Cortlandt,

I originally asked the question "what is a Weapon of Mass Destruction"
because
many of the discussions floating on the list at the time seemed to suggest
that
everyone had their own definition of what one was.  I didn't mind that, but
when some portion of the threads seemed to pivot on the mere act of having
or using them, I thought to point it out.

When you posted:
> Some on this list seem to claim ignorance of what WMD means.   This is my
> bias but I find it hard to believe that someone interested in peace would
be
> ignorant of it's meaning.
I took it as being directed at me, and reacted.

When I googled your search phrase, I found links to various "official" sites
with definitions that match some of your post to a tee, and others which
contradicted your post word for word.  As such, I would expect that even
by military personnel, government personnel, educational personnel, and
the media attempting to cover them all; there is an accepted definition
for the term only for the timespan of the event or coverage in question.

I appreciate the fact that the sites you list demonstrate the flexibility of
the
phrase, since each (while having some common threads) seems to set the
limits of the term where they wish.

http://debate.uvm.edu/handbookfile/WMD2002/019.htm

is a link to a site which describes a WMD in such a way that most weapons
could be counted.  I never said our government was as bad as Saddam's
and our use of WMD's was not part of the discussion.

From the outset, my intent has been to question what everyone was and
seemingly still is treating as a foregone assumption.  If *A SINGLE*
distinct definition of what a weapon of mass destruction is does not exist,
than arguments that they are being used illegally may be moot.

"(7) An aerosol spraying mechanism or other device capable of disseminating
a poisonous chemical, biological disease, organism, or virus," from the site
listed above, could easily include the atomizer my mother keeps on her
dresser.

My note about a 10000 foot plume of smoke was directly related to the
series of postings regarding a ship which blew up due to a chemical
reaction in the contents of one of its cargo bays.  It's in the archive.

At any rate, I am sticking to the position that you cannot argue a point if
the subject of the argument is not understood by all participants.  Each of
us has a "general understanding" of what a WMD is, and that may suffice;
but I reiterate that, when a term is new to global usage, it's meaning is
still very fluid and assumptions made about what the other person hears
when you use the term will weaken or skew an argument as easily as
estranged opinion or lack of fact.

Rs~

Russ Smith
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The opinions expressed in this email are mine, and are not meant to reflect
those of any other party.  The subject matter herein is intended solely for
the named recipient(s) of this email.  Spellcheck cancelled.  Your mileage
may vary.  Look both ways and hold hands when you cross the street.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *