Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.

Including criminals not associated with the cartels? Rapists, murderers, child abusers, wife beaters? What about addicts? What about people with mental health issues and communicable diseases? Why should the US have to pay for their treatment/disease/incarceration?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So in the middle of a massive discussion on immigration reform you don't think that there is a substantial benefit for illegal immigrants to re-brand themselves and distance themselves from their lawbreaking so they can obtain rights more easily?

I think, yet again, you're allowing your unbridled hatred for illegal immigrants to overlook the bigger problem.

Who cares that some illegal immigrant pushed for this? I mean, of course he did. It's not hard to see why.

the real question is why did AP enact it? Now, it's possible that they are part of some overarching left wing conspiracy. It's more likely that they made the cynical business decision that they'd get more business with this change. Corporations rarely take policy stands that don't, in some way, help their bottom line. My point? I think they're mirroring a change that's there, not causing the change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'd rather see the term "illegal alien" than "illegal immigrant," because not all aliens are immigrants.

What you seem to be missing is that they don't want to describe them as illegal at all.

I'm not missing that. I'm merely expressing a preference. I think it's a more accurate term, and one that I would support using in nearly all journalism.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.

Including criminals not associated with the cartels? Rapists, murderers, child abusers, wife beaters? What about addicts? What about people with mental health issues and communicable diseases? Why should the US have to pay for their treatment/disease/incarceration?

ah, selective quoting. the last bastion of the scoundrel.

 Seaward wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.

Why the assumption that everyone coming in across the Rio Grande is Mexican?

What about the millions of others who aren't from Mexico?

Statistically about 40% are Mexican. About 40% are from central America. About 20% are other including Africa and Asia (which can get scary), including Somalia, strangely enough.

 Seaward wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.

Why the assumption that everyone coming in across the Rio Grande is Mexican?

What about the millions of others who aren't from Mexico?

I work with people from all parts of Mexico, Central and South America. The Mexicans pretty much have it worst of all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.

Including criminals not associated with the cartels? Rapists, murderers, child abusers, wife beaters? What about addicts? What about people with mental health issues and communicable diseases? Why should the US have to pay for their treatment/disease/incarceration?

You edited out the part where I talked of sorting out the scumbags, who do you work for, The Today Show?

Relapse wrote:
I have to say that my sympathies are with the Mexicans that are here trying to escape what their country has become. As far as I'm concerened, they are welcome here.
The big trick is sorting out the scumbags that are here among them.

I'm fine with them to.....if they do it properly and fit all the requirements necessary to come here.

 Polonius wrote:
I think, yet again, you're allowing your unbridled hatred for illegal immigrants to overlook the bigger problem.

Who cares that some illegal immigrant pushed for this? I mean, of course he did. It's not hard to see why.

So thinking that everyone should be treated fairly and in accordance with the law is now "unbridled hatred". That's a strange definition to work off.

 Polonius wrote:
the real question is why did AP enact it? Now, it's possible that they are part of some overarching left wing conspiracy. It's more likely that they made the cynical business decision that they'd get more business with this change. Corporations rarely take policy stands that don't, in some way, help their bottom line. My point? I think they're mirroring a change that's there, not causing the change.

No one said anything about left wing conspiracy but you. Please don't try and ascribe arguments to people who have not made them.
You mean why did AP decide that they should toe the line as set out by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist of theirs, who benefits from this change? Who might hop ship and take his reputation and earning potential with him? That sounds like it helps their bottom line, and also helps their journalist shape the debate in a way that suits him.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not missing that. I'm merely expressing a preference. I think it's a more accurate term, and one that I would support using in nearly all journalism.

So you agree that people here should be described as illegal immigrants/aliens, but you think that AP refusing to use the word "illegal" is somehow more accurate when describing people who have broken immigration law?

 Polonius wrote:
ah, selective quoting. the last bastion of the scoundrel.

