Fox News writers forced to use "homicide bomber"?
John Doe
The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
about being forced to use it. Just curious.
--
My big wheel in-line street skates (a.k.a. rollerblades).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2565924423/
Google Groups is destroying the USENET archive,
to hell with Google.
Cece
> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
> the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
> bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
> about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>
> --
> Google Groups is destroying the USENET archive,
> to hell with Google.
All the terms sound inefficient. Personally, I think "murdering
bastard" fits pretty well. So does "fanatic creep." Other publishers
have decreed, from time to time, strange and wondrous phrases that
don't really fit the facts, that don't actually describe the item the
phrase is for. The last time I noticed such, it was the Times, but I
don't remember if it was the New York or the London, and I don't
remember the phrase.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
>the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
>bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
>about being forced to use it. Just curious.
Is "homicide bomber" used to stress that the purpose of the bomb
and bomber is to kill people other than the bomber?
The phrase moves the emphasis from the self-destruction of the
bomber to the destruction of other, often innocent
non-combatant, people.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Adrian Bailey
news:o6o9849rnhtn9sieo...@4ax.com...
No, it's just silly. It's a tautology.
Adrian
John Doe
> John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>> where the directive comes from, for using that term instead of
>> "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the
>> writers feel about being forced to use it. Just curious.
> All the terms sound inefficient. Personally, I think "murdering
> bastard" fits pretty well. So does "fanatic creep."
I do not believe you or almost anyone working for Fox News would be
willing to take the bomb if given the opportunity. How much better
are you than the dead "evil person" you are wagging your head at?
> Other publishers have decreed, from time to time, strange and
> wondrous phrases that don't really fit the facts, that don't
> actually describe the item the phrase is for.
The abuse by Fox News is persistent, not an isolated instance.
mm
wrote:
>Cece <ceceliaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>>> where the directive comes from, for using that term instead of
>>> "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the
>>> writers feel about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>
>> All the terms sound inefficient. Personally, I think "murdering
>> bastard" fits pretty well. So does "fanatic creep."
>
>I do not believe you or almost anyone working for Fox News would be
>willing to take the bomb if given the opportunity.
Take it where? To kill people? No, none of them would.
>How much better
>are you than the dead "evil person" you are wagging your head at?
Cece is much much much better. She's not a murderer.
>> Other publishers have decreed, from time to time, strange and
>> wondrous phrases that don't really fit the facts, that don't
>> actually describe the item the phrase is for.
>
>The abuse by Fox News is persistent, not an isolated instance.
>
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
It is a tautology in most situations. However, I was commenting
from my experience in Northern Ireland where the majority, but
certainly not all, of terrorist bombings were attacks on
property rather than on people.
Such bombings were not intended as homicides. Advance warnings
were given so that people could get to safety.
Irish terrorist groups did not use suicide bombers. I can't
think of any property targets that would have been worth the
life of one even if they had.
Skitt
> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
> the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
> bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
> about being forced to use it. Just curious.
Is Fox News still doing it? They started that in 2002, as I recall.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Glenn Knickerbocker
> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
> the directive comes from,
Uh, this is six-year-old news (and Fox and the New York Post took the
term straight from the mouth of Ari Fleischer). What I missed three
years ago, though, was that not only did they make the change in their
own writing, they also alter third-party stories and even direct quotes
without any editorial notation.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230006
A quick search on "homicide bomber" "associated press" shows that the
alteration is still going on. Compare:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C381393%2C00.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8dGftYb0s4XWdUMRdIVs3vh1CKAD91T13GO0
ŹR
Django Cat
>>>
>>> The phrase moves the emphasis from the self-destruction of the
>>> bomber to the destruction of other, often innocent
>>> non-combatant, people.
>>
>>No, it's just silly. It's a tautology.
>>
>It is a tautology in most situations. However, I was commenting
>from my experience in Northern Ireland where the majority, but
>certainly not all, of terrorist bombings were attacks on
>property rather than on people.
>
Ah. OK, right. So all those years, there really wasn't anything to be worried
about. Silly me.
DC
--
Django Cat
>
You might be thinking of 'grief rider', which some papers attempted to get used
instead of 'joy rider'.
DC
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
There was plenty to be worried about, but it was still the case
that the majority of bombings were targeted at property not
people. The IRA had a declared policy of attacking what they
called "economic targets". They also attacked police officers,
soldiers and politicians, as well as members of their own
communities who "stepped out of line". IRA bomb attacks on
targets on the UK mainland were different. They were
deliberately lethal.
Figures for Northern Ireland in 1972 - the year with the most
bombings:
Explosions: 1,382
Killed in explosions: 143
(Data from _Northern Ireland, A Political Directory, by
W.D.Flacks.)
The IRA and other "organisations"[1] used firearms as well as
bombs. Shootings were normally intended to be lethal.
[1] One had to be careful how one used the word "organisation".
In many contexts it might be assumed to be a euphemism for a
terrorist group.
mm
wrote:
How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists "militants"?
They should be ashamed of themselves.
John Doe
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:48:58 GMT, John Doe <jdoe
> usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Cece <ceceliaarmstrong yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>>>> where the directive comes from, for using that term instead of
>>>> "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the
>>>> writers feel about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>>
>>> All the terms sound inefficient. Personally, I think "murdering
>>> bastard" fits pretty well. So does "fanatic creep."
>>
>>I do not believe you or almost anyone working for Fox News would
>>be willing to take the bomb if given the opportunity.
>
> Take it where?
I'm sure you would have it taken anywhere you aren't.
So you've never heard the expression "take a bullet" or similar.
> To kill people?
Yeah, like you intentionally do with a "smart bomb" and call it
"collateral damage". It's okay because you can't see it happening
and it doesn't affect you personally. You incorrectly think your
hands are clean.
--
My big wheel in-line street skates (a.k.a. rollerblades).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210 N04/2565924423/
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>> where the directive comes from,
>
> Uh, this is six-year-old news
That it's been going on for six years is current news.
It's like a continuous reminder of their bias.
> (and Fox and the New York Post took the term straight from the
> mouth of Ari Fleischer).
