarii or Assassins.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. a fervent and even militant proponent of something
- n. a member of an ancient Jewish sect in Judea in the first century who fought to the death against the Romans and who killed or persecuted Jews who collaborated with the Romans
At some level, a zealot is a zealot and love of a property can also lead to discussions online that could be interpreted as “spirited debate”, but usually come across more as “psychotic ravings mixed with threats of grisly murder.”
GOI demostrates that a zealot is a zealot no matter what they claim as their ‘affiliation’.
However, as I said, this was not my business, and besides, I learned a long time ago that arguing with a zealot is like arguing with a brick wall: it doesn't matter what you say, it's going to remain the same as it was when you started, impassive and unchanged.
For a zealot from the other side of the political spectrum, I might suggest reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
This religious zealot is intent on only one thing: punishing women and trying to keep them “in their place”
[A] ccepting at face value documents without a verifiable provenance that come from the hand of a known partisan zealot is not typical journalistic behavior.
On the other hand, accepting at face value documents without a verifiable provenance that come from the hand of a known partisan zealot is not typical journalistic behavior.
Second, anybody who's a privacy zealot is not gonna be able to get behind the whole Clear thing.
The judge, clearly no law-and-order zealot, is quoted as saying, I was brought up in the era of Just William.
Far worse than a misguided zealot is the moral coward who says nothing and allows that zealotry to do real harm. continue reading ...