Discussion:
Neologisms and C.S. Lewis
(too old to reply)
Steve Hayes
2017-10-11 15:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.

It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.

Anyway, the article is here:

https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Paul S. Person
2017-10-11 15:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:26 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
I wasn't aware that "terrorist" and "lone wolf" were mutually
exclusive.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Cheryl
2017-10-11 16:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:26 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
I wasn't aware that "terrorist" and "lone wolf" were mutually
exclusive.
I don't think a lone wolf would be inspired by some movement or group in
the way a terrorist is.
--
Cheryl
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-11 16:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:26 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
I wasn't aware that "terrorist" and "lone wolf" were mutually
exclusive.
I don't think a lone wolf would be inspired by some movement or group in
the way a terrorist is.
One use of "lone wolf" is for someone who has been inspired by a
terrorist group even if the terrorist group is unaware of his/her
existence.
BrE:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lone_wolf

1.1 A terrorist or other criminal who acts alone rather than as part
of a larger organization.
‘resources for tracking down potential lone wolves radicalized
online’
as modifier ‘the threat of a lone wolf attack’

It is the same in the AmE entry:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/lone_wolf

The folllowing has example sentences (quotations from BrE newspapers)
including 'lone wolf':
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lone-wolf

I've selected these quotes because they clearly refer to lone wolf
terrorists:

They are like lone wolves and sometimes can be more dangerous as it
is not easy to identify them,' said one security official.
Times, Sunday Times (2017)

Toulouse shows how easy it is for lone wolves to succeed.
Times, Sunday Times (2012)

First, lone wolf terrorists are extraordinarily difficult to detect.
Times, Sunday Times (2012)

The efficiency of the attack was a contrast to the haphazard strikes
launched by so-called lone wolves in recent months.
Times, Sunday Times (2015)

Police are working on a theory the men are lone wolf home-grown
terrorists inspired by IS.
The Sun (2016)
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Cheryl
2017-10-11 16:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:26 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
I wasn't aware that "terrorist" and "lone wolf" were mutually
exclusive.
I don't think a lone wolf would be inspired by some movement or group in
the way a terrorist is.
One use of "lone wolf" is for someone who has been inspired by a
terrorist group even if the terrorist group is unaware of his/her
existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lone_wolf
1.1 A terrorist or other criminal who acts alone rather than as part
of a larger organization.
‘resources for tracking down potential lone wolves radicalized
online’
as modifier ‘the threat of a lone wolf attack’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/lone_wolf
The folllowing has example sentences (quotations from BrE newspapers)
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lone-wolf
I've selected these quotes because they clearly refer to lone wolf
They are like lone wolves and sometimes can be more dangerous as it
is not easy to identify them,' said one security official.
Times, Sunday Times (2017)
Toulouse shows how easy it is for lone wolves to succeed.
Times, Sunday Times (2012)
First, lone wolf terrorists are extraordinarily difficult to detect.
Times, Sunday Times (2012)
The efficiency of the attack was a contrast to the haphazard strikes
launched by so-called lone wolves in recent months.
Times, Sunday Times (2015)
Police are working on a theory the men are lone wolf home-grown
terrorists inspired by IS.
The Sun (2016)
Interesting. I tend to think of lone-wolf killers as, well, the
stereotypical loner who kills for reasons based in his (or sometimes
her) own psychology. I usually think of them as shooters, too, which now
strikes me as odd. The Canadian nurse who recently confessed to
murdering a number of of her patients wouldn't qualify as a lone wolf to
my mind, but she did act alone and not for political reasons. Well, she
claims a few different reasons, but none of them appear to have been to
support any political cause.
--
Cheryl
b***@shaw.ca
2017-10-11 18:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Interesting. I tend to think of lone-wolf killers as, well, the
stereotypical loner who kills for reasons based in his (or sometimes
her) own psychology. I usually think of them as shooters, too, which now
strikes me as odd. The Canadian nurse who recently confessed to
murdering a number of of her patients wouldn't qualify as a lone wolf to
my mind, but she did act alone and not for political reasons. Well, she
claims a few different reasons, but none of them appear to have been to
support any political cause.
I don't use the term "lone wolf", and I don't see consistency in the way others use it. Depending on who's talking, it can mean someone unconnected to any party or movement who acts for personal reasons, or someone who acts on his own but considers himself to be part of or acting on behalf of a movement.

It's kind of an odd usage, in that wolves normally hunt in packs. A wolf that hunts alone is likely old or injured and unable to keep up with the pack, or outcast from the pack.

At my last newspaper, the recent use of "lone wolf" probably would have led to a discussion among those concerned about such things about whether the paper should use the term at all, or only with an explanation of its apparent meaning when quoting someone, or whenever applicable, in which case we would also have to determine what we meant by it and add that meaning as a style book entry.

bill
Mark Brader
2017-10-11 20:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't use the term "lone wolf"...
It's kind of an odd usage, in that wolves normally hunt in packs. A wolf
that hunts alone is likely old or injured and unable to keep up with the
pack, or outcast from the pack.
So it's expressing a way that this person is unusual. That's not so odd.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I knew [the answers]... but the synapses
***@vex.net | just wouldn't s-nap." --Michael Wares
Cheryl
2017-10-11 22:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
I don't use the term "lone wolf"...
It's kind of an odd usage, in that wolves normally hunt in packs. A wolf
that hunts alone is likely old or injured and unable to keep up with the
pack, or outcast from the pack.
So it's expressing a way that this person is unusual. That's not so odd.
I think maybe it is. I haven't thought this through, but - OK, a lupine
lone wolf is an oddity in the wolf world, but not a particularly
dangerous one given that it's probably sick or injured and in any case
unable to mount as dangerous an attack as a normal wolf, which hunts as
part of a pack. A human lone wolf is seen as more dangerous than a
regular group of humans, even though society has more power. A human
lone wolf isn't particularly weak or ill, and can actually injure or
kill members of a human pack. The wolf equivalent can't mount a
successful attack on his pack, being weak and sick as well as isolated.

They're unusual in significantly different ways when the danger they
pose is considered.

Or maybe I'm over-analyzing it, and it's just a combination of the old
idea of a wolf being a dangerous predator and, in this case, acting alone.
--
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-11 22:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Mark Brader
I don't use the term "lone wolf"...
It's kind of an odd usage, in that wolves normally hunt in packs. A wolf
that hunts alone is likely old or injured and unable to keep up with the
pack, or outcast from the pack.
So it's expressing a way that this person is unusual. That's not so odd.
I think maybe it is. I haven't thought this through, but - OK, a lupine
lone wolf is an oddity in the wolf world, but not a particularly
dangerous one given that it's probably sick or injured and in any case
unable to mount as dangerous an attack as a normal wolf, which hunts as
part of a pack. A human lone wolf is seen as more dangerous than a
regular group of humans, even though society has more power. A human
lone wolf isn't particularly weak or ill, and can actually injure or
kill members of a human pack. The wolf equivalent can't mount a
successful attack on his pack, being weak and sick as well as isolated.
They're unusual in significantly different ways when the danger they
pose is considered.
Or maybe I'm over-analyzing it, and it's just a combination of the old
idea of a wolf being a dangerous predator and, in this case, acting alone.
I agree with that last sentence.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Steve Hayes
2017-10-12 02:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:58:06 -0700, Paul S. Person
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:26 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
I wasn't aware that "terrorist" and "lone wolf" were mutually
exclusive.
No, not neccessarily. But if the aim of an action is to terroise
people, then the motive can be seen from the aims of the group that
the person represents. If a "lone wold" is trying to terrorise people,
then the effort is wasted if they don't make the reasons for their
actions clear.

In the absense of any clear indication of who the person is trying to
terrorise and why, it makes more sense to ascribe their actions to
misanthropy rather than terrorism. Possibly linked to lycanthropy?

More on that here:

https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/what-is-terrorism/
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Dingbat
2017-10-12 02:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:26 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
I wasn't aware that "terrorist" and "lone wolf" were mutually
exclusive.
The terrorist uses murder and mayhem as a means to attain some other end. Be that as
it may, a lone wolf could be an independent trying to facilitate the goals of a
group of terrorists.
Post by Paul S. Person
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 02:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.

(Of course we don't have to believe ISIS. They might have reasons for
lying. "Bulverism" is a fallacy, but we may well want to be
/suspicious/ of statements when there's a good chance the people who
make them are lying or mistaken.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Steve Hayes
2017-10-12 11:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.

Of course it's the usual nine-day wonder, so any evidence that has
turned up more recently probably hasn't been reported in the media in
this neck of the woods, though it probably has in Las Vegas.

I've set out my reasons more fully here:

https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/what-is-terrorism/

and, as i point out there, what his victims had in common was that
they were country music fans. If we try to infer that he was a
terrorist from that, was he trying to terrorise them into not holding
concerts outside his hotel window, or what? It seems pretty unlikely
to me.

