You guys keep sticking your head in the sand about censorship

[Loren Pechtel]

And what's bad English about it?

The past participle 'rocketed' cannot be used in English in the same way as 'bombed', with a simple substitution of the prefix denoting the nature of the projectile; Would you refer to a target as having been 'missiled' or 'bulleted'?

Hang on, you are American, so perhaps you would. You would be wrong to do so though.

This isn't Esperanto. There are rules in English, and they are as Byzantine and illogical as possible.

We have a specific word for "bulleted", namely "shot", thus it would be inappropriate.

If "rocketed" is unacceptable, what is the word for hit by a rocket?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The past participle 'rocketed' cannot be used in English in the same way as 'bombed', with a simple substitution of the prefix denoting the nature of the projectile; Would you refer to a target as having been 'missiled' or 'bulleted'?

Why? If enough people start to use "missile" or "bullet" as a verb that means to attack, hit, target, etc. with missiles or bullets then that will become a valid definition of those words. Why not?

This isn't Esperanto. There are rules in English, and they are as Byzantine and illogical as possible.

Rules that are vague, inconsistent and ever changing. Every single definition and rule within the English language was at one point not a valid word or a valid definition. Things change.

I have a copy of the Concise OED from 1999 that has listed a definition of the word "rocket" as a transitive verb meaning "bombard with rockets". Why is that wrong other than it is your opinion that it is wrong?

Or am I taking you too seriously?

Exactly--language changes over time. When we come across a situation where there is no suitable word but another can be used in a fashion that everyone will understand then the other takes on the new meaning also.

 

[KeepTalking]

The past participle 'rocketed' cannot be used in English in the same way as 'bombed', with a simple substitution of the prefix denoting the nature of the projectile; Would you refer to a target as having been 'missiled' or 'bulleted'?

Hang on, you are American, so perhaps you would. You would be wrong to do so though.

This isn't Esperanto. There are rules in English, and they are as Byzantine and illogical as possible.

We have a specific word for "bulleted", namely "shot", thus it would be inappropriate.

If "rocketed" is unacceptable, what is the word for hit by a rocket?

Blowed up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a copy of the Concise OED from 1999 that has listed a definition of the word "rocket" as a transitive verb meaning "bombard with rockets". Why is that wrong other than it is your opinion that it is wrong?

Why should I need another reason? Opposition to changes is a vital part of keeping the language sufficiently stable as to remain useful for conveying information precisely and smoothly. It is just as important to have opposition to change as it is to have change.

Luddite!

The meaning is clear, though. There's no issue of understanding. When you find a noun being used as a verb it obviously means the usual application of that noun. Thus to rocket something is to shoot a rocket at it. This might be confusing to a non-native speaker who could think they were messing up the grammar but a native speaker will immediately know that "rocket" is a verb--if they don't know of the verb meaning they'll still understand the sentence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have a specific word for "bulleted", namely "shot", thus it would be inappropriate.

If "rocketed" is unacceptable, what is the word for hit by a rocket?

Blowed up.

1) Blown up.

2) That's assuming the warhead works as intended. Armor piercing warheads fired at light targets sometimes go right through without detonating. At sufficiently close range the warhead might not have armed.

3) The ambulance I was referring to most certainly wasn't blown up. It had a big hole in the top and a bunch of little holes. (On the other hand it wasn't actually hit by a rocket. They took an ambulance that had been damaged in a wreck some time back and pretended it was hit by an Israeli missile while transporting a patient. The facts didn't add up, though--the simple kinetic energy of the missile would have done a lot more damage than we saw and then the final nail in the coffin was the holes were rusty.)

 

[KeepTalking]

Blowed up.

1) Blown up.

2) That's assuming the warhead works as intended. Armor piercing warheads fired at light targets sometimes go right through without detonating. At sufficiently close range the warhead might not have armed.

3) The ambulance I was referring to most certainly wasn't blown up. It had a big hole in the top and a bunch of little holes. (On the other hand it wasn't actually hit by a rocket. They took an ambulance that had been damaged in a wreck some time back and pretended it was hit by an Israeli missile while transporting a patient. The facts didn't add up, though--the simple kinetic energy of the missile would have done a lot more damage than we saw and then the final nail in the coffin was the holes were rusty.)

Can I pull the other one now?

 

[Bronzeage]

Blowed up.

1) Blown up.

2) That's assuming the warhead works as intended. Armor piercing warheads fired at light targets sometimes go right through without detonating. At sufficiently close range the warhead might not have armed.

3) The ambulance I was referring to most certainly wasn't blown up. It had a big hole in the top and a bunch of little holes. (On the other hand it wasn't actually hit by a rocket. They took an ambulance that had been damaged in a wreck some time back and pretended it was hit by an Israeli missile while transporting a patient. The facts didn't add up, though--the simple kinetic energy of the missile would have done a lot more damage than we saw and then the final nail in the coffin was the holes were rusty.)

Unless the rocket hit near the ambulance and shrapnel caused the damage. I imagine that during a rocket attack people are distracted and might not get the details exactly right. Do we have any data on how long it takes a steel panel to rust after it's been pieced by red hot metal?

A better question is, what difference does it make if the Israelis hit an ambulance with a rocket or not? When a rocket is fired at an urban area, it's going to hit something. A ambulance is as likely a target as any other vehicle.

You couched this proposition as if the Israelis would not fire a rocket at an ambulance, if they could help it. I've never seen any indication from either side of this conflict that there is some kind of concept of a "fair target."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

lol, everyone knows even Shakespeare didn't write like "Shakespeare".