Well that's no surprise.
I just looked up the term in the USENET archive, Google has it going
back to my original post here in this thread. Oh well.
mm
<No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>John Doe wrote:
>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
>> the directive comes from,
>
>Uh, this is six-year-old news (and Fox and the New York Post took the
>term straight from the mouth of Ari Fleischer). What I missed three
>years ago, though, was that not only did they make the change in their
>own writing, they also alter third-party stories and even direct quotes
>without any editorial notation.
If so, that's terrible.
Did you hear about the Christian website that changed words in what I
think was an autmatic feed from the AP? The one that referred to
"Homosexual sets track record" or whatever Mr. Gay did.
Did they give a notation that they were changing the text of AP
stories?
If I were running the AP, I don't know if I would agree to that, and
certainly not unless they gave a list of every word they changed and
what they changed it to. I really doubt they did that.
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230006
>
>A quick search on "homicide bomber" "associated press" shows that the
>alteration is still going on. Compare:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C381393%2C00.html
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8dGftYb0s4XWdUMRdIVs3vh1CKAD91T13GO0
I'll do it after dinner.
>ŹR
John Doe
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:24:26 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>>> where the directive comes from, for using that term instead of
>>> "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the
>>> writers feel about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>>
>>Is Fox News still doing it? They started that in 2002, as I
>>recall.
>
> How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists
> "militants"?
>
> They should be ashamed of themselves.
So you think our enemies could care less about what you call them.
That is the same sort of naïve not quite grown up bumbling mindset
that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Raymond O'Hara
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:2O4hk.13045$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
> the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
> bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
> about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>
The term originated with Israelis who felt that "suicide bomber" didn't get
the point they want across to western news outlets.
They fail to understand a mucker who will kill himself to get you scares
people more than a regular murderer.
Faux news being the Neo-Con voice has accepted the term.
mm
wrote:
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:24:26 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>John Doe wrote:
>>>
>>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>>>> where the directive comes from, for using that term instead of
>>>> "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the
>>>> writers feel about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>>>
>>>Is Fox News still doing it? They started that in 2002, as I
>>>recall.
>>
>> How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists
>> "militants"?
>>
>> They should be ashamed of themselves.
>
>So you think our enemies could care less about what you call them.
Your sentence is ambiguous and also, you should end it with a question
mark. You don't know what I think.
>That is the same sort of naïve not quite grown up bumbling mindset
>that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Whose mindset are you talking about? You don't seem to know much
about mine.
mm
wrote:
>mm <NOPSAMmm2005 bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:48:58 GMT, John Doe <jdoe
>> usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Cece <ceceliaarmstrong yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>>>>> where the directive comes from, for using that term instead of
>>>>> "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the
>>>>> writers feel about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>>>
>>>> All the terms sound inefficient. Personally, I think "murdering
>>>> bastard" fits pretty well. So does "fanatic creep."
>>>
>>>I do not believe you or almost anyone working for Fox News would
>>>be willing to take the bomb if given the opportunity.
>>
>> Take it where?
>
>I'm sure you would have it taken anywhere you aren't.
>
>So you've never heard the expression "take a bullet" or similar.
I've heard loads of expressions including that one. I've never heard
anyone say "take the bomb" in a similar way to "take a bullet".
Why not just explain yourself instead of trying to convince someone
that you should have been understood?
>
>> To kill people?
>
>Yeah, like you intentionally do with a "smart bomb" and call it
Who does "you" refer to? I've never set off a bomb bigger than a
firecracker.
>"collateral damage". It's okay because you can't see it happening
>and it doesn't affect you personally. You incorrectly think your
>hands are clean.
Again (see post further down) you know nothing about what I think.
But I know that in your previous post you compared Cece to a murderer
and then rather than apologize, you just snipped that part of my post
and your post when you replied.
When you behave like this, all of this, you're not a very good
proponent for your cause.
Garrett Wollman
mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists "militants"?
None that I'm aware of. In journalism -- at least on this side of the
pond -- there is this strange notion that one may not assume that the
subjects of an article are guilty of a crime until they are actually
convicted. So they call militants "militants", accused terrorists
"accused terrorists", and convicted terrorists "terrorists" -- if
they're honest. And of course most of the "militants" we hear about
in the U.S. are actually irregular fighters targeting military
targets, which are by definition not terrorists.
Strangely enough, individuals and groups do have more than one goal
and more than one identity. Dick Cheney is both Vice-President of the
United States and President of the Senate, but nobody calls him
"Mr. President" except when he is actually presiding over that
chamber, where the rules require that members address all floor debate
to the presiding officer. (This happens only very rarely.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
John Doe
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:16:27 GMT, John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:24:26 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Doe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>>>>> where the directive comes from, for using that term instead of
>>>>> "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the
>>>>> writers feel about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>>>>
>>>>Is Fox News still doing it? They started that in 2002, as I
>>>>recall.
>>>
>>> How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists
>>> "militants"?
>>>
>>> They should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>>So you think our enemies could care less about what you call them.
>
> Your sentence is ambiguous
Okay, fine, so what if somebody sticks a grenade up your ass?
> and also, you should end it with a question
> mark. You don't know what I think.
>
>>That is the same sort of naïve not quite grown up bumbling mindset
>>that got us into Iraq in the first place.
>
> Whose mindset are you talking about?
How many stupid questions can you ask in one thread?
> You don't seem to know much about mine.
Sure I do. You are evasive and basically full of it.
John Doe
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:54:08 GMT, John Doe
> <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>mm <NOPSAMmm2005 bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:48:58 GMT, John Doe <jdoe
>>> usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Cece <ceceliaarmstrong yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I
>>>>>> wonder where the directive comes from, for using that term
>>>>>> instead of "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from
>>>>>> management, how do the writers feel about being forced to use
>>>>>> it. Just curious.
>>>>
>>>>> All the terms sound inefficient. Personally, I think
>>>>> "murdering bastard" fits pretty well. So does "fanatic
>>>>> creep."
>>>>
>>>>I do not believe you or almost anyone working for Fox News would
>>>>be willing to take the bomb if given the opportunity.
