"gatt" wrote:


Well, at least they didn't say "completely destroyed" or "partially
destroyed."

(Things are either destroyed or they're not. Otherwise, they might be
nearly-destroyed, heavily damaged, etc., but you still hear the media mangle
that one up.)

Well, I don't think that kind of error is very unique. (g,d,&r)

(Things are either one of a kind (unique) or they are not. They may be
very unusual or nearly unique, but there are no degrees of
uniqueness.)

But I think you and I are on the losing side of the word purity
battle--incorrect usage repeated often enough becomes "common usage",
which in turn becomes "correct".

Same thing with using the ambiguous term "bi-annual" in place of
biennial.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.