Ah, distorted arguments and name calling. The last refuge of the desperate.
I will concede the point about rapists, murderers etc. and apologise for the mis-quote to the author, but I will stand by my comment asking about addicts, people suffering from mental health issues and communicable diseases. Unless of course you wish to describe them as "scumbags" too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
You edited out the part where I talked of sorting out the scumbags, who do you work for, The Today Show?

You are right, I mis-quoted you and I was wrong to do so. I'm sorry

Relapse wrote:
I work with people from all parts of Mexico, Central and South America. The Mexicans pretty much have it worst of all.

Fantastic. You expressed the sentiment that Mexicans should be allowed in as they please, and my question was what about all the other folks, since Mexicans make up, at best, half.

 Seaward wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I work with people from all parts of Mexico, Central and South America. The Mexicans pretty much have it worst of all.

Fantastic. You expressed the sentiment that Mexicans should be allowed in as they please, and my question was what about all the other folks, since Mexicans make up, at best, half.

I believe they should be allowed in as refugees from a warzone for sanctuary as long as that crap down there goes on. The other countries don't have near the level of troubles currently going on as in Mexico.
The reason I say let them in is because we are right there where we can help and we contributed a lot to the current situation.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/04/04/the-associated-press-revises-islamist-another-politically-charged-term

While not on the same exact topic of the OP, it's in the same vein, and not worth creating a whole new thread IMO.

Relapse wrote:
I believe they should be allowed in as refugees from a warzone for sanctuary as long as that crap down there goes on. The other countries don't have near the level of troubles currently going on as in Mexico.
The reason I say let them in is because we are right there where we can help and we contributed a lot to the current situation.

Except that they don't qualify as refugees, and if we widen the definition to suit them (i.e. victims of organised crime) then it has the unintended consequence of opening the doors wide open for claims of asylum

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I believe they should be allowed in as refugees from a warzone for sanctuary as long as that crap down there goes on. The other countries don't have near the level of troubles currently going on as in Mexico.
The reason I say let them in is because we are right there where we can help and we contributed a lot to the current situation.

Except that they don't qualify as refugees, and if we widen the definition to suit them (i.e. victims of organised crime) then it has the unintended consequence of opening the doors wide open for claims of asylum

This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.

Relapse wrote:
This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.

A more apt analogy would be, "If someone bullies you in the second grade, you have the right to wander on into their house and stay as long as you like as an adult."

Relapse wrote:
This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.

So because some US citizens bought drugs, and we sold some military hardware to the government the US needs to open its doors to everyone in Mexico, grant them refugee status, and that's before we consider the social impact of letting up to 112 million people (almost half the population of the US itself) who who are mainly low skilled, with minimal English, into a country with massive unemployment and a struggling economy.
That sounds like a recipe for disaster if ever I heard it.

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I believe they should be allowed in as refugees from a warzone for sanctuary as long as that crap down there goes on. The other countries don't have near the level of troubles currently going on as in Mexico.
The reason I say let them in is because we are right there where we can help and we contributed a lot to the current situation.

Except that they don't qualify as refugees, and if we widen the definition to suit them (i.e. victims of organised crime) then it has the unintended consequence of opening the doors wide open for claims of asylum

This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.

Could you please explain how we played such a dramatic role in what is happening in Mexico?

 Seaward wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.

A more apt analogy would be, "If someone bullies you in the second grade, you have the right to wander on into their house and stay as long as you like as an adult."

It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.

Relapse wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.

A more apt analogy would be, "If someone bullies you in the second grade, you have the right to wander on into their house and stay as long as you like as an adult."

It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.

You mean the illegal drugs, that are illegal in the United States, those drugs? I could see if they were legal here, but now we are responsible for a a war for a product that we are waging our own war against? I guess we should have blamed Canada for all the violence during US prohibition of alcohol.

The real inaccuracy of "Illegal Immigrant" is the word Immigrant, you can't illegally immigrate, you can invade, but until you do it legally you are not an immigrant you are an alien!

Relapse wrote:
It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.