>>>
>>> Take it where?
>>
>>I'm sure you would have it taken anywhere you aren't.
>>
>>So you've never heard the expression "take a bullet" or similar.
>
> I've heard loads of expressions
Of course you are playing ignorant.
>>> To kill people?
>>
>>Yeah, like you intentionally do with a "smart bomb" and call it
>
> Who does "you" refer to?
How many stupid questions can you ask in a single thread?
> I've never set off a bomb bigger than a firecracker.
Has anybody ever stuck a firecracker up your ass?
>>"collateral damage". It's okay because you can't see it happening
>>and it doesn't affect you personally. You incorrectly think your
>>hands are clean.
>
> Again (see post further down) you know nothing about what I think.
Not if you are a chronic liar.
> But I know that in your previous post you compared Cece to a
> murderer and then rather than apologize, you just snipped that
> part of my post and your post when you replied.
Awww, poor baby. Then don't play armchair warmonger.
> When you behave like this, all of this, you're not a very good
> proponent for your cause.
My cause is to shed light on Fox News lousy English. They don't need
obviously perverted language to constantly remind occasional viewers
of how biased they are.
--
My big wheel in-line street skates (a.k.a. rollerblades).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2565924423/
mm
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <301a84p1r90qb5oem...@4ax.com>,
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists "militants"?
>
>None that I'm aware of. In journalism -- at least on this side of the
>pond
Which side is that? I'm in the US.
>-- there is this strange notion that one may not assume that the
>subjects of an article are guilty of a crime until they are actually
>convicted.
You're loooking at it from the point of view of an identified person.
Look at it from the pov of a violent acts. For example, of a ssries
of bombings on the same day in London or Madrid or a series of letters
including anthrax sent to public officials. At some point, American
tv stations, and some magazine writers, and maybe radio and newspapers
but I havent' noticed, started calling those who did such things
militants, not terrorists.
I would name the World Trade Center, but I think at that time and
maybe still those people were called terrorists.
>So they call militants "militants", accused terrorists
>"accused terrorists", and convicted terrorists "terrorists" -- if
>they're honest. And of course most of the "militants" we hear about
>in the U.S. are actually irregular fighters targeting military
>targets, which are by definition not terrorists.
I'm not talking about those with military targets.
>Strangely enough, individuals and groups do have more than one goal
>and more than one identity. Dick Cheney is both Vice-President of the
>United States and President of the Senate, but nobody calls him
>"Mr. President" except when he is actually presiding over that
>chamber, where the rules require that members address all floor debate
>to the presiding officer. (This happens only very rarely.)
>
>-GAWollman
mm
wrote:
Kerplunk
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:11:51 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
>(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
>>In article <301a84p1r90qb5oem...@4ax.com>,
>>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists "militants"?
>>
>>None that I'm aware of. In journalism -- at least on this side of the
>>pond
>
>Which side is that? I'm in the US.
Garrett's sig should give you some indication of that.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Doe
> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>there is this strange notion that one may not assume that the
>>subjects of an article are guilty of a crime until they are
>>actually convicted.
>
> You're loooking at it from the point of view of an identified
> person.
That's almost always what's being talked about.
> Look at it from the pov of a violent acts.
> I'm not talking about those with military targets.
If you're killing people, don't expect them to play by your rules.
If your army is technically light years ahead of your enemy, if your
army is protecting itself and not protecting its civilians well
enough, don't be surprised if the enemy kills your civilians. Your
enemy is trying to hurt you, if that means killing "innocent"
civilians, that's what your enemy will do. In fact, civilians are
hardly innocent when they control the military and send it to go
kill other people. And then leaders whine about it. Besides, killing
civilians is killing civilians, even when going after enemy fighters
and calling it "collateral damage".
Not knowing that stuff is naďve IMO, and yet some of our leaders
speak as if they don't.
Steve Hayes
>
>The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
>the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
>bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
>about being forced to use it. Just curious.
I'm not sure why it would be "inefficient".
A homiside bomber sets off a bomb that kills people, rather than simply
damaging property.
A "suicide bomber" dies in the explosion when the bom is set off.
The crews of the US Airforce bombers that bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 were
homicide bombers -- they dropped bombs that killed people on the ground, but
were at a safe distance from the explosions themselves.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:24:26 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
>>> the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
>>> bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
>>> about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>>
>>Is Fox News still doing it? They started that in 2002, as I recall.
>
>How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists "militants"?
>
>They should be ashamed of themselves.
As should those who call militants terrorists.
the Omrud
I'm fairly certain that the 7/7 bombs in London remain the only suicide
attacks in Western Europe to date.
--
David
SW France
John Kane
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:44:14 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> >The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
> >the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
> >bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
> >about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>
> I'm not sure why it would be "inefficient".
>
> A homiside bomber sets off a bomb that kills people, rather than simply
> damaging property.
>
> A "suicide bomber" dies in the explosion when the bom is set off.
>
> The crews of the US Airforce bombers that bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 were
> homicide bombers -- they dropped bombs that killed people on the ground, but
> were at a safe distance from the explosions themselves.
It strikes me that in the context of a news story where people have
been killed by a bomber "homicide" is redundent. "Suicide" is not
since it states that the bomber killed himself/herself in the act.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
The UnInmate
"John Kane" <jrkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cc0dc86-7014-4eda...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
It strikes me that in the context of a news story where people have
been killed by a bomber "homicide" is redundent. "Suicide" is not
since it states that the bomber killed himself/herself in the act.
-------------------------------------------------------
Isn't "homicide" a technical legal term anyway, and one that applies
differently in different countries but always to domestic events? If a
foreign soldier kills a native with a bomb, he can be tried for war crimes,
but can he be tried for homicide in the same sense as a domestic burglar who
kills someone during burglary can? (Ugly sentence, I know, but no doubt
people understand it.)
The phrase "homicide bomber" sounds like propagandistic doublespeak purely
intended to displace the phrase "suicide bomber" for political reasons
having to do with licking the rear end of the U.S. government, which U.S.
"news" media are already expert at anyway.