The only inference I can draw from his behaviour is that he wasn't
trying to terrorise people, he was just trying to kill them. But
perhaps those whose job it is to find evidence will turn up something
that demonstrates the contrary.
Post by Jerry Friedman
(Of course we don't have to believe ISIS. They might have reasons for
lying. "Bulverism" is a fallacy, but we may well want to be
/suspicious/ of statements when there's a good chance the people who
make them are lying or mistaken.)
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 11:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
That's what you get for paying attention to "social media." Over Here, where it happened, he's
not being called a "terrorist" and efforts are concentrating on trying to figure out why he did it.

But apparently Christians don't get to be terrorists. The Charleston mass murderer isn't a Christian
terrorist. The Charlottesville car-killer isn't a Christian terrorist.
Cheryl
2017-10-12 12:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
That's what you get for paying attention to "social media." Over Here, where it happened, he's
not being called a "terrorist" and efforts are concentrating on trying to figure out why he did it.
But apparently Christians don't get to be terrorists. The Charleston mass murderer isn't a Christian
terrorist. The Charlottesville car-killer isn't a Christian terrorist.
Did they kill in aid of some kind of Christian political aim? Or were
they Christians who were killing in aid of some non-religious political
aim? Or were they Christians at all?
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 15:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
That's what you get for paying attention to "social media." Over Here, where it happened, he's
not being called a "terrorist" and efforts are concentrating on trying to figure out why he did it.
But apparently Christians don't get to be terrorists. The Charleston mass murderer isn't a Christian
terrorist. The Charlottesville car-killer isn't a Christian terrorist.
Did they kill in aid of some kind of Christian political aim? Or were
they Christians who were killing in aid of some non-religious political
aim? Or were they Christians at all?
Their behavior strongly suggested there was a religious component. The Charleston
boy participated in Bible study with his elderly victims for an hour and spared
one of them so she could bear witness to his deeds.

More particularly: the guy who murdered an "abortion doctor" in a church was
never labeled a terrorist, let alone a Christian terrorist. There have been
other "abortion doctor" murders as well, not in churches.

We have no indication at all of what motivated the Las Vegas shooter, and ISIS's
claim on him was quickly, er, shot down.
Cheryl
2017-10-12 16:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
That's what you get for paying attention to "social media." Over Here, where it happened, he's
not being called a "terrorist" and efforts are concentrating on trying to figure out why he did it.
But apparently Christians don't get to be terrorists. The Charleston mass murderer isn't a Christian
terrorist. The Charlottesville car-killer isn't a Christian terrorist.
Did they kill in aid of some kind of Christian political aim? Or were
they Christians who were killing in aid of some non-religious political
aim? Or were they Christians at all?
Their behavior strongly suggested there was a religious component. The Charleston
boy participated in Bible study with his elderly victims for an hour and spared
one of them so she could bear witness to his deeds.
Which means nothing more than that he wanted to get close to them, and
leave someone alive who could testify that he'd carried out - what was
it, that black people should be killed off because they're inferior to
whites?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
More particularly: the guy who murdered an "abortion doctor" in a church was
never labeled a terrorist, let alone a Christian terrorist. There have been
other "abortion doctor" murders as well, not in churches.
Someone who murders an abortion doctor might be a Christian terrorist,
assuming he was going for political change and not revenge.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
We have no indication at all of what motivated the Las Vegas shooter, and ISIS's
claim on him was quickly, er, shot down.
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
--
Cheryl
Ken Blake
2017-10-12 18:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-12 20:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit". The actions
they claim as theirs, either directly or by inspiration, are from their
point of view good and noble actions against evil people.

Apart from that, when a news report says "X claims responsibility for Y"
it means that there is no certainty or even a high probability that X is
actually responsible.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mark Brader
2017-10-12 21:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
--
Mark Brader | Up until now, you have been told never to use
Toronto | the Goto. I use it. I use a revolver too, but
***@vex.net | I don't give it to my children. --a Prof. Baird

My text in this article is in the public domain.
b***@shaw.ca
2017-10-12 22:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
"Admit" is the wrong word unless there is evidence that they were involved. Absent such evidence, "claim" is the word, and each time it should be noted -- by the reporters or their editors -- that there is no evidence that ISIS in fact responsible. That means the claim is reported, but ISIS is exposed as liars.

The alternative -- omitting the probably false ISIS claim -- amounts to censoring the news for the good of the readers, and that's too paternalistic for me.
charles
2017-10-13 09:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
"Admit" is the wrong word unless there is evidence that they were
involved. Absent such evidence, "claim" is the word, and each time it
should be noted -- by the reporters or their editors -- that there is no
evidence that ISIS in fact responsible. That means the claim is reported,
but ISIS is exposed as liars.
The alternative -- omitting the probably false ISIS claim -- amounts to
censoring the news for the good of the readers, and that's too
paternalistic for me.
a great amny years ago there was newspaper in the UK called the Daily
Worker. Like all the UK press it was availalble in our JCR.

There was one item that showed how newspapers can modify stories " The
capatin of a Russian Trawler in the Indian Ocean stated that his boat had
been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breuget Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had no
such aircraft,".

Anyone who knew anything about planes at the time would have known these
aircraft were flown by French AirForce.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-13 12:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
"Admit" is the wrong word unless there is evidence that they were
involved. Absent such evidence, "claim" is the word, and each time it
should be noted -- by the reporters or their editors -- that there is no
evidence that ISIS in fact responsible. That means the claim is reported,
but ISIS is exposed as liars.
The alternative -- omitting the probably false ISIS claim -- amounts to
censoring the news for the good of the readers, and that's too
paternalistic for me.
a great amny years ago there was newspaper in the UK called the Daily
Worker. Like all the UK press it was availalble in our JCR.
Sounds communist.
Post by charles
There was one item that showed how newspapers can modify stories " The
capatin of a Russian Trawler in the Indian Ocean stated that his boat had
been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breuget Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had no
such aircraft,".
Anyone who knew anything about planes at the time would have known these
aircraft were flown by French AirForce.
Breguet, not Breuget, and the French Navy, not the French Air Force.
They still operate some.
And indeed, the French sold some to the Dutch, the Germans, and others,
but none to the Brits,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-13 13:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by charles
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
"Admit" is the wrong word unless there is evidence that they were
involved. Absent such evidence, "claim" is the word, and each time it
should be noted -- by the reporters or their editors -- that there is no
evidence that ISIS in fact responsible. That means the claim is reported,
but ISIS is exposed as liars.
The alternative -- omitting the probably false ISIS claim -- amounts to
censoring the news for the good of the readers, and that's too
paternalistic for me.
a great amny years ago there was newspaper in the UK called the Daily
Worker. Like all the UK press it was availalble in our JCR.
Sounds communist.
It was, but it's now called the Morning Star. When I went to Russia on
a school trip in 1960 it was the only newspaper in English one could
find. It had so little news in it that it wasn't worth bothering with.
We found L'Humanité a much better bet. I don't know if the Morning Star
still survives, but L'Humanité does, as does its equivalent here, La
Marseillaise, though they struggle a bit.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by charles
There was one item that showed how newspapers can modify stories " The
capatin of a Russian Trawler in the Indian Ocean stated that his boat had
been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breuget Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had no
such aircraft,".
Anyone who knew anything about planes at the time would have known these
aircraft were flown by French AirForce.
Breguet, not Breuget, and the French Navy, not the French Air Force.
They still operate some.
And indeed, the French sold some to the Dutch, the Germans, and others,
but none to the Brits,
Jan
--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-13 17:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:20:16 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by charles
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
"Admit" is the wrong word unless there is evidence that they were
involved. Absent such evidence, "claim" is the word, and each time it
should be noted -- by the reporters or their editors -- that there is no
evidence that ISIS in fact responsible. That means the claim is reported,
but ISIS is exposed as liars.
The alternative -- omitting the probably false ISIS claim -- amounts to
censoring the news for the good of the readers, and that's too
paternalistic for me.
a great amny years ago there was newspaper in the UK called the Daily
Worker. Like all the UK press it was availalble in our JCR.
Sounds communist.
It was, but it's now called the Morning Star. When I went to Russia on
a school trip in 1960 it was the only newspaper in English one could
find. It had so little news in it that it wasn't worth bothering with.
We found L'Humanité a much better bet. I don't know if the Morning Star
still survives, but L'Humanité does, as does its equivalent here, La
Marseillaise, though they struggle a bit.
The Morning Star continues:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/

Owned By Our Readers
We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part
of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing
Society.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper)>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 23:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
Strong disagreement. First, I didn't think ISIS said "claim".

Second, I agree with Bill, or maybe I'm going farther. "Admit" can be
used only if it's certain they were responsible. "Claim", on the other
hand, implies doubt, so it's appropriate.

