Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:58:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
607 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
>
> > I consider *war*, in general, to be a terrible thing.
> > Is the word *terrible* not drived from *terror*?
> > Therefor *war* is *terror* and anyone taking part in a war is by definition
> > a *terrorist*.
>
> Well, that's a little hasty. I consider Bionicle to be terrible, but LEGO
> isn't a terrorist organization as a result. I would suggest that, rather
> than trying to define words (which, to me, suggests an effort to identify
> with relative precision the meanings of words), you are actually trying to
> extend the meaning of a word to the point that it has no useful meaning.
> Dave!
No, what I am doing is returning the word to its base definition... it's
original meaning.
Terror
Terrorize
Terrorist
Terrorism
Terrible
All of the above mean; to frighten
For you to say that the bionicles are *terrible* is fine, unfortunately it
also means that you think they are frightening, that they place a sense of
dread upon you. Personally, I see them as mere toys that may be used in
violent fantasies with their *tools*; the same as G.I. Joe or Transformers
action figures (except that they aren't afraid to admit that those
accesories are actually weapons, not *tools*.
For me, purhaps not for you, war is a frightening thing, it is terrible, it
most certainly places upon ME a sense of dread. Anyone who comes after me
for the sake of war is commiting an act of terrorism, because (have no
doubt) they are going to terrorize me by attempting to take my life.
Look up the word *Fright*, it means a sudden fear or terror (Webster).
Fright and Terror both have roots in Middle English language.
It is easy to use American words as slang, even those words that actually
have a definition are often used as slang. Your above description of
bionicles as terrible is a slang usage, as I hardly think you honestly have
a sense of dread when gazing at them. You may, of course, be pessimistic
about the future of Lego brand toys while looking at Bionicles.
So, I must disagree with you that I have extended the definition of *Terror*
to point of making it obsolete, but rather that I have taken it back to its
roots and used it properly.
On a side note, I used to have great difficulty in vocabulary and dictionary
skills, but my teachers decided to hold me back an extra year in elementary
so that I could get it right. I think they did a good job on me as I did
quite well in highschool excellerated English classes (still need to work on
them grammer skills, but important things must come first).
*toodles!!*
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) That's fine, but your method is also somewhat arbitrary and could border on pedantic. Elsewhere in this debate dozens of posts have been devoted to exactly the problem of dictionary definitions relative to the real world; on paper, the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Well, that's a little hasty. I consider Bionicle to be terrible, but LEGO isn't a terrorist organization as a result. I would suggest that, rather than trying to define words (which, to me, suggests an effort to identify with relative (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
