With that crank, Liv, there's never any lever -- only a knob.

reckon my L Ron Hubbard was in better taste

The offending image isn't particularly funny. But your reaction to it is.

Pomo-wank for "bad attempt at humor but too hung-up on appearing super-cool at all costs to admit it."

Are you saying, after all this time, that you didn't find that 9/11 cannabis joke funny?!!

That's what I'm saying.

Are you saying, after all this time, that you didn't find that 9/11 cannabis joke funny?!!

As I already indicated, I posted the offending image in response to PC's comment on the racist badges thread.

In your comment on the Veitch thread, you wrongly assume that I think the offending image is "funny as hell". I don't. The offending image isn't particularly funny. But your reaction to it is.

Then, on the basis of your wrong assumption, you erroneously imply that my moral compass lacks lustre. It doesn't. See me for moral guidance.

You should buy some more apple juice while you're at it, Mark. The more apple juice you buy, the more beer I can buy

As a resident of the area, I can propose some reasons--suggest them, not defend them as correct.

Beyond the attacks, the enterprise of responding, police and firemen, etc., and the loss of life spread throughout this general area (I live on Long Island; several kids in the local elementary school lost a parent), living with the cleaning-up, being constantly reminded of our vulnerability by the bereft NYC skyline; the dislocated businesses and long process of survivors' recovery may be why it's also called a disaster.

Mindy

As I said just bump the original thread. Not meaning to have a go Glenn but it's just not practical to spread it out over every 2nd thread.

Especially when I see half of the participants on this thread, who've all previously made light of the event, now blithely having a discussion about the which word best describes it.

Seeing as both are perfectly accurate. But yes, I haven't really noticed widespread re-wording either.

And Glenn, this is turning in to over kill. The 9/11 joke episode doesn't have to bleed in to every single thread. If you want to revisit the discussion then bump the thread.

I agree that changing "attack" to "disaster" is a clear example of Orwellian PC-speak.  But I don't recall seeing the 9/11 attacks described that way anywhere prominent.  Can you give some examples?

To put numbers on it, Google suggests that there are around 1.7 million references to "9/11 attacks" and 74,400 references to "9/11 disaster".  That's a ratio of 23:1.

there are some SOLOists who can turn such an obscenity into joviality.

... my arse. "Man-made obscenity" for which "man-made disaster" is a weasel-worded euphemism.

Mmm. We agree on this Richard.

Off to get my online Lotto ticket

I think you are right, Mark. It's a very weak word, and no doubt the intention is to downplay the enemy.

I feel it is a 'weak' word in that it blinds the user to the fact there was an enemy. And is an enemy. It takes away the cause, whereas 'attack' gives the truth of the disaster.

there are man made disasters and natural disasters. 9/11 was the former. I see no problem with it. Disaster isn't a weak word.

From about a few months after the day.