Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

So What Do You Do, Kelly Day, CEO of Blip?
The woman who heads up the largest independently owned video network tells how she's bringing TV into the digital age. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Hillary's Next Job...

Hillary's Next Job...

Post Reply Back to Forums

51–75 out of 91 messages

Author	Message

blackedtaped	Posted - 1/30/2013 5:05:07 PM \| show profile \| flag this post etaoin, not to split hairs but calling something an act of terror is not the same as calling those who committed the act "terrorists". He was very clear in his choice of words, he repeated them at least three times over those first few days. Not once did he say the attack was carried out by terrorists, he called it an "act of terror". There is a difference.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/30/2013 5:10:12 PM \| show profile \| flag this post That was funny; stopbs admitting her poorly constructed comment, orth (and I) calling her on it. stopbs? That sentence should have gone through the Turkey Shredder behind Palin... Anyway--if there's any rounds left in the chamber orth, use it on this sentence from cruise yesterday: "I will make a bold declarative statement: I seriously doubt..." Now THERE is bold declarative statement on maybe I don't know 'casue I have no proof one way or the other....

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 1/31/2013 8:28:35 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Blackedtape... Perhaps English is not your first language. But the people who carry out acts of terror are called what? Terrorists. Right?

it's just tv folks	Posted - 1/31/2013 10:23:46 AM \| show profile \| flag this post thank you etaoin couldn't have said that better myself.

blackedtaped	Posted - 1/31/2013 1:41:27 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Actually, etaoin... Not the case at all. Look up the definition of the terms. An act of terror can be many things and committing an act of terror does automatically make someone a terrorist. A serial killer carries outs "acts of terror" but no one would call them a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who systematically uses terror especially as a means of coercion (per Webster). Like I said, he chose his words very carefully. He avoided calling them "terrorists" in case they did in fact turn out to be overzealous protestors. Pretty smart on his part.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 1/31/2013 2:22:06 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You are really reaching, blackedtape... Obama was not talking about serial killers. He talking specifically about the Benghazi attack in each of the three examples I cited.

blackedtaped	Posted - 1/31/2013 2:46:36 PM \| show profile \| flag this post True, etaoin... And three time he called them "acts of terror" not "acts of terrorism". It was not by coincidence or chance that three times he used the exact same phrase. And not once did he use the word "terrorist". Spin all you want, but you know it is true.

orthicon	Posted - 1/31/2013 3:13:57 PM \| show profile \| flag this post guys, guys, guys..c'mon.. a person who commits an act of terror is by definition a terrorist.. whatever and whoever else he or she may be.. this has been one of the more senseless arguments yet..not just by you two, but by the political masses on both sides..gteh insane parsing of one word to somehow gain a political advantage..however miniscule.. not anyone's best hours, gang..

blackedtaped	Posted - 1/31/2013 3:23:15 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Sorry orthicon But that statement is too broad and just not accurate. I gave one example of an act of terror not committed by a terrorist, there are plenty of others. Words mean things, which is why the President chose his very carefully. I give him full credit for that, he did a masterful job of covering his bases. But you are right about one thing, this has gone on long enough. The lack of understanding on your parts does not change the truth of what I am saying.

orthicon	Posted - 1/31/2013 4:52:46 PM \| show profile \| flag this post sure, but my point is that eta could easily make.. the same argument in support of his position as you are in yours..and you'd both be right..

blackedtaped	Posted - 2/1/2013 8:21:57 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Orthicon you are right Etaoin could make that point but it would be wrong. It is really simple, terrorism is an act of terror while an act of terror may or may not be terrorism. I give the President credit for knowing that distinction while others either don't understand it or don't think Obama understands it.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 2/1/2013 9:32:52 AM \| show profile \| flag this post God, blacked.... you're letting your politics confuse your grasp of the English language. When people talk about "acts of terror" -- they are talking about a terrorist attack. Where have you been since 9/11? I've been a journalist for 30 years. I spent four years specializing in covering mass murderers and serial killers. Another ten years specializing in national security coverage. I have never, never, ever heard anyone refer to a serial killer's actions as "an act of terror." But it is a commonly used term for terrorist attacks. Read the three quotes I posted. Take them in context. You will see that Obama WAS referring to the Benghazi attacks as terrorist attacks.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 2/1/2013 11:31:21 AM \| show profile \| flag this post It's possible there is someone (or more) in this thread who aren't aware that the old legal term "terrorist threat" (for things like saying "I'm going to kill you" or "you'd better watch your back") was changed some years ago after 9/11 to "criminal threat."

cruiser	Posted - 2/1/2013 11:46:57 AM \| show profile \| flag this post "Terrorist" is an adjective that describes the threat...NOT a noun to describe the threat maker.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 2/1/2013 12:02:53 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Cruzo... "Terrorist" is a noun, not an adjective. If you were really a "non-fiction writer" you'd know the old elementary school "very test." That is, if you can't properly use the word "very" in front of a word, it is NOT an adjective. Check your dictionary.

blackedtaped	Posted - 2/1/2013 12:08:04 PM \| show profile \| flag this post eatoin... I am not the one letting my politics get in the way here. It really is very simple. This President is very careful about his wording and chooses his words very carefully. If he wanted to be clear and call this a terrorist act he would have used the words "terrorism"or "terrorist". He very carefully chose not to use those terms. I cannot imagine that an experienced journalist such as yourself would ever use a phrase such as "act of terror" when your intention is to clearly label an event as a "terrorist act". I certainly cannot imagine you would avoid using the terms "terrorism" or "terrorist" completely. I would think you would prefer clarity over ambiguity. I imagine your editor would certainly prefer it.

