Rusty Saber: Rusty reacts to Bob Dylan, Victoria's Secret deal

Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University.

The meaning of the sign was explicit: No one was allowed to smoke at this location. It read "Absolutely no smoking."

A simple "No Smoking" should do the trick. If you can't smoke, you can't smoke. There are no degrees of not smoking; you can't almost not smoke nor can you absolutely not smoke. The use of the modifier "absolutely" caused me to visualize a big, muscular man, let's call him Cigarette Bouncer, there in place of the sign. He would look people in the eye, grab them by the lapels and say "There will be NO SMOKING; do you read me?" The answer? "Absolutely!" Granted, once there may have been a simple "No Smoking" sign that was ignored. If so, I doubt that adding "absolutely" resulted in less smoking.

Next my sequence of thoughts turned to "No Parking" signs. Governments usually settle for simple notices of "No parking;" after all, they have police officers to dole out parking tickets to violators. Some private parking lots may use more aggressive anti-parking messages. The afore-mentioned absolutely may team up with positively to more forcefully enhance the no parking decree. Sorry, but even with both modifiers at work, the meaning remains "No Parking." Of course, there is the sometimes effective: "Don't Even Think about Parking Here." This one suggests Cigarette Bouncer may reemerge as Parking Bouncer, standing at the ready to rip off the car door of any driver foolish enough to ignore the sign.

The most effective signs to stop unwanted parking may be those announcing punishment: Clearly informing drivers that illegally parked cars will be towed away at owner's expense may work, especially if word gets around that tow trucks are standing by to haul away offenders. Fortunately, official traffic signs are modifier-free. "No Left Turn" is just that; no means no.

You will never see a sign even hinting that you might be permitted to turn left if you want to. The practice of modifying words and phrases needing no modification clutters up the language and dilutes meaning.

Language clutter isn't confined to signs. An example of clutter is in the media coverage of California atheist, Michael Newdow, who is challenging the constitutionality of the phrase "under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance in the school his daughter attends. On several occasions reporters have described him as a "devout atheist." This can't be. Just as one can't be a "little bit" pregnant, this man can't be a devout atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in a deity. Newdow either believes in a deity or he doesn't. There are no degrees of nonbelief. Besides, the modifier isn't appropriate: Webster's Dictionary defines devout as "devotion to a religion."

This certainly is not a proper description of one who bases his legal claim on the fact that he has no religion. Such careless word usage misleads the public about the man's beliefs and it clouds the issues involved. For those too young to remember the Montgomery Ward catalog, items were advertised as good, better and best. This labeling worked because there were no modifiers confusing buyers as to what they were getting. Quality was clearly announced in advance; shoppers knew that good was of lesser quality than better or best, and it cost less. We may not always speak as clearly as the Ward's catalog. For instance, our use of good may not be as precise: If asked how we are, we may say "fairly good," however, good is good, fairly good is less than that, it is "fair." If we say we are "very good," we mean "excellent." Why not say so?

In the spirit of expunging language clutter, I absolutely, positively believe (oops); I believe we should say what we mean.