Talk:attack blog

attack site
Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Not all "ads" that contain an "attack" are properly termed "attack ads". The term is limited (at least in the US) to public policy/political ads, AFAICT. I expect that the "blog" and "site" terms are similar. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. While most uses of the term "attack ad" do seem to refer to political attack ads, it is definitely not restricted to that. Check out and  for some examples of non-political uses; and conversely, check out  for evidence that at least some speakers don't find "attack ad" alone unambiguous. —Ruakh TALK 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I sit corrected. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ruakh. Thanks for the research. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)