>>>>>>>>>To me there is a clear distinction between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. I wonder whether someone up here could give me a reasonable explanation between the two. And really it should not be depended on which side you're on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Walter,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'll give it a shot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Terrorists, by their policy, will intensionally target innocent civilians to cause terror, thus they are called "terrorists". That's one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is a very good start... so how does this contrast the usage of the word terrorist practised all too often?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not sure what you're asking, but many words are used too liberally/loosely.
>>>>>
>>>>>We sure wouldn't want to do anything liberally <g>.
>>>>
>>>>damn, you got me again.
>>>>
>>>>wait, that's a word. it's in the dictionary.
>>>
>>>Of course it is. It wasn't even always an epithet.
>>>
>>>I was only making a tiny joke, at no one's expense. This place is getting a little humor impaired!
>>
>>Whoa! DWHI! We could lose our licenses forever.
>
>DWHI?

Driving while humour impaired.

Dave Barry did an article a long time ago talking about the "humour impaired" (only he called it "humor impaired"). He explained that the humour impaired are not those people who don't get the joke; but rather, those people who aren't aware it is a joke.

He did an article about how the government could top up the coffers by selling off little used states like Montana. He received many letters telling him that selling Montana is a terrible idea and that Montana has lots of great things about it. Those are the people he was referring to.