Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by belg4mit (967) on 2002.08.04 0:48 (#11378) Homepage Journal
    I hadn't noticed excessive use of "terrorist" but I'll tell you one thing that chaps my hide. All of a sudden everything is a "weapon of mass destruction". Call me desensitized if you must, but to me a "Weapon of mass destruction"

    1. doesn't need the label to get the point across
    2. is something that could realistically threaten the species. Not some pansy dirty bomb or some such, I certainly wouldn't want to be at ground zero when one was set off, but then I again I wouldn't want to be standing point-blank in front of a monkey with a shotgun either.
    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
    • ...to me a "Weapon of mass destruction"... doesn't need the label to get the point across

      The point of the label is to refer to a group of different weapons, any of which is capable of "mass destruction". This is called "generalization".