Gideon,
My point about "laxicographer" is that if this source didn't even bother to run a spelling checker (and not a "spell checker" as that must be something that checks spells), then how can this person be trusted about anything? Obviously not a person paying attention to detail.
As far as pleonastic,seems to me you're making something out of nothing. If flammable and inflammable can be used to mean the same thing when famous and infamous don't then I can certainly forgive a little redundancy. After all, that is what "very" is. It is a word used to reinforce the meaning of the sentence. Things are "true" or not. How can they be "very true?" Further "very" comes to us from the Latin, "verus," meaning "true." It's use then with the words true and false then (and I am sure many others, if not all others) would be a redundancy.
So, while the use of reticent bothers you, and you are welcome to that, it doesn't bother me.
SNOTTY COMMENT TO FOLLOW: And if your source of information is this guy who can't check his spelling -- and you're going to compare him to the OED -- then he simply loses hands down. No serious lexicographer or linguist would go against the OED. And if you're going to reject the OED, then get started writing your own -- and don't start with the laxicographer guy.
Now, an apology for the snide comment. No offense meant. I am just being a jerk.
Barry