Here’s a thought: an article talking about someone taking someone else to task for something might not want to say that the first person “destroyed,” “obliterated” or anything else the second person unless the second person’s supporters would likely be convinced by the first person rather than only the first person’s followers. Just a thought.
I’m seeing almost one of these a day. Such and such just destroyed such as such. No, that isn’t what happened. Person One just delivered and indictment of Person Two that followers of Person One would find to have utterly destroyed Person Two whereas followers of Person Two would be utterly unconvinced. This is the way it always seems to be, yet the “destroyed” or such language keeps being used.
I just think “destroyed” should be saved for circumstances when even the “destroyed” person’s followers would have to agree with the person doing the “destroying.” Otherwise, no matter how possibly accurate, it’s basically just more wasted rhetoric. Those already convinced are still convinced and those opposed are no more convinced than they were before.
It all just seems like such garbage.
[END POINTLESS RANT]