Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie )
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Flammable posting
Message-ID: <8746@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 19:50:57 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8746
Posted: Wed Feb 27 19:50:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 03:26:53 EST
References: <101@cvl.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 32


> 
> I could see this one comming.
> 
> >  According to Strunk and White:
> >
> >     Flammable.  An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives.
> >     The common word meaning "combustible" is inflammable.
> >     But some people are thrown off by the "in-" and think 
> >     "inflammable" means "not combustible."  For this reason,
> >     trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked
> >     FLAMMABLE.  Unless you are operating such a truck and 
> >     hence are concerned with the safety of children and
> >     illiterates, use "inflammable."
> 
> NEVER use "inflammable"!  The word is much too dangerous to exist.
> Strunk and White have an unfortunate idea about the purpose of
> language.  Do they mean we should only use the word "flammable" when we
> want to communicate?  I can only conclude that they are NOT concerned
> with the safety of children and illiterates.  The language is confusing
> and should be changed.  What advice does Strunk and White have for the
> families of those killed by the word "inflammable"?
> 
> 	Yes, they died in great pain, but the language remained pure.
> 
> 				Ralph Hartley
> 				siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
> 				rlh@cvl

NEWSPEAK!  You want to get rid of infamous while you are at it?

-Ron

You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.