So because some individuals broke the law to buy illegal drugs smuggled into the US, and those funds were used by criminals to conduct criminal activity then the US has to open its borders because the Mexican authorities cannot maintain law and order?

We could use different terms for different situations. For those on expired visas and such we could use unauthorized or unsanctioned or undocumented alien, but for those that just cross the border or use illegal documents then Illegal alien is really more fitting.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This is just my opinion, but, I believe since we as a nation had such a large part in what happened down there, we should give them space here. It's more complicated than that, I know, but I think if someone sets another person's house on fire then the least they can do is offer them a room in their house.

A more apt analogy would be, "If someone bullies you in the second grade, you have the right to wander on into their house and stay as long as you like as an adult."

It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.

You mean the illegal drugs, that are illegal in the United States, those drugs? I could see if they were legal here, but now we are responsible for a a war for a product that we are waging our own war against? I guess we should have blamed Canada for all the violence during US prohibition of alcohol.

The real inaccuracy of "Illegal Immigrant" is the word Immigrant, you can't illegally immigrate, you can invade, but until you do it legally you are not an immigrant you are an alien!

I blame anyone buying the drugs, knowing where the money goes and what it's funding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It goes beyond that, though. I don't want to get the whole debate going, but drug profits from this country have heavily funded the cartels, paving the way for this situation.
Like I say, this is just my opinion that's not going to change things one way or the other.

So because some individuals broke the law to buy illegal drugs smuggled into the US, and those funds were used by criminals to conduct criminal activity then the US has to open its borders because the Mexican authorities cannot maintain law and order?

I base my opinions from living in a neighborhood largly populated by Mexicans and working with a lot of others. I get a good chance to hear their stories of family members being terrorized, or cartel thugs just walking in and taking what they want , goods, property, businesses, etc., with no one to stop them.
They rightly place a lot of blame on the drug users in this country funding the cartels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like I say, it's just my opinion and it's not going to change the situation one way or the other.

Relapse wrote:
I blame anyone buying the drugs, knowing where the money goes and what it's funding.

So because drug users did not buy ethically sourced, sustainable illegal drugs then the United States should take in up to 112 million people? Just out of curiosity do drug dealers have some sort of certificate to show that the stuff they sell is ethically sourced, is there some group that examines their operation?

Relapse wrote:
I base my opinions from living in a neighborhood largly populated by Mexicans and working with a lot of others. I get a good chance to hear their stories of family members being terrorized, or cartel thugs just walking in and taking what they want , goods, property, businesses, etc., with no one to stop them.
They rightly place a lot of blame on the drug users in this country funding the cartels.

I'm not saying that the drug users are at fault or not. I'm saying that your logic is way off, you want the entire population of the US to suffer because of the actions of private citizens who buy drugs knowingly, or unknowingly, from the cartels.
You are arguing that the drug users buy the drugs, they have no say over what the cartel buys with their money, the cartel buys guns, the cartel kills people, the Mexican government can't keep order and so the entire United States has to pay for the actions of drug users?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I blame anyone buying the drugs, knowing where the money goes and what it's funding.

So because drug users did not buy ethically sourced, sustainable illegal drugs then the United States should take in up to 112 million people? Just out of curiosity do drug dealers have some sort of certificate to show that the stuff they sell is ethically sourced, is there some group that examines their operation?

Relapse wrote:
I base my opinions from living in a neighborhood largly populated by Mexicans and working with a lot of others. I get a good chance to hear their stories of family members being terrorized, or cartel thugs just walking in and taking what they want , goods, property, businesses, etc., with no one to stop them.
They rightly place a lot of blame on the drug users in this country funding the cartels.

I'm not saying that the drug users are at fault or not. I'm saying that your logic is way off, you want the entire population of the US to suffer because of the actions of private citizens who buy drugs knowingly, or unknowingly, from the cartels.
You are arguing that the drug users buy the drugs, they have no say over what the cartel buys with their money, the cartel buys guns, the cartel kills people, the Mexican government can't keep order and so the entire United States has to pay for the actions of drug users?