Third, "admit" /is/ normally from the point of view of the person
making the statement. If you don't like "claim", maybe "boast" or
"brag" would be better.
--
Jerry Friedman
C'est moi! C'est moi! I'm forced to admit. 'Tis I, I humbly reply.
That mortal who these marvels can do, c'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I!
Ken Blake
2017-10-12 23:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:09:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
Strong disagreement. First, I didn't think ISIS said "claim".
Second, I agree with Bill, or maybe I'm going farther. "Admit" can be
used only if it's certain they were responsible. "Claim", on the other
hand, implies doubt, so it's appropriate.
Third, "admit" /is/ normally from the point of view of the person
making the statement. If you don't like "claim", maybe "boast" or
"brag" would be better.
To me, you "claim" something we think you should be proud of. I don't
think anyone should be reported as claiming to be a terrorist. When
reporting what has been done that is bad, a negative verb should be
used, not a positive one like "claim." "Boast" and "brag" are also
positive verbs, and neither is appropriate, as far as I'm concerned.

If my wife were murdered and I walked into the police station and said
that I did it, the newspapers and television would say that I
*admitted* murdering her. The same verb, or a similar one, if you
don't like that one, should be used for acts of terrorism.
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-13 03:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:09:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
Strong disagreement. First, I didn't think ISIS said "claim".
Second, I agree with Bill, or maybe I'm going farther. "Admit" can be
used only if it's certain they were responsible. "Claim", on the other
hand, implies doubt, so it's appropriate.
Third, "admit" /is/ normally from the point of view of the person
making the statement. If you don't like "claim", maybe "boast" or
"brag" would be better.
To me, you "claim" something we think you should be proud of. I don't
think anyone should be reported as claiming to be a terrorist. When
reporting what has been done that is bad, a negative verb should be
used, not a positive one like "claim."
I don't see "claim" as positive at all. Its main connotation is that
the claim is doubtful or untrue.
Post by Ken Blake
"Boast" and "brag" are also positive verbs,
Not to me.
Post by Ken Blake
and neither is appropriate, as far as I'm concerned.
If my wife were murdered and I walked into the police station and said
that I did it, the newspapers and television would say that I
*admitted* murdering her.
For me it would depend on what you said. If you said, "I did it and
I'll take the consequences," I'd call that admitting. If you said, "I
did it and I'm proud of it," I'm not so sure.

If instead of walking into a police station, you fled to a country with
no extradition treaty with the U.S. and said, "I killed her and made the
world a better place," I wouldn't call that admitting at all.
Post by Ken Blake
The same verb, or a similar one, if you
don't like that one, should be used for acts of terrorism.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2017-10-13 12:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for
every high-profile killing and disaster that hits the
news. I'm surprised they aren't claiming responsibility
for the recent h
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I
hate the word "claim" being used that way. They should say
"ISIS is making a habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to
"admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters
are helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press.
But adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them
*unnecessarily*.
Strong disagreement. First, I didn't think ISIS said "claim".
Second, I agree with Bill, or maybe I'm going farther. "Admit"
can be used only if it's certain they were responsible. "Claim",
on the other hand, implies doubt, so it's appropriate.
Third, "admit" /is/ normally from the point of view of the
person making the statement. If you don't like "claim", maybe
"boast" or "brag" would be better.
To me, you "claim" something we think you should be proud of. I
don't think anyone should be reported as claiming to be a
terrorist. When reporting what has been done that is bad, a
negative verb should be used, not a positive one like "claim."
I don't see "claim" as positive at all. Its main connotation is that
the claim is doubtful or untrue.
Two meanings, I think. The other one comes when you claim land, or a
prize. The usage may become clear in the follow-up, either verbal or
substantive: you claim falsely that something is true, but you claim,
take possession of, a deserved reward.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ken Blake
"Boast" and "brag" are also positive verbs,
Not to me.
Not in that they give a good impression of the braggart, but in the
positive nature (for the boaster) of the thing boasted of (with the
usual allowance for irony)?
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ken Blake
and neither is appropriate, as far as I'm concerned.
If my wife were murdered and I walked into the police station and
said that I did it, the newspapers and television would say that I
*admitted* murdering her.
For me it would depend on what you said. If you said, "I did it and
I'll take the consequences," I'd call that admitting. If you said,
"I did it and I'm proud of it," I'm not so sure.
If instead of walking into a police station, you fled to a country
with no extradition treaty with the U.S. and said, "I killed her and
made the world a better place," I wouldn't call that admitting at
all.
Post by Ken Blake
The same verb, or a similar one, if you don't like that one, should
be used for acts of terrorism.
Richard Tobin
2017-10-13 11:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
To me, you "claim" something we think you should be proud of.
No, you claim something you want people to believe.
Post by Ken Blake
I don't
think anyone should be reported as claiming to be a terrorist. When
reporting what has been done that is bad, a negative verb should be
used, not a positive one like "claim." "Boast" and "brag" are also
positive verbs, and neither is appropriate, as far as I'm concerned.
Are you St Paul?
Post by Ken Blake
If my wife were murdered and I walked into the police station and said
that I did it, the newspapers and television would say that I
*admitted* murdering her.
People rarely murder their wifes for terrorist purposes.

-- Richard
CDB
2017-10-13 11:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate
the word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is
making a habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them
*unnecessarily*.
Strong disagreement. First, I didn't think ISIS said "claim".
Second, I agree with Bill, or maybe I'm going farther. "Admit" can
be used only if it's certain they were responsible. "Claim", on the
other hand, implies doubt, so it's appropriate.
Third, "admit" /is/ normally from the point of view of the person
making the statement. If you don't like "claim", maybe "boast" or
"brag" would be better.
I posted a suggestion of "pretend" too soon. Thinking further, the
problem may come with the wording of "claim". Would there be any
objection to "claim to be responsible"?
Janet
2017-10-13 09:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <d5SdnTNuqfQ9fULEnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, ***@vex.net
says...
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary. Western media reaps what it sowed.

Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror attacks was a
tactic by Western terrorist groups operating from at least the 1960's
and to the present day. I recall such claims from ETA, the Red Brigade,
Black September etc and all the Irish groups.

IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the different Irish factions
routinely reported their activities to the security forces and UK media
using pre-agreed code words to confirm the ID of the perpetrators. They
still do.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/codewords-that-prove-terrorists-are-
the-real-thing-1275779.html

Janet.
Mark Brader
2017-10-13 10:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary...
Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror attacks was a
tactic by Western terrorist groups...
Of course. By "they" I meant anyone using such methods.
--
Mark Brader "Succeed, and you'll be remembered for a very long time.
Toronto Fail, and you'll be remembered even longer."
***@vex.net -- Hel Faczel (John Barnes: ...the Martian King)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-13 13:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary. Western media reaps what it sowed.
Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror attacks was a
tactic by Western terrorist groups operating from at least the 1960's
and to the present day. I recall such claims from ETA, the Red Brigade,
Black September etc and all the Irish groups.
IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the different Irish factions
routinely reported their activities to the security forces and UK media
using pre-agreed code words to confirm the ID of the perpetrators. They
still do.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/codewords-that-prove-terrorists-are-
the-real-thing-1275779.html
Janet.
The IRA and other Irish Republican terrorists frequently phoned warnings
to a intermediary which passed the warnings on to the police. One
intermediary was the Samaritans charity. It is a charity which is there
to help suicidal people. Its phones are staffed "round the clock, 24
hours a day, 365 days a year".

https://www.samaritans.org/


This news report the day after what came to be known as the Bloody
Friday bombings includes:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1972/jul/22/northernireland.simonhoggart

The Provisional IRA accepted responsibility for the bombings,
which seemed to be aimed at civilians. It claimed that at least 30
minutes' warning was given before each explosion, but the warnings
which were received were so vague as to be almost useless.

A spokesman for the Belfast Brigade of the Provisional IRA pointed
-> out that telephoned warnings were given to the Samaritans, the
-> police, newspapers and the local Rumour Service[1] and Public
-> Protection Service at least thirty minutes before each explosion. In
the case of the two worst explosions at Oxford Street and the
Cavehill Road, warnings were given well in advance. The Oxford
Street warning was heard over the military radio net[2] at 2.10pm,
and a woman telephoned the police telling of a box in the back of a
car on the Cavehill Road an hour before the explosion.

Huge explosive decides were detonated at places certain to be
thronged with people - bus termini, railway stations, and shopping
centres. It was calculated that over 1,000lb of explosives had been
used.


<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(1972)>

[1] "Rumour Service" was a nickname for an official telephone
Information Service about terrorist acts. The idea was that if someone
heard a rumour that there had been a bombing or riotous attack in a
location with which they had personal connections they could phone the
Information Service to have the rumour confirmed or denied. That greatly
reduced the number of people leaving their places of work to rush home,
or elsewhere, to see if family and friends were OK. There were multiple
attacks each day so this was not a trivial mater.

