That’s quite a leap considering the average life expectancy hasn’t changed in that generation.If you put a literal interpretation on today’s definition of middle age, that would mean our average life expectancy would be 80-130.

So what gives? Why has middle age become a Phase that Cannot Be Called Middle Age?

And what are the new words that have sprung up to replace it? Go here for the rest of the story.

We don’t use a cap T for telephone, R for radio or railroad, cap Ps for pencil and paper and cap H in highway. These were all important communication media that changed the way we live and work and relate to one another, yet we’ve managed quite nicely with the lowercase.

Open any style guide and see them shriek the capital rule on Internet and Web. “Death to lowercase users!” they seem to be saying.

Why?

I don’t buy the proper-noun argument. Surely the internet has transcended the specific and proper and moved into the realm of the generic. These words aren’t copyrighted or branded or trademarked, so that’s no excuse either.

My theory is that the capitalization is a hangover from the early heady days when over-exuberance prompted some people to MAKE IT ALL SEEM MORE IMPORTANT BY WRITING IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

Let’s not be style slaves to style guides that are simply repeating internet grammar protocols of yore. Let’s grow up and challenge these unnecessary embellishments.

It’s pretentious and it stokes the forces of capital-letter inflation. After all, if everything is capitalized, then nothing stands out.

Down with capital I in internet.

BTW, the spell check on this post is lighting up the word internet. Wonder why?

By “Panties,” I mean those undergarments worn on the bottom by members of female sex.

I’m not calling for a universal moratorium on the use of the word “Panties.” I don’t object to its use when deployed to describe the undergarment worn by a girl child between the ages of 2-12.

“Panties” is a perfectly acceptable description for an undergarment worn by this age group. But when you advance the age of the female wearer to, say, 30, 48, or 73, you have to ask yourself if it is entirely appropriate to refer to the undergarment in question as “Panties?”

“Panties” infantilizes its wearer, reduces her to a juvenile status. “Panties” lacks the authority and confidence of an undergarment that should be worn by the grown woman. “Panties” are worn by little girls, some of whom have very recently graduated from diapers.

It’s not that we lack a choice of words for the undergarment worn by the mature woman. We have the muscular “underpants” and the less strident “underwear” and the slightly mysterious “underthings.”

Common slang parlance includes “undies” or if you’re British “knickers” or “knick knicks” although the latter term might be creeping back into the territory of juvenile. Sensible undergarment retailers refer to them as “briefs.”

Romantics might define the undergarment as “lingerie” although it’s unlikely “lingerie” would be worn by a woman going out to play a game of rugby, for instance. But “lingerie” while not universally appropriate is, at least, mature and dignified.

More descriptive terms might include “thongs” or “boy shorts.” I’m sure there are plenty of other descriptions for the undergarment, but it is the age-appropriateness that concerns me.

Let us embrace an appropriate term for this undergarment of bottom regions and leave “panties” to the children. If you have other suggestions please offer.

“Intensity reduction” – a pillar of Mr. Harper’s new green plan – allows industry to increase greenhouse gas outputs as they raise production. According to Al Gore, “intensity reduction” is a poll-tested phrase developed by think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and other large polluters.

Mr. Gore lambasted Canada’s new plan to reduce greenhouse gases, calling it “a complete and total fraud” because it lacks specifics and gives industry a way to actually increase emissions.

Given Mr. Harper’s disdain for green politics, it’s not surprising that he would so gratitously appropriate the weasel words of oil-and-gas vested interests.

Let’s do everyone a favour and ban these weasel words “intensity reduction.” That way Mr. Harper can use words we all understand to explain how, when and where he will reduce greenhouse emissions.

The term “War on Terror” will no longer be used by the British, according to International Development Secretary Hilary Benn who spoke at the Center on International Cooperation in New York. You may recall that The Gifted Typist banned this term in November.

According to Mr. Benn: “In the U.K., we do not use the phrase ‘war on terror’ because we can’t win by military means alone and because this isn’t us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.”

The phrase, still deployed President Bush, is now regarded as vague and simplistic by the British. Could this be the beginning of the end? Or the end of the beginning?

An affliction that affects 4 out of 5 Nova Scotia politicians living on the provincial and municipal taxpayer. Symptoms include loss of judgement, blurry vision and absence of backbone.
Sufferers may show signs of blindness to problems facing Nova Scotia, lack of inspiration, inability to grasp new opportunities, obsession with past, confusion over future, and occasional upset stomach.

A politician you know may be living with Nova Scotiaria

Delusional Nova Scotiaria is not difficult to spot. The Delusional Nova Scotiaria victim might even be your local representative, your mayor or Nova Scotia premier.

