Vintage Jet Slams Into Homes Near Air Show

Skylune wrote:
Its like when people say "near miss." What they actually mean is "near
hit."


No, near is modifying either miss or hit. A near hit means that you
actually had to hit something.

Matt

"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.

"alexy" wrote in message
...

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.

*shudder* Good example of one of those words where you have to pause,
figure out which it means, and then figure out what the person saying it
actually meant. "Now, you're saying bi-annual, right? Not biennial?"
("Yeah. Biannial.")

-c

Same thing with using the ambiguous term "bi-annual" in place of biennial.

I have been reading the draft of a usage dictionary written by a
friend an former colleague. I quote:

"According to dictionaries, 'biannual' means 'twice a year' and
'biennial' means 'every two years.' Those definitions invite
confusion, so writers should avoiding using... [them]."

vince norris

alexy wrote:


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".


You mean like "Analyzating" or when Bush says "nuculer" when he means
"nuclear" or "subliminate" when he means "subliminal?" Or why he mixes
up
perseverance and preservation? Why does he mangle the English language
often enough for Slate Editor Jacob Weisberg to produce three books of
Bushisms such as "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your
family."

8^)

Monk

On 18 Jul 2006 12:29:42 -0700, "Flyingmonk"
wrote in . com::

Why does he mangle the English language
often enough for Slate Editor Jacob Weisberg to produce three books of
Bushisms such as "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your
family."

Given that this message thread is now protected from readership
protest by it's 'POL' notation, perhaps it's safe enough to post some
more Bush quotes:


"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
-- George W. Bush.


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush


According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to
strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the
problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the
elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


===========================
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...095480&start=2
BUDDIES Tony Blair and George Bush were deeply embarrassed last night
after being caught using distinctly undiplomatic remarks in some
off-guarded moments.

Their expletive-ridden chat at the G8 Summit moved on from how they
could solve the Middle East crisis to the serious matter of the
sweater that the Prime Minister had given the US President as a gift.

Aides are now battling to repair the damage after the two leaders
spoke frankly, and somewhat fruitily, over lunch in St Petersburg,
unaware their remarks were being recorded by a TV microphone.
....

Bush: Yo Blair how are you doing?

Blair: I'm just. . .

Bush: You're leaving?

Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy. . .

Bush: Yeah I told that to the man

Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?

Bush: If you want me to

Blair: Well, it's just that if the discussion arises. . .

Bush: I just want some movement.

Blair: Yeah

Bush: Yesterday we didn't see much movement

Blair: No, no, it may be that it's not, it maybe that it's impossible

Bush: I am prepared to say it

Blair: But it's just I think what we need to be an opposition

Bush: Who is introducing the trade

Blair: Angela

Bush: Tell her to call 'em

Blair: Yes

Bush: Tell her to put him on them on the spot. Thanks for the sweater.
It's awfully thoughtful of you

Blair: It's a pleasure

Bush: I know you picked it out yourself

Blair: Oh, absoultely, in fact - in fact I knitted it! ! !

Bush: What about Kofi Annan - he seems alright. I don't like his
ceasefire plan. His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything
sorts out. . . . But I think. . .

Blair: Yeah the only thing I think is really difficult is that we
can't stop this without getting international presence agreed. I think
what you guys have talked about which is the criticism of the
(inaudible word). I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of
the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will
spiral.

Bush: Yeah

Blair: I don't know what you guys have talked about but as I say I am
perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is but you
need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral

Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon

Blair: But that's, that's, that's all that matters. But if you, you
see it will take some time to get that together

Bush: Yeah, yeah

Blair: But at least it gives people. . .

Bush: It's a process, I agree. I told her your offer too. . .

Blair: Well it's only if she needs the ground prepared as it were.

If she goes out she has to succeed whereas I can just go and talk.

Bush: You see, the . . . thing is what they need to do is to get
Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s*** and it's over

Blair: Dunno. . . Syria. . . .

Bush: Why?

Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing

Bush: (with mouth full of bread) Yeah.

Blair: What does he (Kofi Annan) think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out
fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the
right way. . .

Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is sweet

Blair: He is honey. And that's what the whole thing is about. It's the
same with Iraq

Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Bashad
(Bashir Assad) and make something happen

Blair: Yeah Bush: We're not blaming Israel.

We are not blaming the Lebanese government

Blair: Is this. . . ? (at this point Blair taps the microphone in
front of him and the sound is cut. )

Looking at video of the crash scene, "incinerated"
comes to mind. The Hunter was loaded with fuel for
the return trip to California.


--
Chuck Forsberg www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...

It didn't strike, it didn't impact, it didn't bounce off of, it didn't
land on, they didn't collide...it smashed into the friggin house.

Now you've gone and confused the whole issue! Did it "Slam" into the
house, or did it "Smash" into the house?

I dunno, but this mejia sensationalism all started when some fool screamed
"OH, THE HUMANITY" during an unscheduled blimp unpleasantness.

The die was cast. Now, every time friggin' fighter jet falls into a
neighborhood and bounces off a gutter, douses everything with jet fuel and
then ignites, it's a "fire" and the airplane "struck" the house. Just
because the house was instantly crushed, consumed by fire and incinerated
doesn't mean the airplane "slammed into" it. That's, like, subjective and
stuff.

It -figuratively- slammed into the house. More accurately, it lost power,
drilled into the house, exploded, blew the house to hell and gone, blew most
of the house next to it away, blew a fireball thousands of feet into the air
and required three fire departments to extinguish the homes burning around
the crash site. But it sure didn't -slam- into anything, did it?

And, gawdam, it wasn't a "vintage jet." It was "retired from active
military service."

-c

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:35:54 +0000, gatt wrote:

And, gawdam, it wasn't a "vintage jet." It was "retired from active
military service."

Why not "combat aircraft being operated by a civilian pilot for unknown
purposes"? Let's get some real Rovean fear going. Chicago needs an ADIZ,
after all.

- Andrew

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...
"gatt" wrote in message
...

It didn't strike, it didn't impact, it didn't bounce off of, it didn't
land on, they didn't collide...it smashed into the friggin house.


Now you've gone and confused the whole issue! Did it "Slam" into the
house, or did it "Smash" into the house?
Crash Lander

Gee, I don't know. I crashed once, it sure felt like "slammed" to me.

Al G