That was decades before the availability of affordable mobile phones
which enable person to person contact regardless of location.


There were posters in public places and in workplaces given phone
numbers of the "Rumour Service" and some other official phone services.
They were the Confidential telephone service, and an Intimidation
telephone service.

If you had information about a terrorist attack that had happened or was
planned you could pass the information to the authorities using the
Confidential phone service with complete certainty that your name would
not be asked for and that the call would not be traced. Sometimes there
would be a public announcement on local radio (and maybe TV) asking
"Would the person who called the Confidential phone at [date and time]
please contact the service again".

Some people suffered harrassment and intimidation for political reasons.
There was the Intimidation telephone service from which they could get
advice and, if they wished, practical assistance.

[2] At that time radio communications between army vehicles and bases
used VHF frequencies somewhere between 102 and 108 MHz. Many domestic
VHF radios could receive those frequencies. Many ordinary citizens and
journalists would have radios permanently tuned to the army channels so
as to find out what was going on. If a soldier reported by radio that
something had happened somewhere journalists would arrive there as soon
as they could. Other people would use the information so as to avoid the
place. I recall hearing one soldier on the radio say to the person he
was speaking to "Be careful what you say. This is the most popular radio
station in Belfast". The Fire Service also used frequencies in that
range. The Police and Ambulance services used frequencies not receivable
by domestic radios.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-13 13:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary. Western media reaps what it sowed.
Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror attacks was a
tactic by Western terrorist groups operating from at least the 1960's
and to the present day. I recall such claims from ETA, the Red Brigade,
Black September etc and all the Irish groups.
IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the different Irish factions
routinely reported their activities to the security forces and UK media
using pre-agreed code words to confirm the ID of the perpetrators.
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
than "murderer", but it still annoys me to see it used here:

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

The mass shooting in Las Vegas was the 337th this year in the USA.
We're now up to 350.
Post by Janet
They
still do.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/codewords-that-prove-terrorists-are-
the-real-thing-1275779.html
Janet.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-13 15:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Janet
IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the different Irish factions
routinely reported their activities to the security forces and UK media
using pre-agreed code words to confirm the ID of the perpetrators.
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
It is not "murder" until the perpetrator has been charged with that specific
crime and convicted of it. Thus "murder" will never be the appropriate word
for the Las Vegas event.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data
Richard Tobin
2017-10-13 15:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
It is not "murder" until the perpetrator has been charged with that specific
crime and convicted of it.
So it's impossible to get away with murder?

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-13 15:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[no, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:]
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
It is not "murder" until the perpetrator has been charged with that specific
crime and convicted of it.
So it's impossible to get away with murder?
Legally, yes. The act of killing is "homicide." "Homicide" is not a crime.

In Canada, The Mounties Always Get Their Man.

Of course you may have different standards in the UK.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-13 17:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:27:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:]
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
It is not "murder" until the perpetrator has been charged with that specific
crime and convicted of it.
So it's impossible to get away with murder?
Legally, yes. The act of killing is "homicide." "Homicide" is not a crime.
In Canada, The Mounties Always Get Their Man.
Of course you may have different standards in the UK.
The terminology is different. However, if the news media describe an
accused person as a murderer, thief, etc, rather than a "person accused
of X" or an "alleged Xer" then they can be charged with contempt of
court. The underlying reason is that such statements stand a real chance
of biassing jurors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13905765

How prejudicial reporting has led to collapsed trials

Three examples:

1991: The prejudicial headline

In 1991, two sisters, Lisa and Michelle Taylor, were convicted of
stabbing to death Alison Shaughnessy in 1991 - but they were cleared
on appeal in 1993 because of prejudicial reporting during their
trial.
The Sun had published an article featuring a photograph of Michelle
Taylor in the background at Ms Shaughnessy's wedding with the
headline: The "Killer" Mistress Who Was At Lover's Wedding. There
was an arrow from the word "killer" pointing at Michelle's face.
A photograph showing Michelle Taylor kissing her former lover, John
Shaughnessy, at his wedding had also been doctored.
A judge ruled that the coverage had been "sensational, inaccurate
and misleading".

1997: Fine for London Evening Standard

London's evening newspaper was fined £40,000 for Contempt of Court
after it published an article that halted the trial of men who had
been accused of escaping from Whitemoor Prison in Cambridgeshire.
The article, which was published while the trial was in progress,
revealed that some of the six men were members of the IRA.

1995: EastEnders-linked trial aborted

In 1995, Geoff Knights, the partner of the former EastEnders actress
Gillian Taylforth, was accused of assault. The trial was scrapped
before it had begun because of what the judge described as
"scandalous" reporting.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-13 19:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:27:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:]
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
It is not "murder" until the perpetrator has been charged with that specific
crime and convicted of it.
So it's impossible to get away with murder?
Legally, yes. The act of killing is "homicide." "Homicide" is not a crime.
In Canada, The Mounties Always Get Their Man.
Of course you may have different standards in the UK.
The terminology is different. However, if the news media describe an
accused person as a murderer, thief, etc, rather than a "person accused
of X" or an "alleged Xer" then they can be charged with contempt of
court. The underlying reason is that such statements stand a real chance
of biassing jurors.
Well, we don't have Prior Restraint, but this _might_ be a case where it _might_
be a Good Thing. If someone actually gets around to bringing a charge against
Harvey Weinstein, or Donnie and Ivanka, will they be able to find an unbiased
jury?

Local politics: District Attorneys are the chief prosecutors in each county.
New York County [Manhattan] 's D.A. is Cyrus Vance, Jr. (son of Carter's
Secretary of State, who resigned when Carter ordered the failed attempt to
rescue the hostages from Iran in '79). D.A.s are elected. Vance faces no
opposition in next month's election; it is most unusual for D.A.s to be
challenged.

However, Cy Vance overruled prosecutors/police in both those cases: they had a
good case for real estate fraud regarding the Trump SoHo (which isn't actually
in SoHo), and a woman being propositioned by Weinstein wore a wire. In at least
the first case, campaign contributions (since returned) were involved; I haven't
heard (but maybe those who follow gossip have) whether Harvey donated to Vance
specifically, or only to higher-up Dems (Gov. Cuomo has returned all moneys
received from Weinstein).
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13905765
How prejudicial reporting has led to collapsed trials
1991: The prejudicial headline
In 1991, two sisters, Lisa and Michelle Taylor, were convicted of
stabbing to death Alison Shaughnessy in 1991 - but they were cleared
on appeal in 1993 because of prejudicial reporting during their
trial.
The Sun had published an article featuring a photograph of Michelle
Taylor in the background at Ms Shaughnessy's wedding with the
headline: The "Killer" Mistress Who Was At Lover's Wedding. There
was an arrow from the word "killer" pointing at Michelle's face.
A photograph showing Michelle Taylor kissing her former lover, John
Shaughnessy, at his wedding had also been doctored.
A judge ruled that the coverage had been "sensational, inaccurate
and misleading".
1997: Fine for London Evening Standard
London's evening newspaper was fined £40,000 for Contempt of Court
after it published an article that halted the trial of men who had
been accused of escaping from Whitemoor Prison in Cambridgeshire.
The article, which was published while the trial was in progress,
revealed that some of the six men were members of the IRA.
1995: EastEnders-linked trial aborted
In 1995, Geoff Knights, the partner of the former EastEnders actress
Gillian Taylforth, was accused of assault. The trial was scrapped
before it had begun because of what the judge described as
"scandalous" reporting.
Judges can, though, issue a "gag order," prohibiting anyone connected with the
case from talking to reporters, and can also exclude press and public from the
courtroom (though that's very rare).
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-10-13 16:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
It is not "murder" until the perpetrator has been charged with that specific
crime and convicted of it.
So it's impossible to get away with murder?
It's just PTD being his usual silly self. I wasn't talking about how
lawyers define murder but how ordinary people and the compilers of
dictionaries do. For PTD the chap in Las Vegas wasn't a murderer
because he was never charged and convicted, and never will be. Hitler
wasn't responsible for any atrocities because he died before they could
get him to Nuremberg. Harvey Weinberg hasn't done anything wrong
because he hasn't been tried and convicted of anything.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary devotes a bit more than a column
to "murder" but says nothing about the need for charging and conviction.
Post by Richard Tobin
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-13 16:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
It is not "murder" until the perpetrator has been charged with that specific
crime and convicted of it.
So it's impossible to get away with murder?
It's just PTD being his usual silly self. I wasn't talking about how
lawyers define murder but how ordinary people and the compilers of
dictionaries do. For PTD the chap in Las Vegas wasn't a murderer
because he was never charged and convicted, and never will be. Hitler
wasn't responsible for any atrocities
Excuse me? Is "responsible for atrocities" a legal concept? Distinct from some
other term for the same thing that isn't defined in law? Athel Moron-Bowden
pretends to be a "scientist" but has an astonishing lack of interest in precision
of vocabulary.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
because he died before they could
get him to Nuremberg. Harvey Weinberg hasn't done anything wrong
because he hasn't been tried and convicted of anything.
Asshole Moron-Bowden is an idiot. There are no charges if someone is not
suspected of doing something wrong.

