Obviously, you have not been properly briefed. Weapons of mass destruction are those the other side uses. Yours are weapons of defense.
I understand the Picts were the first to complain of this. The Romans not only wore clothes, but they actually wore that infernal armor as well when everyone knows you were only supposed to wear a bit of blue paint. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Treena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:55 AM Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > If we're going to use the phrase "mass destruction," and I suppose we are > since it seems to be officially sanctioned by the UN, how much does it have > to destroy to qualify as being of "mass destruction?" Aren't ordinary bombs > meant to destroy lots of things at once? What if someone deployed a chemical > weapon and it killed just one person? Would it still be a weapon of mass > destruction, or would it be just a weapon of very small destruction? I find > that phrase so odd, because most of the things used by militaries are > supposed to destroy a lot at one time - otherwise we'd go back to countries > fighting with bows and arrows, and sharp, pointy sticks. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:14 AM > Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > > > > > On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 06:25 AM, William Robb wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Peter Alling" > > > Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > > > > >>> Weapons of mass destruction. > > > > > >> Since, mass can be neither created or destroyed? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > This topic is getting ... massive. I wish we had some way to fight it. > > Perhaps a weapon of some sort.... > > > > Dan Scott > > > > >
