Shocking Tally of Iraq Civilian Causalities

[Occhidiangela]

Dear Sir:

A "bomb" as a generic explosive device is a vague term. You could, in your confusion, ask if the Americans were strapping WP to their bodies and delivering that ordnance via suicide bomber, since it is a "bomb."

We are not fighting the war of 1812, and a 21st century journalist is not a 19th century poet. . The tools of war and the terms that apply to them have progressed since 1812, or hadn't you noticed?

In other linguistic news, fag no longer just means cigarette, nor does faggot merely mean bundle of sticks. SCUBA is a word that didn't exist in Francis Scott Keys' day, but it is currently in common usage. A dick used to refer to a policeman or private detective, or bank security officer. It no longer is used that way. (See WC Fields' film The Bank Dick. It was not about the loan officer.)

Since the reporting is being done in 2005, terms that fit today should be used by a journalist writing in the present. Lack of precision in expression leads to lack of understanding and clear thinking. I'll suggest the journalist was delibarately vague, in his effort to find a controversial presentation for the story he was working on. That is both disingenuous and unprofessional, but is what I have come to expect from the media regardless of their bias.

Or should I refer to malaria as bad air, rather than a disease spread through the blood, with mosquitos as the vector? A few hundred years ago, the former was its meaning.

If you have any further questions on the difference between clear and muddy descriptives, and precision in expression, please forward them to me, written on the back of a 20 dollar bill. You have used up your free lesson in say what you mean, and mean what you say. I did note that a layman is not held to the same standard as the journalist, or did you speed read past that? :wacko:

A journalist, if he is to be professional, should use clear descriptives and understand the words he is using. Once again, there is no bomb given the context of the original article, armed with WP in the US inventory, so the man's assertion is both false and irresponsible. My initial attempts were initially made to add some clarity to the discussion at hand. Yours seem to aim at confusion and muddy thinking.

F.S. Key, being a poet rather than a journalist, can be forgiven for poetic license, whatever the century. The Itialian journalist who wrote the initial article claimed that WP was being delivered as a bomb. He was sloppy. If he's a journalist covering a war, he should clearly describe the weapons involved in the fight. Or should he remain sloppy and imprecise, and report the Shock and Awe campaign as artillery fire? Should he refer to some fine marijuana as "good sh**" would you, Sir Stablehand, assume he was smoking what you are shoveling? :blink:

Capisce? ;)

Occhi

Can you tell me what kind of plane the British were using at Fort McHenry during the battle that inspired our Sacred National Anthem about our Sacred National Emblem?? You know, the one with the "bombs bursting in air?"

Seeing as how this song was written sometime in the early 19th century, I find it curious that it uses a word that (assuming you are correct, and the Wrights were the first to fly) had no meaning for another 70 years or so.

Perhaps the word also allows usage by hot air balloons? Did the Brits have a secret weapon during that war?

-V
Stablehand
The Forsaken Inn
[right][snapback]95378[/snapback][/right]