John Doe
> "John Kane" <jrkr...@gmail.com> wrote
>> It strikes me that in the context of a news story where people
>> have been killed by a bomber "homicide" is redundent.
>> "Suicide" is not since it states that the bomber killed
>> himself/herself in the act.
<misquoting corrected>
> The phrase "homicide bomber" sounds like propagandistic
> doublespeak purely intended to displace the phrase "suicide
> bomber" for political reasons having to do with licking the rear
> end of the U.S. government, which U.S. "news" media are already
> expert at anyway.
Maybe, but you can't steal enough of our entertainment media.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Did you hear about the Christian website that changed words in what I
> think was an autmatic feed from the AP?
I have now. It was OneNewsNow.com and the headline about Tyson Gay
said: "Homosexual eases into 100 final at Olympic trials"
ŹR
CDB
> "The UnInmate" <relap...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
[fox paws]
>> The phrase "homicide bomber" sounds like propagandistic
>> doublespeak purely intended to displace the phrase "suicide
>> bomber" for political reasons having to do with licking the rear
>> end of the U.S. government, which U.S. "news" media are already
>> expert at anyway.
> Maybe, but you can't steal enough of our entertainment media.
For some values of "you". The crap is broadcast, but I certainly
don't watch it.
The UnInmate
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
> "The UnInmate" <relap...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> "John Kane" <jrkr...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> It strikes me that in the context of a news story where people
>>> have been killed by a bomber "homicide" is redundent.
>>> "Suicide" is not since it states that the bomber killed
>>> himself/herself in the act.
>
> <misquoting corrected>
>
>> The phrase "homicide bomber" sounds like propagandistic
>> doublespeak purely intended to displace the phrase "suicide
>> bomber" for political reasons having to do with licking the rear
>> end of the U.S. government, which U.S. "news" media are already
>> expert at anyway.
>
> Maybe, but you can't steal enough of our entertainment media.
Just as you can't steal enough Canadian-trained actors. Or writers, for that
matter, such as the Montreal product who started a novel with: "I am an
American, Chicago-born." (That's _Augie March_, and for the life of me I
can't remember the author's name, but it's a fact he spent a good chunk of
his childhood in Canada.)
The UnInmate
"Glenn Knickerbocker" <No...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:488659D8...@bestweb.net...
I think Gay should sue over that. To associate his name with a sexual
orientation is beyond crude and unconscionable. Hope the judge's award
bankrupts everyone associated with that website.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Isn't "homicide" a technical legal term anyway,
Yes -- although it's in common use well beyond legal environments --
and as a legal term it does not necessarily indicate a criminal
offense. In my experience (mostly on the civil side), the American
system of criminal law uses "homicide" to mean "the act of causing the
death of a human being." There can be innocent homicide, as when a
child runs suddenly into the street and is hit by a car and killed,
assuming it can be established that the driver was careful and alert
and could not have avoided the collision. There can be justifiable
homicide, as when one person holding another at gunpoint and
threatening to shoot is himself shot by the police (and possibly even
by a civilian in certain circumstances). There are various degrees
of negligent homicide, manslaughter, and murder. But those are
judgments imposed by a judge following a trial and verdict or a plea
of guilty. That's why the cops have homicide departments rather than,
say, murder departments. The offense isn't defined at the time
they're working.
To repeat, those are the legal definitions. The terms are commonly
used with other meanings in lay conversation and writing.
> and one that applies
> differently in different countries but always to domestic events?
Killing anyone anywhere is legally homicide.
> If a
> foreign soldier kills a native with a bomb, he can be tried for war crimes,
> but can he be tried for homicide in the same sense as a domestic burglar who
> kills someone during burglary can? (Ugly sentence, I know, but no doubt
> people understand it.)
Given that the legal system does not use "homicide" to define an
offense, the question is somewhat off the point. A soldier's kills
are ordinarily treated as justifiable homicide. If war doesn't
justify homicide, we'd have a lot more murderers in Iraq right now.
It is eminently possible to commit a criminal homicide of almost any
sort in the midst of wartime, but simply killing an enemy combatant is
not ipso facto a criminal offense -- it's what a soldier is supposed
to do.
> The phrase "homicide bomber" sounds like propagandistic doublespeak purely
> intended to displace the phrase "suicide bomber" for political reasons
> having to do with licking the rear end of the U.S. government, which U.S.
> "news" media are already expert at anyway.
Suicide bombers who kill others are committing homicide, and I don't
see any argument with the proposition that they're commiting criminal
offenses as well. But I agree that "suicide bomber" is more pointed.
It's implicit in the phrase "suicide bomber" that the offender intends
to take others with him or her. It's asymptotic to pure evil.
--
Bob Lieblich, AmEclectic
The foregoing is commentary and not legal advice
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Isn't "homicide" a technical legal term anyway, and one that applies
> differently in different countries but always to domestic events? If a
> foreign soldier kills a native with a bomb, he can be tried for war crimes,
> but can he be tried for homicide in the same sense as a domestic burglar who
> kills someone during burglary can? (Ugly sentence, I know, but no doubt
> people understand it.)
I don't think you can be "tried for homicide" in the US. A homicide
occurs whenever one person kills another, but the resulting
investigation may determine that it was accidental or justifiable.
Only in the cases in which it is deemed likely to have been illegal
will someone be charged, and then typically with "murder" or
"manslaughter".
I'm fairly certain that solders are charged with murder or
manslaughter when it's considered appropriate, but in war situations
they tend to get more leeway in terms of what's considered
justifiable or unavoidable.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
John Doe
Besides the massive amount of piracy (see non-English language
USENET binary groups), I have a good idea of how much other
countries watch our media through Internet TV (as a hobby from time
to time). Internet TV is streaming media that often times comes
straight from what Europeans and others are watching on their own
TVs.
mm
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:50:52 -0400, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:24:26 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Doe wrote:
>>>
>>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
>>>> the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
>>>> bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
>>>> about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>>>
>>>Is Fox News still doing it? They started that in 2002, as I recall.
>>
>>How many networks, newspapers, etc. now call terrorists "militants"?
>>
>>They should be ashamed of themselves.
