zlacker

>>Tomte+(OP)
> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians.

I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games appropriating the red cross logo have caused these deaths, which is surely an absurd claim but I can't figure out what else they might mean.

EDIT: A lot of defensive responses. To be clear, no one is impugning the Red Cross or disrespecting the work they're doing. I merely don't understand the reasoning in TFA.

>>throwa+b4
I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to violence.

>>chomp+j5
This is an extraordinary naive comment.

Claim is stronger than insinuate.

claim: verb (used with object) to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due

insinuate: verb (used with object) to suggest or hint slyly

Sometimes one is forced to wonder if some people actually read what they write, or listen to what they say.

>>TheSpi+G7
Gotta love how you misread their comment and then accused them of not reading what they wrote.

>>MattRi+Dd
Yep, that was pretty dumb of me.

I have a tendency to be needlessly antagonist sometimes.

I’m trying to improve.