Like I say, just my opinion that is not going to change things one way or the other, so no real need to get overly upset about it.

I'm not getting upset. I just think your idea doesn't solve anything and creates a whole new set of problems that we don't need.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm not getting upset. I just think your idea doesn't solve anything and creates a whole new set of problems that we don't need.

It's a tricky situation, true enough. One that I hate seeing good people both sides of the border getting hosed on.

Dakkanaut wrote:

Dakkanaut wrote:So, the argument is basically, "since this change may in some way help the Democratic party, it is inherently bad."

You are literally arguing that providing more detail, while avoiding a blanket term, is "distorting the facts." That's actually being more specific, which is usually a case of increasing the amount of facts.

I have no problem with the term, but i'm neither an immigration expert nor a journalist. I do write for a living, and I know that there are lot of times where I avoid using commonly understood terms or phrases, and instead use a more specific, accurate, and appropriate term. It's called good writing.

No, the argument is that by trying to call immigrants who are in a county illegally something other than what they are is distorting the facts and shaping the debate. Especially when the change in phraseology has been proposed by a Pulitzer prize winning illegal immigrant who deliberately confuses illegal (against the law) and criminal (against criminal law) to make his point.

Dakkanaut wrote:

Dakkanaut wrote:Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.

Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?

I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?

It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.

Dakkanaut wrote:

Dakkanaut wrote:

Dakkanaut wrote:No, the argument is that there's no reason to stop using a perfectly legitimate and accurate descriptor because some people feel that it has a pejorative connotation. Which, even if it does, there's absolutely no reason not to refer to illegal conduct in a pejorative sense.

Except for the fact that it's not accurate. Not always. Which I think is the point.

Imagine if every crime story involving a repeat felon simply referred to them as "ex-con." It's true, and legitimate, but wouldn't you, as a reader, want to know if they were a murderer or a money launderer?

I'd rather read copy that explains the nature of their illegal residency, rather than uses a blanket term. Keep in mind that this is AP, which means it's not publishing opinion. How, exactly, would the term "illegal immigrant" be a better choice in a story than a more precise explanation of their residency status?

How is it not accurate?
They are here illegally, therefor illegal.
They are not citizens, therefore alien.
The nomenclature was used by the government.

In U.S. law, an alien is "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."[7] The U.S. Government's use of alien dates back to 1798, when it was used in the Alien and Sedition Acts.[8] U.S. law makes a clear distinction between aliens and immigrants by defining immigrants as a subset of aliens.[7] Although U.S. law provides no overarching explicit definition of the term "illegal alien," the term is used in many statutes[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and elsewhere (e.g., court cases, executive orders). U.S. law also uses the term "unauthorized alien."[18][19][20][21][22] U.S. immigration laws do not refer to illegal immigrants, but in common parlance the term "illegal immigrant" is often used to refer to any illegal alien.[23] Because at law, a corporation is a person, the term alien is not limited to natural humans because what are colloquially called foreign corporations are technically called alien corporations. Because corporations are creations of local state law, a foreign corporation is an out of state corporation.

The power of Wiki compels us!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dakkanaut wrote:

Dakkanaut wrote:It's not a blanket term, though. As I said, it's an accurate descriptor. It's not calling a money launderer a generic criminal, it's calling a money launderer a money launderer. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.

Can you think of a sentence in which the term "illegal immigrant" is more appropriate than a more specific descriptor?

All of them where a nonresident alien is here without following the correct legal procedure and intends to remain permanently.
I'm not getting the issue here.

Yeah, I can't see any benefit of using a more specific term instead of more specific terms to describe somebody.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So in the middle of a massive discussion on immigration reform you don't think that there is a substantial benefit for illegal immigrants to re-brand themselves and distance themselves from their lawbreaking so they can obtain rights more easily?

