(sly wink that was supposed to be...)
Kevin, couldn't resist, couldya?
I've glad you chimed in.
That's the underlying point (literal words used notwithstanding) - To the West, the Rape of Nanking (and other "atrocities" like the "Armenian Genocide") was somehow...less atrocious.
So how does one measure atrocity? by the number of people massacred? the sheer cruelty with which it was executed? the sheer randomness? how "democratically" death was meted out?
Sorry, this was not intended to slippery slope into politics or history in general; the point is, even with "historical facts" context is critical.
Can we agree on that?
Where I get stuck is, to avoid all shorthand is to get slogged down into interminable term definitions and parameter markings;
to use even useful shorthand (The Big Three was the big three for the reasons defined, nothing more, nothing less, and whether that means anything of "value" to any individual, is up to that individual. Though I imagine when the term was coined, it was likely with a commercial agenda - the author was likely trying to exalt AP, PP, and VC as somehow superior to all others and somehow more "worthy" of the consumers' dollars...sigh...) on the other hand opens up its own can of worms...
What do to, what to do?
(I'm crawling back into my cave...)
Cheers,
TM