>
>As should those who call militants terrorists.
I don't know anyone who does that.
Fred Springer
> Suicide bombers who kill others are committing homicide, and I don't
> see any argument with the proposition that they're commiting criminal
> offenses as well. But I agree that "suicide bomber" is more pointed.
> It's implicit in the phrase "suicide bomber" that the offender intends
> to take others with him or her. It's asymptotic to pure evil.
>
Could you put the last sentence into plainer English? I dimly remember
from school maths what an asymptotic curve is, and I've just checked my
recollection in various dictionaries, but precisely what you're trying
to say is still opaque to me.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I took "asymptotic to pure evil" to mean "approaching, but not
reaching, pure evil". There is some good in every person. No
person is totally evil. Bob's phrase acknowledges this point
while referring to the extreme evilness of the person's action.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Fred Springer
Curious. Why not just write "close to"? "Asymptotic" isn't a synonym of
"close to", it conveys an idea which is both more precise and more
complex: that of a gradual approach that never quite gets there. It's a
dynamic concept, rather than a static one, which doesn't seem to fit the
context of "pure evil". (Whatever "pure evil" is supposed to mean, to
open up an entirely different line for discussion.) A usage worthy of
the most obscurantist sort of academic, who will never use "power" if
"hegemony" will do, nor prefer "outrageous" to "egregious".
Leaving the choice of words to one side, I have to say I find the whole
statement indicative of a refusal to address the issue. Trying to
explain the phenomenon of suicide bombing by invoking the concept of
evil is lazy thinking.
My brother was arguably a suicide bomber and terrorist. He died during
WW2 on a bombing mission over Germany. He had already killed hundreds,
possibly thousands, of civilians, including women and children. He had
turned down a posting as an instructor to return to operations, and he
must have known that the probability of his survival was small: he was
already a statistical oddity for having survived one complete
operational tour. A suicidal decision, you might say. I was brought up
to regard him as a hero (though I'm not sure I now entirely go along
with that description) and I certainly don't believe that either he, or
the instigators of the civilian bombing campaign, Churchill and Harris,
were evil. For that matter, I don't think my family regarded the
Luftwaffe bomber crews who regularly tried to obliterate our house in
Coventry as evil either, though we were always very pleased when some of
them were shot down. The makeshift cross of salvaged roof timbers that
was rigged up in the ruins of Coventry cathedral bore the legend "Father
forgive" -- the "them" was deliberately omitted, a brave statement in
those German-hating times.
If anyone would like to clarify the moral difference between those WW2
bombers and the Hamas so-called "martyrs", I shall be very interested to
read what they have to say, especially if the word "evil" doesn't come
into it.
Maria C.
> If anyone would like to clarify the moral difference between those WW2
> bombers and the Hamas so-called "martyrs", I shall be very interested
> to read what they have to say, especially if the word "evil" doesn't
> come into it.
We lived in a different world then.
--
Maria C.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:16:36 +0100, Fred Springer
> > <fred.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> >>
> >>> Suicide bombers who kill others are committing homicide, and I don't
> >>> see any argument with the proposition that they're commiting criminal
> >>> offenses as well. But I agree that "suicide bomber" is more pointed.
> >>> It's implicit in the phrase "suicide bomber" that the offender intends
> >>> to take others with him or her. It's asymptotic to pure evil.
> >>>
> >> Could you put the last sentence into plainer English? I dimly remember
> >>from school maths what an asymptotic curve is, and I've just checked my
> >> recollection in various dictionaries, but precisely what you're trying
> >> to say is still opaque to me.
> >
> > I took "asymptotic to pure evil" to mean "approaching, but not
> > reaching, pure evil". There is some good in every person. No
> > person is totally evil. Bob's phrase acknowledges this point
> > while referring to the extreme evilness of the person's action.
Well put, Peter. I doubt I'd have explained myself nearly so well.
> Curious. Why not just write "close to"? "Asymptotic" isn't a synonym of
> "close to", it conveys an idea which is both more precise and more
> complex: that of a gradual approach that never quite gets there. It's a
> dynamic concept, rather than a static one, which doesn't seem to fit the
> context of "pure evil".
It's just a metaphor. "Pure evil" is one-hundred percent evil. It's
the point on the evil axis when the curve and the axis merge. But the
curve, in this metaphor, is a parabola, so the merger occurs at
infinity. Which, as Peter understood, is what I intended to convey.
> (Whatever "pure evil" is supposed to mean, to
> open up an entirely different line for discussion.) A usage worthy of
> the most obscurantist sort of academic, who will never use "power" if
> "hegemony" will do, nor prefer "outrageous" to "egregious".
But writing without analogies is like a meal with no spice. You may
find my particular ingredient tasteless, or even offensive, but I
doubt you would disallow all simile and metaphor.
Among the many engineers who while away their days at my place of
employment, "asymptotic to <whatever>" is in current usage, not to the
point of having become a cliche, but as a way of attempting to liven
up the conversation. I recall someone describing something as
"asymptotic to impossibility," which those of us who heard it readily
understood to mean "so hard to do that it isn't worth the effort."
> Leaving the choice of words to one side, I have to say I find the whole
> statement indicative of a refusal to address the issue. Trying to
> explain the phenomenon of suicide bombing by invoking the concept of
> evil is lazy thinking.
Perhaps I shouldn't have commented at all. It was a vagrant thought
that I tacked on and almost deleted. I'd be willing to delete it on
grounds of inappropriateness, not because it's wrong but because it
doesn't fit the context.
Tell ya what -- let's consider it deleted. I feel better now. I hope
you do too.
> My brother was arguably a suicide bomber and terrorist. He died during
> WW2 on a bombing mission over Germany. He had already killed hundreds,
> possibly thousands, of civilians, including women and children. He had
> turned down a posting as an instructor to return to operations, and he
> must have known that the probability of his survival was small:
[ ... ]
> If anyone would like to clarify the moral difference between those WW2
> bombers and the Hamas so-called "martyrs", I shall be very interested to
> read what they have to say, especially if the word "evil" doesn't come
> into it.
