Emails defending words on the list usually make one of several arguments that are true but not reason to remove them. Please review these before you start typing:
1. It's a foreign word that has nuances not captured by the listed
synonym.
Rebuttal: Those nuances are only known to those very familiar with the language
in question; it's lost on the rest of us. I've had lots of people defend tsuris
and seppuku in particular, and they've written passionately about why they mean
more than just trouble or suicide. For Yiddish and Japanese speakers that's
true, but for better or worse the extra meaning didn't survive the jump to
English. I use
http://dictionary.reference.com for quick reference online and go on the
assumption that if the sources there don't have it then your average dictionary
doesn't have it and your typical reader won't learn it by consulting one.
2. It's a non-pompous technical word in some specialized field.
Rebuttal: Keep it in that field. I first got this argument about amygdala, and
people rightly pointed out that it describes a part of the brain that controls
emotion. It's necessary for people studying the brain to label and define
different parts of it and their doing so is a part of their work. Fair enough.
However, for someone to grab something like that and present it to a general
audience is extremely pompous because it assumes everyone is familiar with the
geography of the brain. Joe Scientist using "amygdala"
in JAMA is one thing, William Safire using it in an Op-Ed column is another.
3. You don't give a synonym for it!
Rebuttal: There's another way of saying it that means the same thing. Some
people argued against "prelapsarian" being on the list for this reason, but with
a slightly different construction you could mention Eden instead and everyone
would understand.
4. It's an English word that has nuances not captured by the listed
synonym.
Rebuttal: You're wrong and I'm right. I asked
for some British feedback on "shambolic" and here is what I got from Mark
Severs:
Speaking as a native user of British English, your online reference gets it right in saying that the word is derived from "shambles". In common British use, a shambles is quite distinct from chaos, so "chaotic" is not a synonym of "shambolic". There is an element of intent implied by "shambolic"; something a person does, whether they are a president of a schoolboy, might be described as "shambolic" if the situation is one where the offender "could do better". It suggests a situation that is very familiar to us on the eastern side of the pond: the "familiar English muddle". Chaos, on the other hand, and things described as "chaotic", might better be used to refer to situations that have descended into some kind of mess of their own accord.
For example, a garden that has been planned, badly laid out and badly executed might be "shambolic". A garden left unattended for a few years might be "chaotic".
In my opinion, the beauty of the English language, a beauty missing in languages that are less messy, is that there are many words to describe every individual thing. Not only does this produce masses of elbow room for poets, but it sort of allows the allocation of related words separately to fit subtly varying situations. My favourite example of this is the set of words wrath, anger, ire and fury. They appear to be synonyms, but they aren't, not quite; they are just a teensy-weensy bit different.
It follows that the outcome of Bush's foreign policy might be described as "shambolic". It would be even better to describe the policy itself as shambolic, but that's splitting hairs.
My response the "teensy-weensy bit different" point is, how can
a reader know about those differences if they aren't in a dictionary? I think
it's completely valid to say a dictionary isn't meant to spell out everything in
excruciating detail, or that there's a "literary definition", or
definitions/subtleties/etc. that can only be learned by encountering them
multiple times when used with such intent. That opens up its own can of worms
though, namely: What then is the difference between a dictionary and a
thesaurus? And to really go overboard, how do people create meaning? What's gone
on over the years in the UK for shambolic to have acquired that specific
meaning, how did people first start using it with that intention, and how did it
reach a critical mass where well-read people could be assumed to know it even
though it never got spelled out in dictionaries?
That said, I think it's fair to say there are shadings in subtleties in
some words that you can only get by being a dedicated reader. The difference
between that and a PAW is probably a judgment call in most cases, but in case
you hadn't noticed this entire site is one big judgment call.