In this case, T stood for terrorism. Daniel Okrent, the NYT's public editor, wrote a March 6 column on it and other such loaded words and phrases.

Some excerpts from reader reaction:

The right definition of terrorism is "acts of war by nongovernmental organizations." But the fact that this is the only definition that matches both intent and usage is irrelevant. "Terrorism" has no agreed-upon definition. We should therefore drop the use of the term. Palestinian bus bombers should be called "bus bombers." Hamas should be called a "quasi-military group." The attack on New York and Washington by Al Qaeda should be called an "attack."

WARREN SELTZER
Jerusalem, March 6, 2005

Regarding the phrasing "Israel-Palestine conflict," you write, "I've heard from ardent Zionists who deplore this usage because, they say, 'There is no Palestine.' " You failed to mention that most Palestinians, and other Arabs for that matter, say, "There is no Israel."

SHLOMO SINGER
New York, March 6, 2005

Terrorism is the intentional harming of innocent civilians for political purposes. The Times should have the courage to use this term correctly, consistently and as often (or seldom) as the facts require. Let the political chips fall where they may.

JOHN TOMASI
Providence, March 6, 2005
The writer is an associate professor of political science at Brown University.

Neither The Times, nor any news source, should play along with the use of the term "Patriot Act." Rather, it should be referred to by its full name: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56). Readers can then determine for themselves whether "Patriot Act" is an Orwellian euphemism or an accurate expression of patriotism.

CHRISTIAN KLOSSNER
Jersey City, March 8, 2005