With respect, I want very much to stay out of this discussion. I'll
just point out from a legal perspective that we were in a formally
declared war against an enemy that had formally declared war on us.
Wartime homicides are legal if justifiable. (I don't think that's a
tautology.) I consider myself unqualified to pass on the morality of
justifiability of your brother's actions. At a visceral level, I
admire his courage and doubt that I could have equaled it.
--
Bob Lieblich
Asymptotic to posting too much
The UnInmate
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4887C2C4...@yahoo.com...
> Fred Springer wrote:
>>
>> (Whatever "pure evil" is supposed to mean, to
>> open up an entirely different line for discussion.) A usage worthy of
>> the most obscurantist sort of academic, who will never use "power" if
>> "hegemony" will do, nor prefer "outrageous" to "egregious".
>
> But writing without analogies is like a meal with no spice. You may
> find my particular ingredient tasteless, or even offensive, but I
> doubt you would disallow all simile and metaphor.
This opens up a tangential discussion about the way technical terms get
drawn into everyday speech. "Asymptotic" is originally a technical term with
meaning restricted to the self-contained world of mathematics. But now it
has entered the broader language and acquired functions that alter its
original meaning for other uses. As a non-mathematician I see this kind of
event as enriching the language, but don't blame a mathematician (or, in the
case of other such terms, other technician) for seeing it as a corruption of
the language. Anyone else have any views on the matter?
Richard Yates
> drawn into everyday speech. "Asymptotic" is originally a technical term
> with meaning restricted to the self-contained world of mathematics. But
> now it has entered the broader language and acquired functions that alter
> its original meaning for other uses. As a non-mathematician I see this
> kind of event as enriching the language, but don't blame a mathematician
> (or, in the case of other such terms, other technician) for seeing it as a
> corruption of the language. Anyone else have any views on the matter?
I lament the loss of the finer distinctions and more precise descriptions of
the original terms. As the terms move into more common usage there is no
longer a concise way to express these relationships. Of course, the trend
will continue despite any objections here.
More common than "asymptotic" (which seems still to be used precisely if
metaphorically) is the degradation of the word "exponential" which now seems
to mean simply "a lot", as in "Gas prices are increasingly exponentially."
RY
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> More common than "asymptotic" (which seems still to be used precisely if
> metaphorically) is the degradation of the word "exponential" which now seems
> to mean simply "a lot", as in "Gas prices are increasingly exponentially."
I don't mean to pry open the entire discussion (which spreads like
kudzu through the AUE archives), but a really good example of a
popularized technicality whose everyday usage has wandered fairly far
from its techincal meaning is "learning curve."
--
Bob Lieblich
Who likes to think he understands the technical usage
Richard Yates
>> metaphorically) is the degradation of the word "exponential" which now
>> seems
>> to mean simply "a lot", as in "Gas prices are increasingly
>> exponentially."
>
> I don't mean to pry open the entire discussion (which spreads like
> kudzu through the AUE archives), but a really good example of a
> popularized technicality whose everyday usage has wandered fairly far
Googling "exponential learning curve" gives 761 results. Half look like
technical analyses and half common usage. The technical meanings seem to be
that learning compounds over time and therefore quickens with experience.
The common usage is jsut about the opposite: that learning quickly becomes
more difficult. RY
angelgl...@yahoo.com
This is the way language works, and has always worked. Only dead
languges never accrue shades of meaning; it's the shades of meaning
(derived meanings; figurative meanings; associated meanings) that makes
a language a living language, an art a living art, a religion a living
religion, and generational conflict that makes a society a living
society. O reason not the need! as that old man cried out. Our basest
beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous. Not a single common word
has escaped accretion in this way. Charity (from caritas) once meant
"love"; today it means putting pennies in cardboard box absentmindedly.
Glenn Knickerbocker
>curve, in this metaphor, is a parabola, so the merger occurs at
>infinity.
Even in the worst of metaphors, a parabola isn't asymptotic to any line.
ŹR The anti-suffragists will continue to be eligible, won't they?
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/engel.html --Ida Husted Harper
The UnInmate
<angelgloww2000*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g68qr1$1sb$1...@ccnews.ncku.edu.tw...
Not to introduce an insane amount of thread creep, but my fundamentalist
Catholic contact says "Christian charity" is more like forbearance, as in
forbearance from judging others. He says what most people call "charity" is
properly called "alms" and is a minor component of charity.
angelgl...@yahoo.com
or her community uses it; we're just discussing general meanings. Just
like "sloth" is commonly understood as "laziness," when in fact it more
properly means listlessness, lack of motivation or desire; apathy
perhaps (acidia).
Indeed, Freud and Catholic theologians then would agree that libido is
the motive force of all health. Without it we can do nothing. An
obstructed libido is useless either for God or your secular lover.
Even C. S. Lewis understood that in his book, *THe Pilgrim's Regress,"
which John (the protagonist) is told to "desire something!" Lewis uses
the phrase, "the dialectic of desire," which I think gets to the heart
of the matter.
Of course, Goethe got there first. For the "Eternal Feminine" calls us
on to ever higher cycles of Self. Jung knows about this evolution of
Self too.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>The UnInmate wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> Isn't "homicide" a technical legal term anyway,
>
>Yes -- although it's in common use well beyond legal environments --
>and as a legal term it does not necessarily indicate a criminal
>offense. In my experience (mostly on the civil side), the American
>system of criminal law uses "homicide" to mean "the act of causing the
>death of a human being." There can be innocent homicide, as when a
>child runs suddenly into the street and is hit by a car and killed,
>assuming it can be established that the driver was careful and alert
>and could not have avoided the collision. There can be justifiable
>homicide, as when one person holding another at gunpoint and
>threatening to shoot is himself shot by the police (and possibly even
>by a civilian in certain circumstances). There are various degrees
>of negligent homicide, manslaughter, and murder. But those are
>judgments imposed by a judge following a trial and verdict or a plea
>of guilty. That's why the cops have homicide departments rather than,
>say, murder departments. The offense isn't defined at the time
>they're working.
>
>To repeat, those are the legal definitions. The terms are commonly
>used with other meanings in lay conversation and writing.