Who, BTW, is Harvey Weinberg?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary devotes a bit more than a column
to "murder" but says nothing about the need for charging and conviction.
Maybe it wasn't edited in the US.

We're already well aware of Oxford Lexicography's disinterest in US usage.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-13 17:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:25:51 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
It is not "murder" until the perpetrator has been charged with that specific
crime and convicted of it.
So it's impossible to get away with murder?
It's just PTD being his usual silly self. I wasn't talking about how
lawyers define murder but how ordinary people and the compilers of
dictionaries do. For PTD the chap in Las Vegas wasn't a murderer
because he was never charged and convicted, and never will be. Hitler
wasn't responsible for any atrocities
Excuse me? Is "responsible for atrocities" a legal concept? Distinct from some
other term for the same thing that isn't defined in law? Athel Moron-Bowden
pretends to be a "scientist" but has an astonishing lack of interest in precision
of vocabulary.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
because he died before they could
get him to Nuremberg. Harvey Weinberg hasn't done anything wrong
because he hasn't been tried and convicted of anything.
Asshole Moron-Bowden is an idiot. There are no charges if someone is not
suspected of doing something wrong.
Who, BTW, is Harvey Weinberg?
A hybrid of Harvey Weinstein and the Hardy-Weinberg Principle, perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

The Hardy–Weinberg principle, ... states that allele and genotype
frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to
generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These
influences include mate choice, mutation, selection, genetic drift,
gene flow and meiotic drive.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary devotes a bit more than a column
to "murder" but says nothing about the need for charging and conviction.
Maybe it wasn't edited in the US.
We're already well aware of Oxford Lexicography's disinterest in US usage.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-14 07:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary. Western media reaps what it sowed.
Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror attacks was a
tactic by Western terrorist groups operating from at least the 1960's
and to the present day. I recall such claims from ETA, the Red Brigade,
Black September etc and all the Irish groups.
IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the different Irish factions
routinely reported their activities to the security forces and UK media
using pre-agreed code words to confirm the ID of the perpetrators.
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data
The mass shooting in Las Vegas was the 337th this year in the USA.
We're now up to 350.
So that is more than one a day, on average.

Thanks, I hadn't realised there is so much more
than mentioned in European news coverage,

Jan
--
"Ils sont fous, ces Americains!"

<Loading Image...
04>
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-14 11:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary. Western media reaps what it sowed.
Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror attacks was a
tactic by Western terrorist groups operating from at least the 1960's
and to the present day. I recall such claims from ETA, the Red Brigade,
Black September etc and all the Irish groups.
IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the different Irish factions
routinely reported their activities to the security forces and UK media
using pre-agreed code words to confirm the ID of the perpetrators.
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data
The mass shooting in Las Vegas was the 337th this year in the USA.
We're now up to 350.
So that is more than one a day, on average.
Thanks, I hadn't realised there is so much more
than mentioned in European news coverage,
Ask what definition the non-source is using.

(The link takes me to "can't reach this page.")
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-14 12:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 04:25:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary. Western media reaps what it sowed.
Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror attacks was a
tactic by Western terrorist groups operating from at least the 1960's
and to the present day. I recall such claims from ETA, the Red Brigade,
Black September etc and all the Irish groups.
IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the different Irish factions
routinely reported their activities to the security forces and UK media
using pre-agreed code words to confirm the ID of the perpetrators.
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data
The mass shooting in Las Vegas was the 337th this year in the USA.
We're now up to 350.
So that is more than one a day, on average.
Thanks, I hadn't realised there is so much more
than mentioned in European news coverage,
Ask what definition the non-source is using.
(The link takes me to "can't reach this page.")
When I try to go to that link the browser eventually reports:

The server at www.massshootingtracker.org is taking too long to
respond.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in
a few moments.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
CDB
2017-10-14 13:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Janet
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for
every high-profile killing and disaster that hits the
news. I'm surprised they aren't claiming responsibility
for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but
I hate the word "claim" being used that way. They should
say "ISIS is making a habit of admitting
responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to
"admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the
reporters are helping them, but that's the price we pay for a
free press. But adopting their vocabulary as well, that's
helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary. Western media reaps what it
sowed. Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror
attacks was a tactic by Western terrorist groups operating from
at least the 1960's and to the present day. I recall such
claims from ETA, the Red Brigade, Black September etc and all
the Irish groups. IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the
different Irish factions routinely reported their activities to
the security forces and UK media using pre-agreed code words to
confirm the ID of the perpetrators.
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader
meaning than "murderer", but it still annoys me to see it used
here: https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data The mass shooting
in Las Vegas was the 337th this year in the USA. We're now up to
350.
So that is more than one a day, on average.
Thanks, I hadn't realised there is so much more than mentioned in
European news coverage,
Ask what definition the non-source is using.
(The link takes me to "can't reach this page.")
Me too. Here's a comment on it:

<http://beta.latimes.com/nation/la-na-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-statistics-20151204-story.html>
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-14 18:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
Strong agreement.
From the point of view of ISIS there is nothing to "admit"...
Exactly! Every time their doings make the news, the reporters are
helping them, but that's the price we pay for a free press. But
adopting their vocabulary as well, that's helping them *unnecessarily*.
It isn't "their" vocabulary. Western media reaps what it sowed.
Long before ISIS, claiming responsibility for terror attacks was a
tactic by Western terrorist groups operating from at least the 1960's
and to the present day. I recall such claims from ETA, the Red Brigade,
Black September etc and all the Irish groups.
IIRC, in the height of The Troubles the different Irish factions
routinely reported their activities to the security forces and UK media
using pre-agreed code words to confirm the ID of the perpetrators.
I suppose "perpetrator" has the advantage of having a broader meaning
https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data
The mass shooting in Las Vegas was the 337th this year in the USA.
We're now up to 350.
So that is more than one a day, on average.
Thanks, I hadn't realised there is so much more
than mentioned in European news coverage,
Ask what definition the non-source is using.
(The link takes me to "can't reach this page.")
Worked fine this morning.
It must have taken all of your attemps to reach it
as a denial of service attack,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 20:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every high-profile
killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm surprised they aren't
claiming responsibility for the recent hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
No.

You can only "admit responsibility" when you _are_ responsible.

If you "don't want to argue," then either phrase your comments more carefully,
or think them through before posting them.
CDB
2017-10-13 11:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
No.
You can only "admit responsibility" when you _are_ responsible.
If you "don't want to argue," then either phrase your comments more
carefully, or think them through before posting them.
Ken has a point. You "claim" something that's valuable. People who
claim that they have committed these murders claim the credit, or the
glory, or merit in God's eyes, for what they have done; they do not
think of responsibility.

If you want to make it clear that their claim is false, you might say
that they "pretend responsibilty".
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-13 13:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
No.
You can only "admit responsibility" when you _are_ responsible.
If you "don't want to argue," then either phrase your comments more
carefully, or think them through before posting them.
Ken has a point. You "claim" something that's valuable. People who
claim that they have committed these murders claim the credit, or the
glory, or merit in God's eyes, for what they have done; they do not
think of responsibility.
They know perfectly well that they are not responsible.
Post by CDB
If you want to make it clear that their claim is false, you might say
that they "pretend responsibilty".
No, _they_ made the claim; _someone else_ recognizes it to be pretense.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-13 18:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 06:06:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
No.
You can only "admit responsibility" when you _are_ responsible.
If you "don't want to argue," then either phrase your comments more
carefully, or think them through before posting them.
Ken has a point. You "claim" something that's valuable. People who
claim that they have committed these murders claim the credit, or the
glory, or merit in God's eyes, for what they have done; they do not
think of responsibility.
They know perfectly well that they are not responsible.
Post by CDB
If you want to make it clear that their claim is false, you might say
that they "pretend responsibilty".
No, _they_ made the claim; _someone else_ recognizes it to be pretense.
I don't recognise the limited definition of "claim" being used here.

When ISIS claimed responsibility it is possible that ISIS genuinely
thought it possible that their influence was responsible even if the
didn't have the evidence to prove it. It is also possible that they
doubted any influence in the matter but claimed responsibility so as to
spread fear.

OED:
claim,n.
A demand for something as due; an assertion of a right to something.
(Const. as in 2.) to lay claim to: to assert one's right to, claim.