mpdodgson	Posted - 2/1/2013 12:33:25 PM \| show profile \| flag this post For the heck of it I checked both Dictionary.com and my Websters (since I honestly did not know for certain). Both say "terrorist" can be a noun and an adjective. blackedtape; I understand where you're coming from, but we're beating the semantics to death on this. To me, even as an Editor; I would clearly understand that 'acts of terror' were done by a 'terrorist' (Or a mime--but that's me) On 9/11, president Bush said "Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country" APPARENT?? Isn't being non-committal like that what people criticized the Obama Administration for?? and on 9/12, president Bush said "The deliberate and deadly attacks, which were carried out yesterday against our country, were more than acts of terror" There's that phrase again. And in the speech titled "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya" (Gee, wonder what the speech is about?) Obama also said "But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers." NO--he didn't say "terrorists" there either--but I think we can assume "their attackers" didn't mean they were stopping by to say "Hi". I totally agree that specific words have specific meanings. But, c'mon, this constant bullshit that Obama wasn't talking about Libya, or the terrorists who attacked us, in general has gotten silly.

cruiser	Posted - 2/1/2013 12:49:14 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "'Terrorist' is a noun, not an adjective" Thirty years in journalism??? And you never learned to see things in context??? Maybe that's why you don't ever get anything right on here. "Terrorist threat" is a phrase of which "threat" is the noun and "terrorist" (albeit it is misspelled...it should be "terroristic") is the adjective. Jesus, you're stupid.

cruiser	Posted - 2/1/2013 12:52:32 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "On 9/11, president Bush said..." Who the hell was talking about President Bush??? Oh that's right! You hate Bush with your whole being and never miss an opportunity...even if you have to manufacture one...to bash him.

mpdodgson	Posted - 2/1/2013 1:15:07 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Jeez, take a pill. It's called "perspective". IF ANY President--either party--condemns "Acts of Terror" I think we can safely assume he's condemning the terrorists. I was merely pointing out that Bush used the same phrase, and there certainly wasn't this much bullshit about it. And you clearly said "Terrorist" is an adjective that describes the threat...NOT a noun to describe the threat maker." Or did I misquote you in your mind again? I was merely pointing out that my two dictionaries said it can be both. No need for "Jesus, you're stupid." just because you were't 100% correct.

blackedtaped	Posted - 2/1/2013 2:03:14 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Mpdodgson... It all comes down to the fact that President Obama never used the words "terrorist" or "terrorism". It requires the listener to make the assumption that is what he meant by the phrase "acts of terror". President Obama is way too polished and deliberate a public speaker to leave it open to interpretation, especially three times over two days. That is it, I formally give up. I am done beating my head against the wall. I mean "At this point what does it matter!!"

mpdodgson	Posted - 2/1/2013 2:33:33 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Fine, I'll give up too. "...President Obama never used the words "terrorist" or "terrorism". It requires the listener to make the assumption that is what he meant by the phrase "acts of terror" If you choose to believe (as many in the Right do) that because one word wasn't used--(terrorist) but the description of what he/they did was used (acts of terror) that that somehow implies some sort of cryptic word conspiracy--so be it. Trapeze artists and lion tamers aren't 'circus performers' because you didn't use the "c" word. And just because you're a reporter, photog, editor, producer, AP, anchor, writer, who happens to work at a newspaper or broadcast news outlet etc etc, doesn't make you a Journalist, because you never used the "J" word. IMO, The WH and Intel Community clearly screwed up when it came to choosing their language in the first few days. And that includes telling Ambass Rice what to say. (But that's a whole lot different than taking YEARS to correct your assessment, but I digress) But when you've got the WH in one week saying "Jay Carney answered a question about an open hearing with the National Counterterrorism Center Director, Matthew G. Olsen, which referenced which extremist groups might have been involved. Carney said, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self-evident" Counterterrism Center? Terrorist attack?? Add that to the 'Acts of Terror"...What more do you want??? I just see this as another (weak) opportunity to bash Obama for no good reason. But I'm willing to end it if you are.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 2/1/2013 2:48:47 PM \| show profile \| flag this post And cruzo flunks English... when he said: "'Terrorist threat' is a phrase of which 'threat' is the noun and 'terrorist' (albeit it is misspelled...it should be "terroristic") is the adjective." No. In the context as it was used -- as a criminal charge -- it was a compound noun -- like New York City, windshield wiper, etc. Compound nouns are nouns (a person, place or thing) made up of two or more words. It is not to be confused with a compound word. In this case, "terrorist threat" was used as a "thing." And you STILL haven't checked your dictionary. I don't know of a single dictionary that would tell you "terrorist" is an adjective. You're really embarrassing yourself in front of our "casual readers" who actually DO make their livings with the proper use of English on a daily basis, cruzo. You are certainly no writer.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 2/2/2013 12:26:08 AM \| show profile \| flag this post ;o)

orthicon	Posted - 2/2/2013 12:37:38 AM \| show profile \| flag this post eell, you don't really have to be a writer to.. update repair manuals for washing machines for home depot..