Well, obviously, nobody will be banned for using those words and terms incorrectly. So FL2070, you critique just went into the empty room.
Now ... Lydiot ...
But go back to your very first post and read the definitions you chose of "surrender" and "peace". Heck, just consider the words right now without doing so: "Surrender" is a verb, and "peace" is a noun!
You may want to consider, that you started with a term, "make peace". "Make" was lst time I looked a verb and "make st." is also a verb. So what are you trying here, ripping your own term to pieces?
So, you can achieve peace by someone surrendering. And achieving peace is what some people think of when they say "make peace" - in some contexts. Therefore you can make peace by surrendering. Surrender creates peace. The words aren't the same and you can't say that all people all of the time really mean "surrender" when they use "make peace", because that's simply not the case.
You want to stop twist my words like a career politician. I never said "make peace is always surrender" I said, people use "making peace" too often when they actually mean surrender. Following your logic, we should burn FGMEMBERS, TerraGIT, all planes IT0uchPods, Bomber, IAHM-COL and I ever made (and those of some other authors), write off on Thorsten's license scams and then call that "making peace", not "surrender" because it sounds better. See, that's the difference between us. I make my stand and I see currently no reason to surrender and it would be surrender. Giving away all you hold dear, all you worked for, to a bully. And then find a nice sound bite to make it look better.
We could of course implement Shariah law in the US and all become Muslims ... to "make peace".
And that leads again to the categorical error you're committing by extracting one word from an idiom and then taking that word literally. It's exactly the same thing as extracting "raining" and "dogs" from the idiom and then analyzing both literally and objecting to the meaning of the idiom ("It's raining cats and dogs"). It simply makes zero sense to do that.
See, "raining cats and dogs" is a commonly used term and it expresses pretty clearly what is meant. Even it doesn't rain any kind of animals literally. But you knew that. So, you are intentionally try to find one working term to claim, all thoughts about wrong used terms are wrong. Again, you should aim for a career in politics with that ability to twist into the realm of faulty logic. Lets try something:
"All persons with full beards are men" ... does that mean all men have full beards
Now, people grinned, of course not all men have full beards, right? But ...
See, the failure was already in the first part "All persons with full beards are men" ... nope, it is rare, but it is not an exlusive. But that is thre kind of logic you apply here backwards.
Yes, but you objected to an idiom. An idiom has to be seen as a whole entity, not individual parts. I agree that some of the above is poorly defined and sometimes for political reasons. I don't think it's racist to point that out. But they're not idioms.
That was about the other examples. So, why is "Hispanic" not an idiom? Or "African-American" or "fallen"? Because they are one worders or in the case of "African-American" hyphenated?
Looking again into Merriam-Webster (btw, the earlier definitions were also from there, not something, I made up), we find ...
Simple Definition of idiom
: an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own
: a form of a language that is spoken in a particular area and that uses some of its own words, grammar, and pronunciations
: a style or form of expression that is characteristic of a particular person, type of art, etc.
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
Since the US are a little too big to count as "particular area" and since obviously more than one person uses terms like "African-American", that leaves us the first one. Which is exactly the problem. "Make" would mean crafting, building, maybe even carving or painting sometihng, in short creating something. "Peace" would be a state of coexistence without violent conflict. But pulled together, "make peace" becomes also a political correct idiom for "surrender" in many cases. Which of course wouldn't prevent anybody from using it also in a word by word meaning, as non-idiom.
Here is a brutal one for you to see the difference ... "It's raining men" meansw as idion, there are lot of (hopefully nice and attractive) men around ... that is what the idiom, that was made into the well-known song expressed.
On 9/11 it was raining men ... literally ... and it was not a nice picture!
So, when you quote the definition of "honor" and then said, the use D-Echo made of it was not twisted, you lost me entirely. Lets have a look ...
honoredhonoring play \ˈä-nə-riŋ, ˈän-riŋ\
transitive verb
1
a : to regard or treat (someone) with admiration and respect : to regard or treat with honor b : to give special recognition to : to confer honor on
2
a : to live up to or fulfill the terms of <honor a commitment> b : to accept as payment <honor a credit card>
3
: to salute with a bow in square dancing
So, ad 1 ... to bow to a bully, thief and license scammer is surely a sign of admiration ... but only if you amdire his skills as criminal. I can at this point see nothing in the actual case about Thorsten's Space Shuttle that would cause admiration or respect.
Maybe you mea definition 2? There was never a commitment to accept Thorsten's license scams and his surreal claims and his attempts to change history all the time as it fits him. Nobody ever signed "we support your criminal activities". Therefore, there is no commitment to honor to begin with.
