A part of the discussion that remains operable, is when is it UGLY to co-opt language from one context, for the emotive symbolism. In a lot of places I feel that sports/war rhetoric really comes across as a BAD SATIRE from folks who are trying to use the emotive power of 'take one for the team' rhetoric, when there is no actual effort to be engaged in the process in any 'atheletic or military' manner. Ironically the fact that there is the 'chicken/pig' metaphores in play, I give the Agile folks that mad props for offering a way to deal with 'who is committed how much' in a way that can stand off from all of the flag waving horn blowing of the typical Chinese Human Wave approach to software development.
Death Marches, like bayonet charges, ultimately can have all of the Glam of War Like Activity, with all of the concomitant FiascoIsms.
So what I think I want to be attacking here is another manifestation of the 'argumentum ad hominem', in which all of the emotive language is HURLED 'at the man', in lieu of having any actual rational arguments to present...
In a strictly neoLiberal warmFuzzy frame work the idea of stripping the language of all emotion, so that it contained merely the semantically analysable, and falsifiable, and exportable - would offer one way to think about trying to purge the abuse of language.
But I think what I want to do is make sure folks being the correct emotions to play. The wit and giggliNeff of figuring out who be the chickens, and who are the pigs, offers an emotive, empathetic, approach to the process that i do not want to abandon for mere 'rantionalized propositions'. ( those of course have the big win of being the emotive manifestations of how black holes work... )