Upon reflection, I think that the misuse of decimate bothers me less when it is used imprecisely to mean some amount of devastation and more when it is used to mean utter destruction (as in "decimated to the last man" or such), which is much more wrong to me.

some amount of devastation

In my head you can't have too little devastation. Sure, if you're the one in ten, decimation feels pretty ruinous, but your team hasn't been devastated (except emotionally) until more are mowed down.

No, I don't know precisely where the tipping point is. Somewhere around four.

Unrelatedly, I feel cheated that this place doesn't only have chocolate. But as long as the chocolate they do have is essential, I guess they aren't lying. Just seems they should be slanted more that way.

I'm so hungry, but I don't wanna make dinner. Bah. (And delivery is not an option, will take longer than it takes for me to get off my ass and make a salad already.)

I see your point. But even if you are talking about 40% when you say decimated, that's wrong but not as wrong as 100%.

No, I don't know precisely where the tipping point is. Somewhere around four.

I think that's where you are about to be devastated, as well.

So, decimation is one in ten and devastation is four in ten? Two in five?

Ooh, we could open Lightbulbs. If I wanted to be killed by Buffistas. Which I do not.

This is likely as not where they get their meat*: [link]

There have been vegan problems since they only translate the first 5 or 10 ingredients and sometimes egg white or milk solids come later but I've heard no of no vegetarian issues. The citrus rib tips are TO DIE FOR.

There were issues with the fake fish served in one LA vegan restaurant containing actual shellfish, but I don't know what supplier they got that from. (Here's the LA test results: [link] )

Actually, what was I talking about with four? I'm going to take a devastation hard line and say nothing under 70% is devastation, and everything lesser should have a different word. And I don't think 70% decimation is significantly different from 90% decimation, all told.

Fair enough. I don't have a hard line for devastation - I know it when I see it, I think. But in much the same way that FREE is so much more appealing than 10 for a penny, I think referring to 100% destruction as decimation is so much more wrong than any other misuse of the term.

Here is how ridiculous I am: I feel like my cat isn't quite right, but the memory of how much bloodwork cost made me wonder how long it's been since he was at the vet. I couldn't find the paperwork anywhere, but luckily I posted about it! As I knew I would have. It was last November, so that seems reasonable.

I totally do that.

I don't particularly mind about misuse of decimation, but as soon as you attach any number to it (aside from, you know, ten) you've crossed the line from casual misuse into wrongity wrong wrong.