Could there be pressure to enter another Ice Age?

[labelwench]

Thank you, Steve, for a very properly worded reply in which you address your concerns regarding the use of 'the Queen's English' though perhaps you have mistaken my intent in using that phrase.

I could have as easily stated 'Websters English'.

The way that language is frequently used and embellished to make the topics under discussion more 'palatable' is quite offensive to me, and the term 'collateral damage' when it is applied to to human suffering and loss of life is not acceptable terminology at all, as it fails to convey the true meaning and emotion attached to the events being described.

I see little debate at this forum. Most of what I observe is 'bashing' of other people's points of view, insistence that one perspective is correct and all others wrong etc. as in Mikal's thread on Science and religion at war. I give the lady credit for putting on her hip-waders and quietly continuing her work while wading through the mire of others. She brings forth some interesting material, and while I may not be in accord with a great deal of it, she presents herself properly, unlike some of the others who post on that thread.

Some things move me to respond, yet a great many more I am content just to observe.

[SteveA]

Ah, yes, I also enjoy trying to use precise terms and not 'play too loose' with the meanings unless it's just some creative play, though I'm certain I misuse words at times as well, and as you're familiar with there are many words I use with highly abstract "Steve specific" contexts ... you're likely one of just a few people that manages to follow half of those.

I like at least having the ability to use most every tool at my disposal and don't think there's much of anything "off-limits" for communication in extreme circumstances and have had some "entertaining" exchanges between some on-line clans in on-line gaming many many years ago. I used to write what I affectionately termed "flamericks". LOL I know there were likely some hurt feelings, but it was a forum where the general rule of thumb was "rough play allowed" and people got bruised at times, though we also had comraderie within the clans and would nurse wounds as well get back to being buddies after the verbal hangovers

I realize why there can be a need at times to distance oneself from emotions when dealing with a difficult subject and so can understand why a term like "collateral damage" could be used, and if some cold precision is needed in a decision then there can be uses for using less emotionally charged wordings, or maybe similar to someone being a doctor - a certain distancing might be needed in order to not feel fully and immediately responsible for something that could be the difference between life or death. I'm certain it would be painful to invest oneself to become a doctor and then find times at which even best efforts fail to be sufficient ... in which case some detachment would be necessary.

Thank you for the clarification on Websters English also. You were right that I had misinterpreted your statement to an extent. My apology for that.

I guess even in war someone might need to simply refer to something as "collateral damage", but if there's ever a time to first consider more directly and immediately what that means it would seem that prior to initiating actions with potential collateral damage would be a perfect point at which to stop and first take a look around and consider the consequences ... when people become simply numbers with no faces or family etc. attached, then there's a problem. It's a shame that's so little low-level (and non-media intervened) representation in government ... it seems to become more detached from day to day reality as the scales get larger (and a global government would probably be the most detached and least responsive to diverse concerns of the people it affected).

Oh well, that's just my rambling for the evening, Lorrina. I appreciate your 'down-to-Earth' perspective on things as well ... that's always a good one to maintain, IMO