In this country there is murder, where killing was deliberate, and culpable
homicide, where it wasn't. People who kill others by reckless or negligent
driving are charged with culpable homicide. In other countries that is
sometimes called manslaughter.
But as you say "homicide" simply means killing another human being, and so to
me "homicide bomber" means someone who set off a bomb that killed people and
didn't just damage property.
While suicide bombers are necessarily homicide bombers, even if they kill no
one but themselves, not all homicide bombers are suicide bombers. They may set
off the bomb by remote control, or drop it from a dizzy height, and so avoid
harm to themselves. Suicide bombers, on the other hand, are hoist by their own
petard.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
If so, you're licky.
LFS
Some years ago the notion of "audit" began to permeate UK universities.
The word has a specific sense in the context of financial reporting but
it quickly became attached to any kind of checking process. I soon
realised that pointing this out was quite useless but the term "quality
audit" still raises my hackles.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
R H Draney
>
>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:41:41 -0400, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:09:01 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>As should those who call militants terrorists.
>>
>>I don't know anyone who does that.
>
>If so, you're licky.
?
From urbandictionary.com:
1. licky 11 up, 6 down
when you want to lick something
Kelsey. you're so licky today
2. licky 1 up, 3 down
describes an object that makes one sexier to some members of opposite sex, such
as a sports car or expensive clothes, -usually associated with yuppies.
An expansion of the meaning of something very lickable
licky like a credit card, licky like a mobile phone
....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:46:12 -0400, Robert Lieblich wrote:
> >curve, in this metaphor, is a parabola, so the merger occurs at
> >infinity.
>
> Even in the worst of metaphors, a parabola isn't asymptotic to any line.
I see I've thrown you a curve.
Rather than argue the point (since I lack the mental resources to do
so), I ask the reader to substitute any appropriate curve or other
figure for "parabola."
Thus do I approach correctness asymptotically.
--
Bob Lieblich
Asymptomatic, at least
Fred Springer
Metaphor is not yet on the list of things I shall ban when I become
world dictator. But I have to warn you, I may change my mind if you
continue to use it to obscure your meaning rather than illuminate it --
which is what I see as the main function of metaphor.
[...]
>> Leaving the choice of words to one side, I have to say I find the whole
>> statement indicative of a refusal to address the issue. Trying to
>> explain the phenomenon of suicide bombing by invoking the concept of
>> evil is lazy thinking.
>
> Perhaps I shouldn't have commented at all. It was a vagrant thought
> that I tacked on and almost deleted. I'd be willing to delete it on
> grounds of inappropriateness, not because it's wrong but because it
> doesn't fit the context.
>
> Tell ya what -- let's consider it deleted. I feel better now. I hope
> you do too.
>
I'm starting to feel a little stronger now, thank you. I hope I may be
able to sit up for a while later.
Paul Wolff
>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:46:12 -0400, Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>curve, in this metaphor, is a parabola, so the merger occurs at
>>infinity.
>
>Even in the worst of metaphors, a parabola isn't asymptotic to any line.
>
to which the other end of the parabola is asymptotic. After all, if it
were the teeniest bit more convergent, it would close in an ellipse. In
practical terms, it's a hyperbola with parallel asymptotes (though I
dare say mathematicians wouldn't allow this).
It must be true, I read it in the comic section.
--
Paul
The UnInmate
<angelgloww2000*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g691m8$63c$1...@ccnews.ncku.edu.tw...
Aye, aye, sir. Sorry I mentioned it.
angelgl...@yahoo.com
more tart than intended. All views are welcome, provided they agree with
mine.
Chuck Riggs
>Fred Springer wrote:
>> Curious. Why not just write "close to"? "Asymptotic" isn't a synonym of
>> "close to", it conveys an idea which is both more precise and more
>> complex: that of a gradual approach that never quite gets there. It's a
>> dynamic concept, rather than a static one, which doesn't seem to fit the
>> context of "pure evil".
If a curve only approaches the x or y axis as x or y increases in
value, but never touches either axis no matter how large x or y
becomes, the curve is said to "approach the x or y axis
asymptotically". A whole family of curves has this property, but if
non-mathematical readers will roughly plot the equation y = 1/x on a
piece of graph paper, they'll immediately see how simple this concept
is.
<snip>
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Richard Yates wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> More common than "asymptotic" (which seems still to be used precisely if
>> metaphorically) is the degradation of the word "exponential" which now seems
>> to mean simply "a lot", as in "Gas prices are increasingly exponentially."
>
>I don't mean to pry open the entire discussion (which spreads like
>kudzu through the AUE archives), but a really good example of a
>popularized technicality whose everyday usage has wandered fairly far
>from its techincal meaning is "learning curve."
Stop!
Robin Bignall
Remember BS5750? We always knew the BS was bullshit, but we had to ..
er .. go through the motions.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Some years ago the notion of "audit" began to permeate UK
> universities. The word has a specific sense in the context of
> financial reporting but it quickly became attached to any kind of
> checking process. I soon realised that pointing this out was quite
> useless but the term "quality audit" still raises my hackles.
I audited classes at Stanford back in the '80s. This meant that I
attended the lectures but was not expected (or allowed) to do the
graded homework or take the tests and didn't receive credit toward
graduation. The OED cites this sense back to 1933, but notes it as
American.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer
|until the Messiah comes. I suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them.
(650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman
Evan Kirshenbaum
> But as you say "homicide" simply means killing another human being,
> and so to me "homicide bomber" means someone who set off a bomb that
> killed people and didn't just damage property.
>
> While suicide bombers are necessarily homicide bombers, even if they
> kill no one but themselves,
I'm not so sure. As you say in your definition above, homicide is
normally "killing *another* human being", and whether suicide is
considered to be a subset of homicide seems to vary.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden
(650)857-7572 |usurpations.
| James Madison
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
John Doe
> But as you say "homicide" simply means killing another human
> being, and so to me "homicide bomber" means someone who set off a
> bomb that killed people and didn't just damage property.
I give that about 7.8 on the mental gymnastics meter.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> > Even in the worst of metaphors, a parabola isn't asymptotic to any line.
