plus those of us from ny or living in ny we hear it brought up much more often on the newz or in papers its almost a weekly thing

I don't think anyone here gives a **** what the Webster dictionary says the term means. Your arrogance gets in the way of understanding many people's feelings about that day and what it means to them. But hey, stick to your guns about this very non important self reflecting article.

I'm a New Yorker (long island). EVERYONE in the tri state area thinks of the attack area when the words Ground Zero are said. I know someone that was killed there, trying to help others(NYFD). I have many friends and family that were directly involved that day.

I would never think of those 2 words as anything else.

I understand you guys getting upset. But the term ground zero does not belong to New York or to the location 9/11 happened. Ground zero is also used when describing the location of a catastrophic nuclear explosion. I get the sensitivity of the term, but it is still a general term to be used in multiple applications. But Matt used it correctly and he isn’t being arrogant about it.

Stop the post was used as bait to open it the end! Not smart as after 911 term relates only to horrible attack on the whole country! Carry on:hitfan:

Congrats Matt and enjoy!

I'm in Ffld county CT, I have family that lives there as well as family and friends that live and commute.

For those of us (f.d.n.y.) who worked that day, were asked. What's the first thing that comes to your mind when I say the word Ground Zero?... if your the lucky one & your memory can get over that horrible day, then of course the word "ground zero" will equate to other
definitions and vaguely still remember to include 9/11....but not for me bro, it will always & always be synonymous with 9/11.....most horrible chapter in my life. I understand that not everyone feels or believes that, that word is singularly attached to 9/11 I get that, but in
defense to those of us who feel an involuntary reaction to that word, than most can understand the feelings attached to the title word in Matt's article.

Headlines are designed to get people to read stories ... the goal is to be read ... but you're just flat out wrong when it comes to my intention. How can you even presumeto know my intention. You don't know me. You don't know anything about me.

I have been polite. I have acknowledged the strong feelings expressed here. I have supported my choice using the literal secondary and tertiary dictionary definitions of the term (got called "arrogant" for citing the dictionary) without getting defensive. And I'm still not.

I used a term I have used for 35-plus years with zero intent at any sort of trickery or sensationalism or "click bait," whatever that means.

But when you question my integrity, I take exception. So don't read me. Based on your comment, we'll both be better off.

Seems like a win-win to me. Have a fine day.

Matt is already fitting in as a Floridian! Ex-California guy pissing off New Yorkers! :D