Talk:Attempted political campaign humour backfires: Ontario September 2003

No one said it was "intended literally". It was "leaked deliberately" or at least carelessly, that is very clear from the facts as reported by the Globe and Mail. There are several reasons why this might have been done. The former article discussed them. If your reason for reverting is that you think the article implied that the phrase was intended to be taken literally, YOU are the "nut".

Use of language like that amounts to name calling. But that phrase is insufficient to describe what was going on in the Ontario campaign, which I take it you saw none of other than this. There were frequent attack ads and a general strategy of discrediting McGuinty as both inexperienced and untrustworthy - an unknown quantity. Using an extreme metaphor like ERKEFAP does, any psychologist will tell you, have the effect of reinforcing generally negative views of a person - the same technique in the small, as defining the center employs in the large.

A smear can go much beyond names, as can a rumor. And the use of ambiguity about the "intent" of something (which is hardly ever reported neutrally) is another propaganda technique - "oh we didn't mean it that way" etc, after the sound bite has had its effect.

I think you should look into the actual campaign here. If you dismiss this as mere humor, then all that proves is that these methods work on you. That doesn't make you a nut or vandal, that makes you normal, and that's why these techniques work.