What fire?
I'm sure Alison is capable of speaking for herself.
That's all, Dave, thanks--
Candice
on 1/4/02 12:38 PM, david.bircumshaw at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Candice, this fire's been burning too long.
>
> You say to Alison:
>
>> I don't recall your complaining of "arson-terrorism" as "inappropriate,"
>
> Her first response to your introduction of the term 'arson-terrorism'
> included:
>
>> "Arson-terrorism" seems an inaccurate term to me; arson will do.
>
>
> That's all.
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> David Bircumshaw
>
> Leicester, England
>
> Home Page
>
> A Chide's Alphabet
>
> Painting Without Numbers
>
> www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 12:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Happy New Year/ Oz burns
>
>
>> on 1/3/02 5:14 PM, Alison Croggon at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>> Extraordinary, Candice - this sort of fear-inflation by buzz words,
>>> and the consequent cripppling of thinking and critique, is just what
>>> I was objecting to when I complained that "arson-terrorism" was
>>> inappropriate.
>>
>> I think you must have misunderstood Chris's post, Alison--surely he was
>> objecting to government-manipulated "fear-inflation by buzz words, and the
>> consequent crippling of thinking and critique," by the media(?).
>>
>> I don't recall your complaining of "arson-terrorism" as "inappropriate,"
>> although, going by Chris's report, you'd apparently be right to do so
> where
>> these fires are concerned. What I heard you saying was that "terrorism" is
> a
>> "non-word," which it most certainly is not, and I remain baffled by your
>> wish to deny its usage, even its existence perhaps, in the face of
>> overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is every reason to advocate
> for
>> clearer definition of "terrorism," though, which classifying it by type
>> (arson-, say, or media-) might do, if not exclusively of course. This is
>> just one possible means of clarification among others, the point being the
>> need to define the term more specifically and thereby more usefully.
>>
>> Candice
|