Humm definition 3 maybe? I don't know, were D-ECHO and Thorsten square dancing? Why did they do so in the FGMEMBERS repository then and why was Thorsten not even there ... so I really doubt, this square dance definition cuts is.
The way "to honor" was used in that case (D-ECHO on FGMEMBERS) was used as a nice looking wording for "let the bully have his will" in another attempt "to make peace with" the bully by "surrendering". And that is really twisted.
Even if you look at Hooray's use of "to honor", it is the same problem. He says "mutually honor their wishes" ... See, that is exactly the problem. Opposite to you, I did a lot of plane work, nobody honors my wishes and there is no need to. Why because it is GPL. If I would have wanted something else, I could have used something else. Even more, if I use another author's work as base and this base is GPL, Ihave to honor this. Means, I can't change the license which means, my work, I add is either GPL or I have to put it in an extra package. Simply that. I can't just add some lines and claim those are not GPL and therefore the whole package isn't GPL anymore, like Thorsten did. I have to honor the wishes of all the authors before me, as clearly expressed by their use of GPL licenses.
Now, here comes 2.) from your definition in. When I as author decide to publish my work under GPL, I commit to that. I can't just say next week and because a guy I don't like flies thatplane, I change now retroactively the license. I have to honor the commitment, I made.
So, while Hooray talks about "honoring wishes", he actually means "the wishes of certain, but by far not all authors, as it is politically convenient". That has nothing to do with "honor", that is just a political ploy. In the context, it means, Hooray said "we all have to honor Thorsten's wishes even if that means, to disrepect the wihes of all other authors who contributed to the whole." This logic goes even further if you look at the "owner" concept favored over there. Because it means, since Thorsten declared himself the owner (of works of HerbyW, Wibrag, Israel, the data that came from NASA and God knows who else), his wishes are strong enough to break even definition 2 and the commitment those authors made by using the GPL license. So, how twisted is that? Are you going to explain to the NASA, their data, published for free use, is not free anymore because Thorsten is not their owner?
Of course, those are facts, so your only way out, as usually will be now the "emotional" line. As in "you think, against all facts and proof, that it is okay" and that I am "way too emotional to think clear". Which is another typical example for language use by career politicians. You can't beat the facts, just declare the other guy as too emotional ... you don't want to do that on this forum. You won't get banned, you will get called out for this kind of "smart lies"
Here is another one,
I wrote ...
Her is another one of my "hate terms". Soldiers fall in wars. What, do the stumble, why don't they get up again? Did someone push them? Maybe someone should help them to get up again?
But nobody can. Because "to fall" is used to cover up the nasty reality of being shot, getting the head blown off, drowning, stabbed to death, strangled, beaten to death or blown to pieces.
and you responded ...
I think "covering up" is the wrong term to use to describe it, it's just a blanket term that means "dying". It's simply trying to convey that people died, not the specifics of it. But I will agree with you however that "fallen" is a far softer expression than "dead", so in that sense I agree with you, it does tend to mitigate the nasty reality of war. But my objection to it isn't so much about the literal definition of "falling" as it is about the word being somewhat softer (which is something you can achieve by using other words with the same literal meaning anyway).
You are wrong. "falling" can't be a blanket term for "dying" because there are obviously people who don't fall and still die (think about from old age or from diseases, those are not covered by "have fallen") and even people who actually fall and still don fall under the idiomatic scope of "fallen soldiers" (9/11 and raining men).
You idea of simply conveying that people died without specifics is also kind of doubtful, If that was the case, we could use terms like "killed" or the always popular military abbreviations KIA and MIA. And yes, I made a little bit a bloody joke about the literal meaning of "to fall".Actually, it wasn't even my joke, I pulled it from Lothar-Günther Buchheim who used it in connection with submariners. It was one of those attempts to bring people to think ... obviously people hate it when authors try to do that.
Sooooo, at the end of your post, you have defended intentional wrong language use for the purpose of political correctness as defined by the one or other faction twice, made a nice case for surrendering to all bullies because it's so nice "to make peace", have tried some stupid politician's rhetoric on my with your "emotional" line and thus effectively demonstrated why this slopps use of language when it swings into the intentional is dangerous, butI am so happy that you agree with me about that ... oh wait ... you agreed and then you tried to put exactly those examples on the sidetrack because you "honestly" think, they are not so great. See, I love it when your little tricks backfire so badly. You think ... well, actually you have an opinion ... and you use "honestly" to make the impression, your opinion is an absolute truth. See, you can always claim that you didn't know, this expressing an opinion in connection with honestly and without proving the fact isn't one of the oldest trick in the books. I will, honestly, never be able to prove you knew and did it intentional because I have of course no backup copy of your memory.