• aversion to leadership
• loss of connection with people and rest of country
• lack of judgement in advertising campaigns to draw Nova Scotians back from Calgary
• inability to see writing on the wall with regard to aging population, declining birthrate, loss of young workers who are also taxpayers, Western-based federal government wanting to redress fiscal imbalance – ie buy votes in big provinces and leave small provinces out to dry.
• absence of vision or plan

Delusionsal Nova Scotiaria can easily be overcome. Simply vote out all afflicted politicians – and you know who they are – in next election and demand something better for healthy Nova Scotians who have staked out an interest here.

Like most ill-conceived, thoughtless and dare we say stupid enterprises, the Delusional Calgaria campaign by Rodney MacDonald’s Nova Scotia government is floundering.

Yesterday, they dropped the word “delusional” after complaints that the campaign trivializes mental health issues. (Thanks to deepti for alerting GT to this.) Now the disease of people who leave Nova Scotia to find work is simply called Calgaria.
You may call this political correctness. You may call it respect. Your choice.

But real issue remains: Rodney MacDonald’s attempt at a humorous trope to lure Nova Scotians back to this province is hollow and insulting to the very people it attempts to lure back. And if you needed evidence you only had to read the litany of letters from those people published in yesterday’s Herald.

The campaign fails to recognize that Nova Scotia simply cannot match Boomtown Calgary in jobs, salaries and opportunities available. It pokes fun at the people who left the province and it takes a cheap shot at Calgary which enjoys an economy Nova Scotia could only dream about.

As we said before, Rodney, build it and they will come. But build a website, and they probably won’t. Now, you are the one who looks delusional. And you have turned your province into a national laughing stock.

Past posts on banned words (31)

Yes, the Delusional Calgaria campaign to get Nova Scotians back home is cute and funny. Yes, Nova Scotians have a good sense of humour, a great lifestyle, cheaper rentals, smaller traffic jams and a kinder gentler pace of life.

But the cute campaign by Rodney MacDonald’s Nova Scotia government misses the point. It confuses the build-it-and-they-will-come philosophy with a build-a-website-and-they-will-come” approach.

Sure the cute campaign is getting publicity. But to what end? What, Rodney, do you suppose all these ex-pat Nova Scotian are going to come back to? Jobs in call centres? Retail? Fast food? Perhaps they can work on Delusional Calgaria websites.

The Delusional Calgaria campaign doesn’t insult Calgary or Calgarians. It insults the battery Nova Scotians who left – often against their will – to pursue work and opportunities.

Most of them didn’t want to abandon all the great things in Nova Scotia. They left to get good paying jobs and to get them quickly so they can pay off student debt among other things. They left for an enterprise culture that will produce opportunities and skills, the things they need to build their future.

If anyone looks delusional here, it is the government of Nova Scotia for making such a ludicrous pitch. If you build it, they will come. But if you just say it, they will not. And who could blame them?

Past posts on banned words (31)

Here is TagBagger’s Pythonesque take on IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) which we banned in the previous post. Cynical? Or just calling a bomb a bomb. It was pulled out of GT comments.

1)The ‘good guys’ use REAL ‘Bombs’ – only evil terrorists use IED’s – because they are the bad guys

2)They are also bad guys because they refuse to fight fair by the definition of the “Coalition’ occupying armies – this is very bad, and shows a weak moral war compass.

3)The media uses IED, because it sounds cool, and shows that they appreciate the briefings they get from the good guys. They demonstrate their gratitude by turning off their camera as the Governor General is toured through the army vehicles that have been damaged by the ‘bad evil guys’ IED’s – if they didn’t, one might begin to wonder just who is good, and who is bad – which is a slippery slope.

Remember kids – Bombs=Good (esp. the new smart bombs that only kill bad guys and women and children who will at some point in the future become bad guys for sure)

IED’s=Bad – unfair evil war cheating terrorists heroically fighting the Western occupying armies in their own country… (Oh wait, I’m getting confused here) Bombs=Good, IED’s=Bad, UsGood, ThemBad – always remember kids – the ‘Other’ is always bad.

Labels: banned words

Why can’t we just call a bomb a bomb?

Sure, there are different types of bombs. There are big bombs, little bombs, fertilizer bombs, smart bombs, pipe bombs, incendiary bombs, doodlebug bombs, cluster bombs, nail bombs, roadside bombs and bath bombs.

IED is military nomenclature for “improvised explosive device.”
Why don’t they just say homemade bomb?

And why do does the media use this lingo? It’s fine for an organization like the military to have its jargon, but if the terminology doesn’t enhance our understanding, then why use it? Just because we can?

IED? Sounds like IUD – Intra Uterine Device – not a roadside bomb.
It also sounds like WMD, a little-roll-off-the-tongue device picked up by media hungry for war ratings in another time and place.

Let’s ban IED and keep the communication real and honest.