<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fun with Words</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2004/11/10/fun-with-words/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2004/11/10/fun-with-words/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:49:54 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: BlahBlahBlah</title>
		<link>http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2004/11/10/fun-with-words/#comment-1969</link>
		<dc:creator>BlahBlahBlah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=65#comment-1969</guid>
		<description>&quot;What a distortion of a good word!&quot;  Distortion you say, I&#039;m sure you have used  that word in it&#039;s current context and felt it was good to suit your need. The word has changed but saying it&#039;s distorted implies it has degraded, and in most cases words change but why is the original always better? I see this and in some cases justified and in others people are just well..............</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;What a distortion of a good word!&#8221;  Distortion you say, I&#8217;m sure you have used  that word in it&#8217;s current context and felt it was good to suit your need. The word has changed but saying it&#8217;s distorted implies it has degraded, and in most cases words change but why is the original always better? I see this and in some cases justified and in others people are just well&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: damask-rose</title>
		<link>http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2004/11/10/fun-with-words/#comment-162</link>
		<dc:creator>damask-rose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=65#comment-162</guid>
		<description>I particularly liked your analysis of the word &#039;propaganda&#039;.  I had just read wikipedias definition and was shocked that it described the word as meaning &quot;to use lies and deception&quot; to persuade the masses of one&#039;s (usually evil) veiwpoint.  Where did they get that from?  What a distortion of a good word!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I particularly liked your analysis of the word &#8216;propaganda&#8217;.  I had just read wikipedias definition and was shocked that it described the word as meaning &#8220;to use lies and deception&#8221; to persuade the masses of one&#8217;s (usually evil) veiwpoint.  Where did they get that from?  What a distortion of a good word!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SG</title>
		<link>http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2004/11/10/fun-with-words/#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator>SG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:19:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=65#comment-97</guid>
		<description>    You probably thought decimation meant 90% destruction BECAUSE it is so commonly mixed up with devastation. 
    As for the mandate thing, this is a case of a word being distorted for political purposes, and that usage doesn&#039;t pass our global test of appearing in the dictionary yet.  Of course it probably IS in some dictionary somewhere, but you gotta have SOME standards.
    Anyhow, as we said, a mandate could conceivably be claimed in a single-issue election-- and single-issue elections tend to be pretty one-sided. The last such we can recall was Ford&#039;s defeat over the Nixon fiasco. We don&#039;t recall a single issue election where the victor referred to his win as a mandate.
    The real problem with Bush&#039;s claiming a mandate is that no single &quot;issue&quot; represented the majority of opinion within either side. Maybe 20% of    Bush voters are religious conservatives who voted for him because of the religious issues, so even if he did receive a majority of the vote there&#039;s no way he can claim that the majority endorses that point of view. Well, wait a minute. Of course he can CLAIM a mandate-- but we shouldn&#039;t let him get away with it. Don&#039;t forget that this is a man who said &quot;If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I&#039;m the dictator.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You probably thought decimation meant 90% destruction BECAUSE it is so commonly mixed up with devastation.<br />
    As for the mandate thing, this is a case of a word being distorted for political purposes, and that usage doesn&#8217;t pass our global test of appearing in the dictionary yet.  Of course it probably IS in some dictionary somewhere, but you gotta have SOME standards.<br />
    Anyhow, as we said, a mandate could conceivably be claimed in a single-issue election&#8211; and single-issue elections tend to be pretty one-sided. The last such we can recall was Ford&#8217;s defeat over the Nixon fiasco. We don&#8217;t recall a single issue election where the victor referred to his win as a mandate.<br />
    The real problem with Bush&#8217;s claiming a mandate is that no single &#8220;issue&#8221; represented the majority of opinion within either side. Maybe 20% of    Bush voters are religious conservatives who voted for him because of the religious issues, so even if he did receive a majority of the vote there&#8217;s no way he can claim that the majority endorses that point of view. Well, wait a minute. Of course he can CLAIM a mandate&#8211; but we shouldn&#8217;t let him get away with it. Don&#8217;t forget that this is a man who said &#8220;If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I&#8217;m the dictator.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bean</title>
		<link>http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2004/11/10/fun-with-words/#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator>bean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=65#comment-96</guid>
		<description>funny, I always thought &quot;decimate&quot; meant to reduce something to one-tenth...go figure. The &quot;mandate&quot; thing has been wacky, though...a political mandate     exists, imho, when a candidate gets an unusually large, or lopsided, victory...a squeaker is never a mandate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>funny, I always thought &#8220;decimate&#8221; meant to reduce something to one-tenth&#8230;go figure. The &#8220;mandate&#8221; thing has been wacky, though&#8230;a political mandate     exists, imho, when a candidate gets an unusually large, or lopsided, victory&#8230;a squeaker is never a mandate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

