If you want X, you know where to find it (was Re: do...until wisdom needed...)

[Douglas Alan]

"Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:

> > Surely a man of your intelligence, Alex, knows that outright insults are
> > not the only way to be abusive?

> "Invective", sure; that is what a (well-constructed) flamewar is.
> Merriam-Webster clarifies usage by noting that "invective" "suggests
> greater verbal and rhetorical skill and may apply to a public
> denunciation", while "abuse" "stresses the harshness of the
> language" -- seems a well-drawn explanation to me.

My dictionaries disagree with your dictionary.  My Webster says that
abuse "stresses harshness and unfairness of verbal attack".  It is the
*attack* that must be "harsh" for words to be "abusive" -- the words
themselves do not need to be harsh.  My American Heritage says "to
assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words".  Notice the
word "or" in this definition; the words do not need to be "coarse" to
be "abusive" -- "contemptuous" or "insulting" will do.

"Abuse" and "invective" are not mutually exclusive terms.  "Invective"
is more specific, while "abuse" is more inclusive.

|>oug