<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nomme de guerre</title>
	<link>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/</link>
	<description>"While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power."</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Christopher White</title>
		<link>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/#comment-613</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/#comment-613</guid>
					<description>Yes, eminently sensible. I dread to think what the D-Day landings or the parachute landings at Arnhem would've been called if George (W &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; HW, makes no odds) Bush had been in charge.

Not sure why, but that's juts made me think of the name of one of the horses in &lt;em&gt;The Day Today&lt;/em&gt; - &quot;Massive Bereavement&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, eminently sensible. I dread to think what the D-Day landings or the parachute landings at Arnhem would&#8217;ve been called if George (W <em>or</em> HW, makes no odds) Bush had been in charge.</p>
<p>Not sure why, but that&#8217;s juts made me think of the name of one of the horses in <em>The Day Today</em> - &#8220;Massive Bereavement&#8221;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Not Saussure</title>
		<link>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/#comment-612</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/#comment-612</guid>
					<description>According to Wikipedia,

In a minute on August 8, 1943 Winston Churchill wrote to General &quot;Pug&quot; Ismay, Military Secretary of the Defence Committee of the British Cabinet:

    Operations in which large numbers of men may lose their lives ought not to be decided by code-words that imply a boastful and over-confident sentiment, such as &quot;Triumphant,&quot; or conversely, which are calculated to invest the plan with an air of despondency, such as &quot;Woebetide&quot; and &quot;Flimsy.&quot; They ought not to be names of a frivolous character, such as &quot;Bunnyhug&quot; and &quot;Ballyhoo.&quot; They should not be ordinary words often used in other connections, such as &quot;Flood,&quot; &quot;Sudden,&quot; and &quot;Supreme.&quot; Names of living people (ministers or commanders) should be avoided. Intelligent thought will already supply an unlimited number of well-sounding names that do not suggest the character of the operation or disparage it in any way and do not enable some widow or mother to say that her son was killed in an operation called &quot;Bunnyhug&quot; or &quot;Ballyhoo.&quot; Proper names are good in this field. The heroes of antiquity, figures from Greek and Roman mythology, the constellations and stars, famous racehorses, names of British and American war heroes, could be used, provided they fall within the rules above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_name#Churchill_on_code_names_for_military_operations</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Wikipedia,</p>
<p>In a minute on August 8, 1943 Winston Churchill wrote to General &#8220;Pug&#8221; Ismay, Military Secretary of the Defence Committee of the British Cabinet:</p>
<p>    Operations in which large numbers of men may lose their lives ought not to be decided by code-words that imply a boastful and over-confident sentiment, such as &#8220;Triumphant,&#8221; or conversely, which are calculated to invest the plan with an air of despondency, such as &#8220;Woebetide&#8221; and &#8220;Flimsy.&#8221; They ought not to be names of a frivolous character, such as &#8220;Bunnyhug&#8221; and &#8220;Ballyhoo.&#8221; They should not be ordinary words often used in other connections, such as &#8220;Flood,&#8221; &#8220;Sudden,&#8221; and &#8220;Supreme.&#8221; Names of living people (ministers or commanders) should be avoided. Intelligent thought will already supply an unlimited number of well-sounding names that do not suggest the character of the operation or disparage it in any way and do not enable some widow or mother to say that her son was killed in an operation called &#8220;Bunnyhug&#8221; or &#8220;Ballyhoo.&#8221; Proper names are good in this field. The heroes of antiquity, figures from Greek and Roman mythology, the constellations and stars, famous racehorses, names of British and American war heroes, could be used, provided they fall within the rules above.</p>
<p><a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_name#Churchill_on_code_names_for_military_operations' rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_name#Churchill_on_code_names_for_military_operations</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Definition Britain &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Commenting is wrong, even when it is right</title>
		<link>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/#comment-611</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/#comment-611</guid>
					<description>[...] To illustrate my point I want to point to my comment on Christopher&amp;#8217;s blog, which is comment on my blog was referring to. His article points out the different approaches used by the UK and US military to name their operations. On the one hand the US military uses terms that are, to British sensibilities at least, a tad macho and gung-ho. The plucky Brits on the other hand plump for something a little more public school; for example, The British version of Operation Enduring Freedom is operation Veritas. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] To illustrate my point I want to point to my comment on Christopher&#8217;s blog, which is comment on my blog was referring to. His article points out the different approaches used by the UK and US military to name their operations. On the one hand the US military uses terms that are, to British sensibilities at least, a tad macho and gung-ho. The plucky Brits on the other hand plump for something a little more public school; for example, The British version of Operation Enduring Freedom is operation Veritas. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/#comment-608</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://christopherwhite.info/blog/2006/10/30/witty-title/#comment-608</guid>
					<description>This definitely adds weight to my (as yet unwritten) second law of Britishness:

In Britain, all things tend toward mediocrity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This definitely adds weight to my (as yet unwritten) second law of Britishness:</p>
<p>In Britain, all things tend toward mediocrity.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
