[WikiEN-l] Sep 11

Fri Jan 16 09:42:42 UTC 2004

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:
>
>>This assumes that there's a reason for it to be in the title at all.
>>Why is that?  What else could "September 11, 2001 attack" mean?
>>Titles are not required to be maximally complete.
>>
>
>Point taken. I was operating under the assumption that your reasoning was only 
>that 'terrorist' should be blacklisted from the title because it is a "loaded 
>term". 'September 11 Attack' is *at least* used as often as 'September 11 
>Terrorist Attack' (probably more so). Of course we would have the add '2001' 
>to the title because of ambiguity reasons. 
>
I can easily live with the year in the title.

>>Since this is a digression, I won't go on about what slander the 
>>term "PC" is. Suffice it to say that no social movement called 
>>itself that. 
>>
>
>Well there is no political action committee whose aim is PC that I am aware 
>of, nor any groups that have exclusively pro-PC meetings. PC is more of a 
>cross-group "movement" to change the English language (using the word 
>"movement" very loosely). Perhaps "trend" would be more accurate (even though 
>there are many counter trends to PC that help to negate its progress).  
>
They exist in some places.  Latin American death squads fall in that 
category.  In the United States the Ku Klux Klan had its own PC agenda.

Ec