A claim is an assertion that has to be proved.

The entry for the verb has this subsense:

2.c. ‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain,
assert’. (F. Hall.)

1864 O. W. Norton Army Lett. (1903) 204 I don't claim that they
fought well, only as well as they could.
1876 Troy Morning Whig 27 May The man accused his wife of being
intoxicated, which she denied and claimed that he was in that
condition himself.
1887 Troy Daily Times 8 Jan. John Weatherwax..procured a peace
warrant for the arrest of his son..who he claims has threatened to
kill him.
1904 Providence Jrnl. 1 Aug. 4 Neighbors claim to have seen two
men about the place.
1922 R. Dunn in World's Work July 119/2 Refet Bey..was hopping
mad at an attempt which he claimed that the British had made to
kidnap him.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-13 19:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 06:06:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Cheryl
ISIS is making a habit of claiming responsibility for every
high-profile killing and disaster that hits the news. I'm
surprised they aren't claiming responsibility for the recent
hurricanes.
"Claim" is the word used by almost all news sources, but I hate the
word "claim" being used that way. They should say "ISIS is making a
habit of admitting responsibility..."
No.
You can only "admit responsibility" when you _are_ responsible.
If you "don't want to argue," then either phrase your comments more
carefully, or think them through before posting them.
Ken has a point. You "claim" something that's valuable. People who
claim that they have committed these murders claim the credit, or the
glory, or merit in God's eyes, for what they have done; they do not
think of responsibility.
They know perfectly well that they are not responsible.
Post by CDB
If you want to make it clear that their claim is false, you might say
that they "pretend responsibilty".
No, _they_ made the claim; _someone else_ recognizes it to be pretense.
I don't recognise the limited definition of "claim" being used here.
When ISIS claimed responsibility it is possible that ISIS genuinely
thought it possible that their influence was responsible even if the
didn't have the evidence to prove it. It is also possible that they
doubted any influence in the matter but claimed responsibility so as to
spread fear.
The latter is their usual practice w.r.t. any terroristic act anywhere (their
mindset isn't available for inspection).
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
claim,n.
A demand for something as due; an assertion of a right to something.
(Const. as in 2.) to lay claim to: to assert one's right to, claim.
A claim is an assertion that has to be proved.
2.c. ‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain,
assert’. (F. Hall.)
1864 O. W. Norton Army Lett. (1903) 204 I don't claim that they
fought well, only as well as they could.
1876 Troy Morning Whig 27 May The man accused his wife of being
intoxicated, which she denied and claimed that he was in that
condition himself.
1887 Troy Daily Times 8 Jan. John Weatherwax..procured a peace
warrant for the arrest of his son..who he claims has threatened to
kill him.
1904 Providence Jrnl. 1 Aug. 4 Neighbors claim to have seen two
men about the place.
1922 R. Dunn in World's Work July 119/2 Refet Bey..was hopping
mad at an attempt which he claimed that the British had made to
kidnap him.
Janet
2017-10-12 14:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
That's what you get for paying attention to "social media." Over Here, where it happened, he's
not being called a "terrorist" and efforts are concentrating on trying to figure out why he did it.
But apparently Christians don't get to be terrorists.
You forgot Ireland.

Janet
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 15:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
That's what you get for paying attention to "social media." Over Here, where it happened, he's
not being called a "terrorist" and efforts are concentrating on trying to figure out why he did it.
But apparently Christians don't get to be terrorists.
You forgot Ireland.
As I've said before, I don't think the religious labels on the two sides reflect
anything at all about the causes of the strife. The Irish do not fight over
whether the Bread and Wine _actually_ become the Body and Blood of their Lord
and Saviour. Or for the right to prohibit abortion.
Paul S. Person
2017-10-12 15:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:40:16 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
Of course it's the usual nine-day wonder, so any evidence that has
turned up more recently probably hasn't been reported in the media in
this neck of the woods, though it probably has in Las Vegas.
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/what-is-terrorism/
and, as i point out there, what his victims had in common was that
they were country music fans. If we try to infer that he was a
terrorist from that, was he trying to terrorise them into not holding
concerts outside his hotel window, or what? It seems pretty unlikely
to me.
The only inference I can draw from his behaviour is that he wasn't
trying to terrorise people, he was just trying to kill them. But
perhaps those whose job it is to find evidence will turn up something
that demonstrates the contrary.
1. If you focus on /intent/ rather than /result/, then we will likely
never know.

And, much as I would like to speculate, it gets us nowhere. I can come
up with at /three/ possible goals almost immediately, but what does
that prove? Nothing.

2. I'll bet a lot of the survivors are pretty thoroughly /terrorized/.

But my point was that "lone wolf" and "terrorist" are not mutually
exclusive. It is possible to be both.

It is also possible fo be neither.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Steve Hayes
2017-10-13 01:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:58:38 -0700, Paul S. Person
Post by Paul S. Person
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:40:16 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
Of course it's the usual nine-day wonder, so any evidence that has
turned up more recently probably hasn't been reported in the media in
this neck of the woods, though it probably has in Las Vegas.
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/what-is-terrorism/
and, as i point out there, what his victims had in common was that
they were country music fans. If we try to infer that he was a
terrorist from that, was he trying to terrorise them into not holding
concerts outside his hotel window, or what? It seems pretty unlikely
to me.
The only inference I can draw from his behaviour is that he wasn't
trying to terrorise people, he was just trying to kill them. But
perhaps those whose job it is to find evidence will turn up something
that demonstrates the contrary.
1. If you focus on /intent/ rather than /result/, then we will likely
never know.
And, much as I would like to speculate, it gets us nowhere. I can come
up with at /three/ possible goals almost immediately, but what does
that prove? Nothing.
2. I'll bet a lot of the survivors are pretty thoroughly /terrorized/.
But my point was that "lone wolf" and "terrorist" are not mutually
exclusive. It is possible to be both.
And my point is that insistence on the either/or is an example of
Bulverism.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-13 03:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
I don't see how, unless those people on social media are saying that the
shooting must be terrorism because there's something wrong with the
people who disagree.
Post by Steve Hayes
Of course it's the usual nine-day wonder, so any evidence that has
turned up more recently probably hasn't been reported in the media in
this neck of the woods, though it probably has in Las Vegas.
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/what-is-terrorism/
Well, that de-Bulverizes your post some.
Post by Steve Hayes
and, as i point out there, what his victims had in common was that
they were country music fans. If we try to infer that he was a
terrorist from that, was he trying to terrorise them into not holding
concerts outside his hotel window, or what? It seems pretty unlikely
to me.
Nonsense. Another thing they had in common was that they were all or
mostly Americans, and that's been good enough for some terrorists.
Post by Steve Hayes
The only inference I can draw from his behaviour is that he wasn't
trying to terrorise people, he was just trying to kill them. But
perhaps those whose job it is to find evidence will turn up something
that demonstrates the contrary.
...

Perhaps.
--
Jerry Friedman
Steve Hayes
2017-10-15 03:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:41:08 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
I don't see how, unless those people on social media are saying that the
shooting must be terrorism because there's something wrong with the
people who disagree.
Perhaps the article does not give enough information about Bulverism,
then, and you and I are seeing it as meaning different things. From
your remark above you seem to be seeing it as a kind of ad hominem,
where as I see it as a kind of non-sequitur, having nothing to do with
the facts of the matter.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Of course it's the usual nine-day wonder, so any evidence that has
turned up more recently probably hasn't been reported in the media in
this neck of the woods, though it probably has in Las Vegas.
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/what-is-terrorism/
Well, that de-Bulverizes your post some.
Post by Steve Hayes
and, as i point out there, what his victims had in common was that
they were country music fans. If we try to infer that he was a
terrorist from that, was he trying to terrorise them into not holding
concerts outside his hotel window, or what? It seems pretty unlikely
to me.
Nonsense. Another thing they had in common was that they were all or
mostly Americans, and that's been good enough for some terrorists.
But it seems that the gunman was himself American. The people who took
over a US government building a couple of years ago were Americans and
were protesting against some action of the US government, but if the
guy who shot people in Las Vegas was trying to do that, his message
seems very unclear.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
The only inference I can draw from his behaviour is that he wasn't
trying to terrorise people, he was just trying to kill them. But
perhaps those whose job it is to find evidence will turn up something
that demonstrates the contrary.
...
Perhaps.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-15 04:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:41:08 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:22:43 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
Good work making it a self-demonstrating post. You don't give any
argument that he wasn't a terrorist (although ISIS has claimed
responsibility--if you're thinking of the recent mass murder in Las
Vegas), just state that the people who insist on calling the murder a
terrorist have a reason for it.
Yes, that's a prominent recent example, and my complaint is that
nobody has given any argument that he *was* a terrorist. I've been
bombarded with assertions on social media to the effect that he's a
terrorist, but just assertion with no evidence for it, so if you know
of good reasons, I'd be interested in hearing of them. Orthwise, it
looks like Bulverism.
I don't see how, unless those people on social media are saying that the
shooting must be terrorism because there's something wrong with the
people who disagree.
Perhaps the article does not give enough information about Bulverism,
then, and you and I are seeing it as meaning different things. From
your remark above you seem to be seeing it as a kind of ad hominem,
where as I see it as a kind of non-sequitur, having nothing to do with
the facts of the matter.
You're quite right--that's how I see it. Lewis wrote

"The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and
then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily
explaining how he became so silly. [...] 'Assume that your opponent is
wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.'"

