| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 153.1 | | DONJON::MCVAY | Ask Dr. Science! (He's not a real doctor.) | Mon Mar 03 1986 09:05 | 2 |
| Before someone comments on the title of this note: yes, I'm aware
that "governmentese" isn't a word. It is, now...
|
| 153.2 | | NANDI::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Mon Mar 03 1986 09:58 | 10 |
|
It's not only the government. I read an instruction from one of my wife's
sewing patterns which put me into a loop for a few minutes:
- Turn fabric wrong side out
Huh?
JP
|
| 153.3 | ...and they are us | FDCV01::BEAIRSTO | | Fri Mar 07 1986 16:33 | 5 |
| It's all around us: I know of a program that includes the comment
! DELETE PREVIOUS LINE
Rob :-(
|
| 153.4 | Initial instructions | TOPDOC::SLOANE | | Wed May 07 1986 14:48 | 9 |
| When I was in the Navy, we would initial memos and pass them on.
One day I received a memo back with the following instructions:
THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONCERN YOU.
ERASE YOUR INTIALS AND INTIAL THE ERASURE
|
| 153.5 | Anticipatory Retaliation | CACHE::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Tue Jan 13 1987 15:36 | 6 |
|
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 153.6 | Fire When they lift off | REGENT::MERRILL | If you've got it, font it. | Tue Jan 13 1987 17:11 | 3 |
| translation of .5 is "dey's fired but dey hasn't hit us yet, but
we an'gonna stan fer it."
|
| 153.7 | Another translation of Anticipatory Retaliation | BOEHM::CASWELL | | Wed Jan 14 1987 10:10 | 12 |
|
.6 has got the translation wrong (unless I miss understand him(her?).
Anticipatory Retaliation is "I think that they are going to fire
at us, so we better retaliate before they blow away our ability
to do so."
An example of typical, confusing, dangerous military thinking (or
is it not thinking) and talking.
Peter
|
| 153.8 | .7 it is | CACHE::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Jan 14 1987 11:09 | 10 |
| re .6:
.7 is what I interpret it mean, and the way I think it is used.
/
( ___
) ///
/
i.e. a euphemism for an unprovoked attack.
|
| 153.9 | | AKOV68::BOYAJIAN | A disgrace to the forces of evil | Thu Jan 15 1987 07:03 | 7 |
| This reminds me of a sign-off quote someone has been using
on Usenet:
"Diplomacy is a way of saying 'nice doggie' while you're
looking for a rock."
--- jerry
|
| 153.10 | what goes up is presumed to come down | REGENT::MERRILL | If you've got it, font it. | Fri Jan 16 1987 13:01 | 13 |
| re: .7 Not right because that would mean fire when they go to highest
state of alertness. It means Fire before impact because impact
would destroy our silos. In practicallity it means fire AFTER they
fire (which you can tell because you see the heat of the liftoff(s))
but BEFORE they have a chance to "recall" (range officier destroys)
their outgoing missles.
The ability to send up bombers yet recall them reliably is attractive
because we CAN (and do) stop them before the other side must fire.
Rick
Merrill
|
| 153.11 | also an oxymoron | CACHE::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Fri Jan 16 1987 15:36 | 23 |
| re .10:
Who said anything about a nuclear exchange?
This term "anticipatory retaliation" has been used to describe various
miliary operations, in southeast asia in particular.
besides, once their missiles have been fired, they have attacked. You
are no longer anticipating an attack. You are merely anticipating
the effects.
Anticipatory means that the action has not yet occured.
Retaliation is a response to an attack.
Thus Anticipatory Retaliation is a response to an attack that has
not occurred, i.e. a "first-strike".
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 153.12 | Thumb screw time | SSDEVO::GOLDSTEIN | | Fri Jan 16 1987 20:37 | 8 |
| Re: .11
If you're right, and your logic seems flawless, then "anticipatory
retaliation" is just a euphemism for "first strike" or "unprovoked
attack." There is certainly no punishment too harsh for people who
invent terms like that.
Bernie
|
| 153.13 | Anticipatory Flame | DRAGON::MCVAY | Pete McVay, VRO (Telecomm) | Sat Jan 17 1987 12:19 | 8 |
| RE: 153.14
I think you are a complete idiot! How dare you presume to match
wits and judgement in such erudite company? Calling me names like
you did is completely out of place! You should be banned from the
net!
-- Entered in anticipation of the reply to this reply...
|
| 153.15 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Sun Jan 18 1987 21:24 | 6 |
| Re .13:
Gotcha.
-- edp
|
| 153.16 | This Language is MIL-SPEC | SEAPEN::PHIPPS | Digital Internal Use Only | Tue Nov 24 1987 16:40 | 22 |
| Back to the general topic:
From: Steve (DICKNS::)Wellcome
In: CLOSET::DOCUMENT
Note: 330.6
Title: An example of government-ese
Here's a gem I noticed in a milspec document some time ago and preserved
for posterity:
MIL-M-38510/121A
2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
.
.
.
2.1 Government specifications and standards. Unless otherwise specified, the
following specifications and standards, of the issue listed in that issue of
the Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards specified in
the solicitation, form a part of this specification to the extent specified
herein.
|