When a victim is a murderer.

[codeorama]

Good find TEG... I bet they realized the controversy going on here at Extremeskins over the meaning of the word "victims" and decided it wasn't worth it...

Based on Jimbo's last post, I'd say he wins the prize...

[Art]

Fantastic find TEG. Looks like even the BBC is capable of realizing how to correctly use the language. Such is the power of letters to the editior . Credit to them for correcting their mistake. Code, given the change, pretty clearly even the BBC recognized they couldn't use the word they did in the context they did. The prize goes to them, and to anyone who saw how incorrectly the word was used.

[Burgold]

As I said, I'm just in the mood to be disagreeable. However, if I expand the thought just a wee little bit.

That is one cool dude.

Jerry walked by the lake where teens were iceskating. He flashed a killer smile and some of the teens swooned. They tried to impress him. They skated faster and jumped higher. The ice broke. One of the girl's fell through. Jerry dove in. Reaching out his hand found hers. He pulled her out. She thanked him for saving her life. Jerry smiled and shivered. That is one cool dude.

What does- That is one cool dude mean? Is he "cool" as in cold or impressive for saving her life. Could it mean both? In this context I may have meant the literal and figurative at the same time. Are either wrong?

For the record, you are correct that I previously chose four purposefully vague sentences. You were incorrect that I had a specific meaning in mind as my specific purpose was to come up with something that could have at least two simultaneously correct meanings. Admittedly, the writer of the article was not likely trying to be as intentionally ambiguous.

[Burgold]

The article TEG posted was much better. Got rid of the ambiguity easily. Ambiguity, I still think was a result of sloppy writing versus intentional bias.

[JimboDaMan]

Hey! A happy ending! How often do we have that?

Now....lets discuss the use of "homicide" vs. "suicide" bombers.

[Art]

You rarely remove "sloppy" writing after publication, Burgold. As a former journalist, I can assure you, sloppy writing is fixed prior to publication. Ambiguity is fixed prior to publication. The only thing to change after publication are errors. That's it. Uniformly in all journalism, whether web, or print, the ONLY thing to change after publication are errors.

As for the context of your words, given the clear lack of clarity you've allowed yourself in the crafting, it's hard to say. But, given the construct, the only definition possible is that he's physically chilly. "That is one cool dude" carries over from the previous sentence. The concept that he's "cool" in other ways only appears earlier in the paragraph in sentence two. However, since being impressive is not a definition of cool I'm aware of, the choice is only the one known one you asked to debate .

[Art]

Jimbo,

I would think "suicide" bomber is incorrect unless the only person to die during the attempt is the bomber. Once another person dies, though the bomber still did commit suicide, his actions also murdered another person, defining his actions as something done to others rather than just done to himself.

[Burgold]

nah:D

He could be cool as in impressive, heroic, admirable too. This is a silly semantic debate though. I think we've milled it enough. I do agree that the degree of liberty I took should never escape editing. It certainly would never pass my editing. However, I think that I heard that there are possible multiple meanings and that while you can choose one possibly even with near certainty, you can find equal evidence for the other. Thus, multiple definitions for the same word in the same sentence under the same context albeit in this case in a very contrived set-up.

[codeorama]

Art, the reason I said Jimbo wins the prize is because by changing the wording, the BBC has "admitted" it was the wrong choice, thus, there is no conspiracy. If they wanted the Killer to be portraited as a "victim" in the way that most of us are offended by, they would have left it worded exactly as they did.

The main point of this was if the BBC was slanted because they used the word in that way, In my opinion, if they were slanted, they would have left it alone because it would get their point across. The reality is that they used the word in the way the media often does (inappropriately I might add) and people called them on it, and they changed it.

[Burgold]

To answer your earlier question about why this was important to me or why I chose to wrestle over semantics-

There's so much hatred in the world that it bothers me when people try to artificially manufacture malice. The sentence is awkward and poorly constucted, but does not seem like a conscious assault to me. Could it be that an unconscious bias leaked through was and missed because the editor and writer share a point of view? That's a possibility. However, that would excuse the seperation of thought and redundancy error.

The thought that this is a prime example of the BBC and a writer engaging in a semantic conspiracy to subliminally generate sympathy for the Palestinian cause and to defuse the sympathy for the innocents who were murdered is difficult for me to swallow. There are true examples of bias. Better examples of pro-palestinian bias. Heck, calling them suicide bombers is a greater example of biased spin to me. Does it matter if the bias is intentional or a matter of reader interpretation? I think it does. I believe that's why PCism goes too far. It twists each sentence and places words under a microscope in order to establish the presumed guilt. It is nearly impossible for a writer to suppress his or her inclinations to the point of absolute objectivity. This was not an egregious example of bias in my opinion.