So I'd say it's not only a non sequitur but an ad hominem too. "Oh you
say that because you are a man." So if people are saying "You're saying
it might not be terrorism only because you're an Islamophobe," that
would be Bulverism. (Maybe people are saying that.)
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Of course it's the usual nine-day wonder, so any evidence that has
turned up more recently probably hasn't been reported in the media in
this neck of the woods, though it probably has in Las Vegas.
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/what-is-terrorism/
Well, that de-Bulverizes your post some.
Post by Steve Hayes
and, as i point out there, what his victims had in common was that
they were country music fans. If we try to infer that he was a
terrorist from that, was he trying to terrorise them into not holding
concerts outside his hotel window, or what? It seems pretty unlikely
to me.
Nonsense. Another thing they had in common was that they were all or
mostly Americans, and that's been good enough for some terrorists.
But it seems that the gunman was himself American. The people who took
over a US government building a couple of years ago were Americans and
were protesting against some action of the US government, but if the
guy who shot people in Las Vegas was trying to do that, his message
seems very unclear.
...

It's not impossible for an American to want to destroy America.

By the way, I think the people who are calling it terrorism may have a
different definition from yours. I think they use "terrorism" for any
atrocity that causes terror. But I don't have any evidence.
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul S. Person
2017-10-15 16:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:06:53 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:41:08 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
Of course it's the usual nine-day wonder, so any evidence that has
turned up more recently probably hasn't been reported in the media in
this neck of the woods, though it probably has in Las Vegas.
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/what-is-terrorism/
Well, that de-Bulverizes your post some.
Post by Steve Hayes
and, as i point out there, what his victims had in common was that
they were country music fans. If we try to infer that he was a
terrorist from that, was he trying to terrorise them into not holding
concerts outside his hotel window, or what? It seems pretty unlikely
to me.
Nonsense. Another thing they had in common was that they were all or
mostly Americans, and that's been good enough for some terrorists.
But it seems that the gunman was himself American. The people who took
over a US government building a couple of years ago were Americans and
were protesting against some action of the US government, but if the
guy who shot people in Las Vegas was trying to do that, his message
seems very unclear.
...
It's not impossible for an American to want to destroy America.
By the way, I think the people who are calling it terrorism may have a
different definition from yours. I think they use "terrorism" for any
atrocity that causes terror. But I don't have any evidence.
I tend to extend "act of terror" to "anything that terrorizes",
although I would agree that that should be "possibly an act of terror"
and that certain intent to terrorize is needed to reach "act of
terror" itself.

I would also aware that "terrorism" is usually connected with a cause
of some sort. This means that I can recognize an "act of terror" (one
that is intended to terrorize) that is not terrorism (because it has
no cause associated with it).

Adding "random" doesn't help much: a "random act of terror" would be
an excellent term for an "act of terror" which has no cause attached
(as opposed, then, to a "deliberate act of terror"), but the tendency
is to use "random act of terror" to refer to an "act of terror" that
occurs "randomly", as opposed to being part of a larger plan.

OTOH, the difference between an "accidental act of terror" and an
"intentional act of terror" should be reasonably clear.

The /sanest/ statement on the topic of "terrorism" was in a special
feature to the film /Imperium/, where a former FBI agent, whose job
was to infiltrate right-wing groups that might be prone to violence,
pointed out that actual terrorist attacks are quite rare (similar
attacks by non-terrorists are much more frequent), and that the police
do a good job catching the perps, so obsessing about whether or not an
attack was "terrorism", or over terrorism in general, is not very
helpful to anyone.

Except, of course, to the extent that it helps the terrorists
accomplish their goals.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Steve Hayes
2017-10-15 17:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:48:04 -0700, Paul S. Person
Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:06:53 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, I think the people who are calling it terrorism may have a
different definition from yours. I think they use "terrorism" for any
atrocity that causes terror. But I don't have any evidence.
I tend to extend "act of terror" to "anything that terrorizes",
although I would agree that that should be "possibly an act of terror"
and that certain intent to terrorize is needed to reach "act of
terror" itself.
I would also aware that "terrorism" is usually connected with a cause
of some sort. This means that I can recognize an "act of terror" (one
that is intended to terrorize) that is not terrorism (because it has
no cause associated with it).
As I pointed out, people may be terrified by armed robbers, who may
also try to terrorise them into revealing information like the
whereabouts of stuff they want to steal, or the PIN of a bank card.
But they are not normally described as terrorists, but as armed
robbers.

The airline pilot who committed suicide by crashing his plane no doubt
terrified the passengers and fellow crew members, but he was not a
terrorist.

On the other hand the guy who poisons bars of choclolate in a
supermarket with the aim of terrorising people into not buying that
brand of chocolate probably is a terrorist.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-15 22:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:48:04 -0700, Paul S. Person
Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:06:53 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, I think the people who are calling it terrorism may have a
different definition from yours. I think they use "terrorism" for any
atrocity that causes terror. But I don't have any evidence.
I tend to extend "act of terror" to "anything that terrorizes",
although I would agree that that should be "possibly an act of terror"
and that certain intent to terrorize is needed to reach "act of
terror" itself.
I would also aware that "terrorism" is usually connected with a cause
of some sort. This means that I can recognize an "act of terror" (one
that is intended to terrorize) that is not terrorism (because it has
no cause associated with it).
As I pointed out, people may be terrified by armed robbers, who may
also try to terrorise them into revealing information like the
whereabouts of stuff they want to steal, or the PIN of a bank card.
But they are not normally described as terrorists, but as armed
robbers.
That probably wouldn't be called an atrocity, just a garden-variety crime.

However, if your definition is based on "normally described", then if
enough people call the recent murderer in Las Vegas a terrorist, he is one.
Post by Steve Hayes
The airline pilot who committed suicide by crashing his plane no doubt
terrified the passengers and fellow crew members, but he was not a
terrorist.
That's a good example, though. I'd say it shows that my suggested
definition was incomplete.
Post by Steve Hayes
On the other hand the guy who poisons bars of choclolate in a
supermarket with the aim of terrorising people into not buying that
brand of chocolate probably is a terrorist.
I think most people would agree with you there. But what about the guy
who poisons chocolate bars to try to destabilize capitalism and hasten
the day when it's replaced by his preferred ism? Or the one who does it
for revenge against the country where they're sold, without any hope
that it will coerce the country into anything? Or the guys who hijack
planes hoping to bring publicity, and oddly enough, sympathy to thier
cause? (That's what the PFLP is often said to have done in the late
'60s and early '70s, though I'm not turning up a statement from them on
their reasons.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Steve Hayes
2017-10-16 01:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:53 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:48:04 -0700, Paul S. Person
Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:06:53 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, I think the people who are calling it terrorism may have a
different definition from yours. I think they use "terrorism" for any
atrocity that causes terror. But I don't have any evidence.
I tend to extend "act of terror" to "anything that terrorizes",
although I would agree that that should be "possibly an act of terror"
and that certain intent to terrorize is needed to reach "act of
terror" itself.
I would also aware that "terrorism" is usually connected with a cause
of some sort. This means that I can recognize an "act of terror" (one
that is intended to terrorize) that is not terrorism (because it has
no cause associated with it).
As I pointed out, people may be terrified by armed robbers, who may
also try to terrorise them into revealing information like the
whereabouts of stuff they want to steal, or the PIN of a bank card.
But they are not normally described as terrorists, but as armed
robbers.
That probably wouldn't be called an atrocity, just a garden-variety crime.
However, if your definition is based on "normally described", then if
enough people call the recent murderer in Las Vegas a terrorist, he is one.
By that definition, the National Party regime in South Africa were
right, and people who opposed apartheid *were* terrorists. I don't buy
it.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
The airline pilot who committed suicide by crashing his plane no doubt
terrified the passengers and fellow crew members, but he was not a
terrorist.
That's a good example, though. I'd say it shows that my suggested
definition was incomplete.
Post by Steve Hayes
On the other hand the guy who poisons bars of choclolate in a
supermarket with the aim of terrorising people into not buying that
brand of chocolate probably is a terrorist.
I think most people would agree with you there. But what about the guy
who poisons chocolate bars to try to destabilize capitalism and hasten
the day when it's replaced by his preferred ism? Or the one who does it
for revenge against the country where they're sold, without any hope
that it will coerce the country into anything?
What about them? They's all instances of "pour encourager les autres"
-- to frighten people off buying chocolate.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Or the guys who hijack
planes hoping to bring publicity, and oddly enough, sympathy to thier
cause? (That's what the PFLP is often said to have done in the late
'60s and early '70s, though I'm not turning up a statement from them on
their reasons.)
Again, what about them? In most cases that I recall they threatened to
kill hostages unless prisoners held by various governments were freed.
I would think that's terrorism by any definition, and not an example
of bolverism.