> so),
I think you're being a bit hyperbolic there.
ŹR
Richard Yates
"Headed for the 49th parallel with a load of contraband vacuum cleaners in
the trunk, Homer felt reluctance that grew rapidly like a parabola that
never quite reached the border."
(You did say the "worst of metaphors".)
R H Draney
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaphor?...r
Richard Yates
>>
>>"Headed for the 49th parallel with a load of contraband vacuum cleaners in
>>the trunk, Homer felt reluctance that grew rapidly like a parabola that
>>never quite reached the border."
>>
>>(You did say the "worst of metaphors".)
>
> Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaphor?...r
Missed it by that much...
John Varela
(in article <jvja84h6ep9nmsaon...@4ax.com>):
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:50:49 GMT, John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> Kerplunk
Ditto
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
jo...@verizon.net
> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder where
> the directive comes from, for using that term instead of "suicide
> bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the writers feel
> about being forced to use it. Just curious.
Surely, suicide bombers (like truck bombers & dive bombers) are named,
not after the purpose of their bombing, but after the technique they
choose.
John Doe
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:12:05 -0400, mm wrote
> (in article <jvja84h6ep9nmsaon51bpn7570aqud23gl 4ax.com>):
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:50:49 GMT, John Doe <jdoe
>> usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Kerplunk
>
> Ditto
A narration of your relationship with an imaginary kill-file friend
is just a troll.
>
> --
> John Varela
> Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
>
>
>
> Path: flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com!flpi088.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com!flpi089.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: John Varela <OLDlamps verizon.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
> Subject: Re: Fox News writers forced to use "homicide bomber"?
> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:54:58 -0400
> Lines: 14
> Message-ID: <0001HW.C4AE9CA20012FD49B01AD9AF News.Individual.NET>
> References: <2O4hk.13045$LG4.4339 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6ca0a845-bfd8-4892-af31-1317eff90581 p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <KK5hk.6361$cn7.163 flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com> <apq984hm3f6bgtth9vhkdhart2nvqrdiul 4ax.com> <4A7hk.17016$jI5.6851 flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com> <m66a845hhoest0ts6ntv3etjs25s0oftml 4ax.com> <J9ahk.13815$cW3.9877 nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> <jvja84h6ep9nmsaon51bpn7570aqud23gl 4ax.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: individual.net K09m/x85qp4F77GYziguNAFcOXufOv0x5yfDD5mqXD4itsCp97
> X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:JQuyl9glYQujWuXV6toYcRdqEOo=
> User-Agent: Hogwasher/4.3
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.usage.english:1533890
> X-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:54:59 EDT (flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com)
>
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Suicide is an essential consequence of the technique used, but I
prefer the term "human bomb". This contains the idea that the
person is an integral part of the bomb: the trigger mechanism.
The person performs the function that in other bombs would be
performed by a timer, a pressure sensor, a tripwire, or
whatever.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Maria C.
> joe_f@verizon wrote:
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> The term "homicide bomber" sounds at best inefficient. I wonder
>>> where the directive comes from, for using that term instead of
>>> "suicide bomber". Assuming it comes from management, how do the
>>> writers feel about being forced to use it. Just curious.
>>
>> Surely, suicide bombers (like truck bombers & dive bombers) are
>> named, not after the purpose of their bombing, but after the
>> technique they choose.
>
> Suicide is an essential consequence of the technique used, but I
> prefer the term "human bomb". This contains the idea that the
> person is an integral part of the bomb: the trigger mechanism.
> The person performs the function that in other bombs would be
> performed by a timer, a pressure sensor, a tripwire, or
> whatever.
But but.... aren't there "human bombs" who are innocent of any intent to
blow up or kill anyone? That is, people who are, without their
permission or consent of any kind, forced into the role of "bomb
carrier" or "bomber" by the actual evil-doers? You read of such
happenings from time to time. (Bank robberies and such. I am not
referring to wars.)
Btw, I would used "suicide bomber" rather than "homicide bomber" if I
were a media editor. It's a bit more plain in cases where the bomber
involved has committed the crime with full knowledge and intent that
he/she will die in the event. A "homicide bomber" may have no other plan
than to kill others -- and may be fully successful. Also, the term
"bomber" alone would seem to be sufficient.
--
Maria C.
John Kane
It depends on context but I dont' think "bomber" alone is sufficient
since it is quite possible to bomb all sorts of things without killing
people.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
John Varela
(in article <Euoik.31232$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>):
> Btw, I would used "suicide bomber" rather than "homicide bomber" if I
> were a media editor. It's a bit more plain in cases where the bomber
> involved has committed the crime with full knowledge and intent that
> he/she will die in the event. A "homicide bomber" may have no other plan
> than to kill others -- and may be fully successful. Also, the term
> "bomber" alone would seem to be sufficient.
Good point. A suicide bomber invariably wants to kill others as well as
himself. A homicide bomber may only want to kill others.
John Doe
> It depends on context but I dont' think "bomber" alone is
> sufficient since it is quite possible to bomb all sorts of things
> without killing people.
So add a description.
If you aren't concerned with usage (and the fact Fox News is the
only organization that uses "homicide bomber"), maybe you could make
the term useful by first twisting the definition of "homicide" to
include killing yourself and/or killing other people. That would
help support their use of the term suicide bomber when he fails to
kill anybody else.
--
My big wheel in-line street skates (a.k.a. rollerblades).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2565924423/
Google Groups is destroying the USENET archive,
to hell with Google.
R H Draney
>
>Good point. A suicide bomber invariably wants to kill others as well as
>himself. A homicide bomber may only want to kill others.
We had an inadvertent suicide bomber in my school when I was about ten or eleven
years old...as the story is told, he had made a "device" to use at a school
dance, but had neglected to provide a hole for the fuse and decided to drill it
after the powder had already been loaded...a spark occurred, and he ended up
being the only victim of his own bomb....
There was a page "memorializing" him in the yearbook, and there's now a plaque
at the school, neither of which mentions the circumstances of his death....r
Steve Hayes
"Whoosh"
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
Chuck Riggs
You're being Smart.