True. Shakespeare was actually a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at pieces of paper over an infinite amount of time...which is why I am of the opinion that someday one of these Israel-Palestine threads is going to be awesome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Blown up.

2) That's assuming the warhead works as intended. Armor piercing warheads fired at light targets sometimes go right through without detonating. At sufficiently close range the warhead might not have armed.

3) The ambulance I was referring to most certainly wasn't blown up. It had a big hole in the top and a bunch of little holes. (On the other hand it wasn't actually hit by a rocket. They took an ambulance that had been damaged in a wreck some time back and pretended it was hit by an Israeli missile while transporting a patient. The facts didn't add up, though--the simple kinetic energy of the missile would have done a lot more damage than we saw and then the final nail in the coffin was the holes were rusty.)

Unless the rocket hit near the ambulance and shrapnel caused the damage. I imagine that during a rocket attack people are distracted and might not get the details exactly right. Do we have any data on how long it takes a steel panel to rust after it's been pieced by red hot metal?

A better question is, what difference does it make if the Israelis hit an ambulance with a rocket or not? When a rocket is fired at an urban area, it's going to hit something. A ambulance is as likely a target as any other vehicle.

You couched this proposition as if the Israelis would not fire a rocket at an ambulance, if they could help it. I've never seen any indication from either side of this conflict that there is some kind of concept of a "fair target."

A picture a day or two after the incident wouldn't show rust.

Besides, there's the big problem of what became of the missile. It supposedly punched straight down through the ambulance. Such weapons are generally traveling something like the speed of sound. Taking the mass of a typical air-launched anti-tank missile and it's speed and you get an energy similar to the ambulance hitting a brick wall at high freeway speeds. All that energy did basically nothing to the rest of the ambulance? It supposedly amputated a leg on the way down---but the splash of all that energy hitting the ground did nothing?? (Not to mention that a traumatic amputation like that is a case where survival would be unlikely.)

Not to mention the hole bulged out, not in--not what you would expect from something slamming through and if the warhead detonated why do we have an intact ambulance?

Occam's razor--it's a pure fabrication.

 

[Bronzeage]

Unless the rocket hit near the ambulance and shrapnel caused the damage. I imagine that during a rocket attack people are distracted and might not get the details exactly right. Do we have any data on how long it takes a steel panel to rust after it's been pieced by red hot metal?

A better question is, what difference does it make if the Israelis hit an ambulance with a rocket or not? When a rocket is fired at an urban area, it's going to hit something. A ambulance is as likely a target as any other vehicle.

You couched this proposition as if the Israelis would not fire a rocket at an ambulance, if they could help it. I've never seen any indication from either side of this conflict that there is some kind of concept of a "fair target."

A picture a day or two after the incident wouldn't show rust.

Besides, there's the big problem of what became of the missile. It supposedly punched straight down through the ambulance. Such weapons are generally traveling something like the speed of sound. Taking the mass of a typical air-launched anti-tank missile and it's speed and you get an energy similar to the ambulance hitting a brick wall at high freeway speeds. All that energy did basically nothing to the rest of the ambulance? It supposedly amputated a leg on the way down---but the splash of all that energy hitting the ground did nothing?? (Not to mention that a traumatic amputation like that is a case where survival would be unlikely.)

Not to mention the hole bulged out, not in--not what you would expect from something slamming through and if the warhead detonated why do we have an intact ambulance?

Occam's razor--it's a pure fabrication.

It's strange that all pictures of Occam show him with a full beard. The claim is and ambulance was damaged in a rocket attack. A photo of the ambulance is offered in evidence. You reject the story for two reasons, first rust around the damage and second, not enough damage.

For your argument that no attack took place, we have to accept your analysis of the photo and proposed scenario. It's a war zone where rockets are fired into an urban area. There are ambulances in this area. For your Occamal barbering to truly apply, we would have to believe the Israeli military would or could discriminate between an ambulance and any other truck in the area.

This trims your "pure fabrication" down to a "possibility that can't be ruled out."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A picture a day or two after the incident wouldn't show rust.

Besides, there's the big problem of what became of the missile. It supposedly punched straight down through the ambulance. Such weapons are generally traveling something like the speed of sound. Taking the mass of a typical air-launched anti-tank missile and it's speed and you get an energy similar to the ambulance hitting a brick wall at high freeway speeds. All that energy did basically nothing to the rest of the ambulance? It supposedly amputated a leg on the way down---but the splash of all that energy hitting the ground did nothing?? (Not to mention that a traumatic amputation like that is a case where survival would be unlikely.)

Not to mention the hole bulged out, not in--not what you would expect from something slamming through and if the warhead detonated why do we have an intact ambulance?

Occam's razor--it's a pure fabrication.

It's strange that all pictures of Occam show him with a full beard. The claim is and ambulance was damaged in a rocket attack. A photo of the ambulance is offered in evidence. You reject the story for two reasons, first rust around the damage and second, not enough damage.

For your argument that no attack took place, we have to accept your analysis of the photo and proposed scenario. It's a war zone where rockets are fired into an urban area. There are ambulances in this area. For your Occamal barbering to truly apply, we would have to believe the Israeli military would or could discriminate between an ambulance and any other truck in the area.

This trims your "pure fabrication" down to a "possibility that can't be ruled out."

Just because there are rockets about doesn't mean that the damage to the ambulance is consistent with a rocket. It also doesn't address the rust. The rust proves it's old--and comparing the hole in the ambulance with other ambulances shows there was a separate piece of metal there. In other words, nothing punched a hole, that's how it was built.