What really alarms me about President Bush's 'War on Terrorism' is the grammar. How do you wage war on an abstract noun? How is 'Terrorism' going to surrender? It's well known, in philological circles, that it's very hard for abstract nouns to surrender.

We are, of course, now against any other group burning Qurans. We would right now ask no one to burn Qurans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it.

Saying We will destroy terrorism is about as meaningful as saying: We shall annihilate mockery.

Short or long to Goblin City? The straight way's short But the long way's pretty.

Some people are passionate about aisles, others about window seats.

We will definitely not burn the Koran, no. Not today, not ever.

Sarah: That's not fair! Jareth: You say that so often, I wonder what your basis for comparison is?

Wild Thing made their hearts sing. But he couldn't top everything.

Ludicrous concepts…like the whole idea of a 'war on terrorism'. You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can't wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you've won? When you've got it removed from the Oxford English Dictionary?