I picked the social media response to the Las Vegas shooting as an
example of bolverism because it was fairly recent, and so would be
fresh in many people's minds. The statement "America, this is what a
TERRORIST looks like" seemed to me very similar to the "Because you're
a man" in Lewis's own example, because I had not (and still have not)
seen any evidence that he *was* a terrorist, and so the statement does
not refute the argument (that all terrorists are Muslims) but just
muddies the waters. And that muddying of the waters is what I see as
the essence of bolverism.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Paul S. Person
2017-10-16 15:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:44:58 +0200, Steve Hayes
<***@telkomsa.net> wrote:

<yes, I snipped a lot>
Post by Steve Hayes
I picked the social media response to the Las Vegas shooting as an
example of bolverism because it was fairly recent, and so would be
fresh in many people's minds. The statement "America, this is what a
TERRORIST looks like" seemed to me very similar to the "Because you're
a man" in Lewis's own example, because I had not (and still have not)
seen any evidence that he *was* a terrorist, and so the statement does
not refute the argument (that all terrorists are Muslims) but just
muddies the waters. And that muddying of the waters is what I see as
the essence of bolverism.
I suppose it is being used that way, but I would think the long
history of abortion clinic arsons, bombings, and shootings of doctors,
receptionists and people who were there with a patient would be much
better counterexamples.

Undeniably terrorism -- and not by Muslims.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-19 22:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:53 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:48:04 -0700, Paul S. Person
Post by Paul S. Person
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:06:53 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, I think the people who are calling it terrorism may have a
different definition from yours. I think they use "terrorism" for any
atrocity that causes terror. But I don't have any evidence.
I tend to extend "act of terror" to "anything that terrorizes",
although I would agree that that should be "possibly an act of terror"
and that certain intent to terrorize is needed to reach "act of
terror" itself.
I would also aware that "terrorism" is usually connected with a cause
of some sort. This means that I can recognize an "act of terror" (one
that is intended to terrorize) that is not terrorism (because it has
no cause associated with it).
As I pointed out, people may be terrified by armed robbers, who may
also try to terrorise them into revealing information like the
whereabouts of stuff they want to steal, or the PIN of a bank card.
But they are not normally described as terrorists, but as armed
robbers.
That probably wouldn't be called an atrocity, just a garden-variety crime.
However, if your definition is based on "normally described", then if
enough people call the recent murderer in Las Vegas a terrorist, he is one.
By that definition, the National Party regime in South Africa were
right, and people who opposed apartheid *were* terrorists. I don't buy
it.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Steve Hayes
The airline pilot who committed suicide by crashing his plane no doubt
terrified the passengers and fellow crew members, but he was not a
terrorist.
That's a good example, though. I'd say it shows that my suggested
definition was incomplete.
Post by Steve Hayes
On the other hand the guy who poisons bars of choclolate in a
supermarket with the aim of terrorising people into not buying that
brand of chocolate probably is a terrorist.
I think most people would agree with you there. But what about the guy
who poisons chocolate bars to try to destabilize capitalism and hasten
the day when it's replaced by his preferred ism? Or the one who does it
for revenge against the country where they're sold, without any hope
that it will coerce the country into anything?
What about them? They's all instances of "pour encourager les autres"
-- to frighten people off buying chocolate.
Who said that was their motive? To turn to someone real, the Unabomber
wanted to "promote social stress and instability" so society would
break down, not frighten people off technology. The Baader-Meinhoff
gang wanted to take action against the powerful to unite the oppressed
classes in revolutionary struggle. And though they weren't trying to
coerce or intimidate people, they're usually called terrorists.
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Jerry Friedman
Or the guys who hijack
planes hoping to bring publicity, and oddly enough, sympathy to thier
cause? (That's what the PFLP is often said to have done in the late
'60s and early '70s, though I'm not turning up a statement from them on
their reasons.)
Again, what about them? In most cases that I recall they threatened to
kill hostages unless prisoners held by various governments were freed.
I would think that's terrorism by any definition,
But their motive was at least as much to gain publicity as to free
prisoners. See the sentence beginning "According to Abu Iyad" in the
first full paragraph on this page.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_ayrAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA69
Post by Steve Hayes
and not an example of bolverism.
I wasn't suggesting that it was an example of bulverism (so spelled).
Post by Steve Hayes
I picked the social media response to the Las Vegas shooting as an
example of bolverism because it was fairly recent, and so would be
fresh in many people's minds. The statement "America, this is what a
TERRORIST looks like" seemed to me very similar to the "Because you're
a man" in Lewis's own example, because I had not (and still have not)
seen any evidence that he *was* a terrorist, and so the statement does
not refute the argument (that all terrorists are Muslims) but just
muddies the waters. And that muddying of the waters is what I see as
the essence of bolverism.
I see bulverism as a particular kind of muddying the waters whose essence
is the "you" in "because you're a man".

"The modern method is to assume without discussion /that/ he is wrong and
then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily
explaining how he became so silly."

I don't see the "busily explaining how he became so silly" in the
"what a terrorist looks like" picture.
--
Jerry Friedman
Snidely
2017-10-16 06:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lo, on the 10/11/2017, Steve Hayes did proclaim ...
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
This post, and your continued points in the thread, seem not to really
be about CS Lewis or neologisms, except to the extent that you focus on
one particular example.

/dps
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
Steve Hayes
2017-10-17 02:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Lo, on the 10/11/2017, Steve Hayes did proclaim ...
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
It's not used much nowadays, though I've seen quite a lot of Bulverism
on social media recently as people insist that a certain mass murderer
must be called a terrorist rather than a lone wolf, not because he is
one, but because they desperately *want* him to be one.
https://t.co/g38Q5BI08q
This post, and your continued points in the thread, seem not to really
be about CS Lewis or neologisms, except to the extent that you focus on
one particular example.
Perhaps that is because others have written so much querying that
poarticular example.

Bolverism was new to me, and I still tend to confuse it with
bloviating, though the meanings are different. But "quisling" has long
been familiar ro me. Another Oxford don who was a prolific inventor of
neologisms weas Lewis Caroll, alias Charles Dodgson. Some stick, some
don't.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Steve Hayes
2017-10-19 08:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:26 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
Next installment here:

C.S. Lewis was one of the earliest users of the word “technocracy”–a
word that was important in our thinking about the world wars and more
recently in the way that technology seems to be worming its way into
our patterns in a deep, deep way. In that WWII context, Lewis is in
concerned in The Abolition of Man and in essays about an
“omnicompetent global technocracy”:

Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now
I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking
outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences.
But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice,
and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a
scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the
doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is
worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any
other man (“Is Progress Possible” = “Willing Slaves of the Welfare
State,” responding to C.P. Snow’s “Man in Society”)

https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/10/18/charientocracy/
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
David Kleinecke
2017-10-19 18:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:28:26 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
Here's an interesting article on neologisms, and it gives an example
of one made up by C.S. Lewis -- Bulverism.
C.S. Lewis was one of the earliest users of the word “technocracy”–a
word that was important in our thinking about the world wars and more
recently in the way that technology seems to be worming its way into
our patterns in a deep, deep way. In that WWII context, Lewis is in
concerned in The Abolition of Man and in essays about an
Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now
I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking
outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences.
But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice,
and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a
scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the
doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is
worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any
other man (“Is Progress Possible” = “Willing Slaves of the Welfare
State,” responding to C.P. Snow’s “Man in Society”)
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2017/10/18/charientocracy/
Technocracy was the name of a movement in the US in the 1930's.
It argued that governing would be best done by scientists and
engineers. Robert Heinlein was (probably) a member of the
movement and IMO that background can be detected in his
writings.
Adam Funk
2017-10-24 07:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Technocracy was the name of a movement in the US in the 1930's.
It argued that governing would be best done by scientists and
engineers. Robert Heinlein was (probably) a member of the
movement and IMO that background can be detected in his
writings.
I guess that was before Heinlein went all libertarian?
--
I was born, lucky me, in a land that I love.
Though I'm poor, I am free.
When I grow I shall fight; for this land I shall die.
May the sun never set. --- The Kinks
Loading...