If you want to see what people vocally disagreeing with the list itself may say, you should check over the comment’s on Accordion Guy’s post. Lots of them are very much worth a read.

Of course it it the opinion of people entitled to their opinion, of course. But when concocting such a “10 most blahblahblah of the century”, there’s always, understated, the idea of a certain objectivity, if not consensus…

What they did, instead, was dish out the most incredibly grotesque list of personal pet peeves and attacks, mixed in with a few cheap targets, and stamp some sort of “collegial” legitimacy on it. It’s as if I picked a list of “10 Most Harmful People” and placed Stalin, Hitler and… G.W. Bush on top. It may reflect to some extent the way I feel, but it’d be a cheap shot, unworthy of anything calling itself journalism.

The whole thing is laughable, if anything. But then again, I wasn’t really trying to go nitpicking with a bunch of political wackos, just pointing certain ironies in their game.

Thanks for expressing your point, though: I’ll make sure I don’t start burning books any time soon.

[PS: and sorry about your comment being held: my spam filter tends to disagree with blogspot, due to the unfortunate number of spammers using it to spread nasty ads for virility-enhancing substances]

It is important, in condemning certain words, such as their, not to fall into the same ‘wanting to burn their words’ mentality. Otherwise, we are the same, only worse.