Of course, there also exists a significant incentive for American employers (and their supporters) to continue to pin the illegal behavior associated with illegal immigration on the immigrants themselves.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You mean why did AP decide that they should toe the line as set out by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist of theirs, who benefits from this change? Who might hop ship and take his reputation and earning potential with him? That sounds like it helps their bottom line, and also helps their journalist shape the debate in a way that suits him.

Vargas isn't an AP journalist. His Pulitzer was awarded as a result of his work with the Washington Post, which is a partial owner (one of 1,400) of the AP. And, honestly, given the list of agencies with partial ownership of the AP he doesn't exactly have anywhere to go if he wants to divorce himself from that organization.

If you're going to rant, you might first do a bit of research about what the AP actually is.

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So in the middle of a massive discussion on immigration reform you don't think that there is a substantial benefit for illegal immigrants to re-brand themselves and distance themselves from their lawbreaking so they can obtain rights more easily?

Of course, there also exists a significant incentive for American employers (and their supporters) to continue to pin the illegal behavior associated with illegal immigration on the immigrants themselves.

I tried that argument for a couple of pages. What I got was the response that of course people should be mad at employers, but he doesn't see anything odd or suspicious about the fact that nobody is.

 dogma wrote:
Of course, there also exists a significant incentive for American employers (and their supporters) to continue to pin the illegal behavior associated with illegal immigration on the immigrants themselves.

You mean people are outraged at the people who crossed the border illegally? Are the illegal immigrants responsible for their own behaviour or not?
For the record can I re-state my position that I firmly support heavy penalties for those hiring illegal immigrants (fines and/or jail).

 dogma wrote:
Vargas isn't an AP journalist. His Pulitzer was awarded as a result of his work with the Washington Post, which is a partial owner (one of 1,400) of the AP. And, honestly, given the list of agencies with partial ownership of the AP he doesn't exactly have anywhere to go if he wants to divorce himself from that organization.
If you're going to rant, you might first do a bit of research about what the AP actually is.

So you're objecting to my description of him as an AP journalist, but what you're saying is that he is not an AP journalist, but just an award winning journalist from one of the agencies which owns the AP.
You might want to read the article itself - as I said, he is the one who proposed it.

For immigration reform advocates, of course, this is a clear win. Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who entered the country when he was 12-years-old and does not have legal permission to live in the United States, had pushed the news organization to change its definition back in September.

 Polonius wrote:
I tried that argument for a couple of pages. What I got was the response that of course people should be mad at employers, but he doesn't see anything odd or suspicious about the fact that nobody is.

And I repeatedly stated, as above, that people hiring illegal immigrants should be punished. I have been very consistent in asking that people be equal before the law and those who break the law be punished. Please don't try to score cheap points by willful misrepresentation of my argument.
You brought race into the discussion we had, you claimed that everyone saying that illegal immigrants should not be in the US was bigoted because you personally had not heard anyone speak out against those hiring them (conveniently ignoring what I said) and that anti-immigrant violence was on the rise with no evidence to support that statement. What you managed to show was that there was an increase in violence against Latinos (with no evidence for this rise), and an essay by the SPLC that cast anyone raising concerns about immigration as a nativist who had bought into conspiracy theories about the US being subverted to a Latino state.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You mean people are outraged at the people who crossed the border illegally? Are the illegal immigrants responsible for their own behaviour or not?

Has anyone claimed that they are not?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

For the record can I re-state my position that I firmly support heavy penalties for those hiring illegal immigrants (fines and/or jail).

You can, but you've already let emotion bleed all over your sleeve, so it won't seem genuine.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So you're objecting to my description of him as an AP journalist...

I am, the AP directly employs many journalists, reporters, and researchers; but Vargas has never been one of them. They don't even list his Pulitzer articles (or articles he has contributed to) as any earned by their own.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You might want to read the article itself - as I said, he is the one who proposed it.

And?

The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.

 dogma wrote:
The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.

You're awfully confident in stating things as fact for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.

You're awfully confident in stating things as fact for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.

And you are awfully confident in stating that this was done for political purposes for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.

A lot of "look, look! They are trying to be less specific by being more specific!" going on in this thread.