Meaning of “ZTE, which competes with Huawei in telecom equipment, was determined to have sold...





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







-1















What is the meaning of:




ZTE, which competes with Huawei in telecom equipment, was determined
to have sold American-origin goods to Iran.




Only thing that causes confusion is the part "have sold"? Can it be replaced with "sell"?



Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/technology/google-android-huawei.html



Edit: I just reread it and sort of understood it. Does it mean that it was found out by US that ZTE sold their equipment to Iran?










share|improve this question
















closed as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet May 26 at 13:53


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • 2





    Not really found out (=*discovered*). It means that the commerce department officially decided that ZTE had been selling American goods to Iran. We use this word for things that need to be proved in some way. We don't usually use decide because it is either true or false that ZTE has been selling American equipment to Iran, regardless of anything the commerce department may decide.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 8:03


















-1















What is the meaning of:




ZTE, which competes with Huawei in telecom equipment, was determined
to have sold American-origin goods to Iran.




Only thing that causes confusion is the part "have sold"? Can it be replaced with "sell"?



Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/technology/google-android-huawei.html



Edit: I just reread it and sort of understood it. Does it mean that it was found out by US that ZTE sold their equipment to Iran?










share|improve this question
















closed as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet May 26 at 13:53


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • 2





    Not really found out (=*discovered*). It means that the commerce department officially decided that ZTE had been selling American goods to Iran. We use this word for things that need to be proved in some way. We don't usually use decide because it is either true or false that ZTE has been selling American equipment to Iran, regardless of anything the commerce department may decide.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 8:03














-1












-1








-1








What is the meaning of:




ZTE, which competes with Huawei in telecom equipment, was determined
to have sold American-origin goods to Iran.




Only thing that causes confusion is the part "have sold"? Can it be replaced with "sell"?



Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/technology/google-android-huawei.html



Edit: I just reread it and sort of understood it. Does it mean that it was found out by US that ZTE sold their equipment to Iran?










share|improve this question
















What is the meaning of:




ZTE, which competes with Huawei in telecom equipment, was determined
to have sold American-origin goods to Iran.




Only thing that causes confusion is the part "have sold"? Can it be replaced with "sell"?



Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/technology/google-android-huawei.html



Edit: I just reread it and sort of understood it. Does it mean that it was found out by US that ZTE sold their equipment to Iran?







meaning phrase-meaning






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 22 at 7:40







shiva

















asked May 22 at 7:29









shivashiva

1144 bronze badges




1144 bronze badges





closed as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet May 26 at 13:53


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









closed as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet May 26 at 13:53


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







closed as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet May 26 at 13:53


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – Chappo, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth, Janus Bahs Jacquet

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 2





    Not really found out (=*discovered*). It means that the commerce department officially decided that ZTE had been selling American goods to Iran. We use this word for things that need to be proved in some way. We don't usually use decide because it is either true or false that ZTE has been selling American equipment to Iran, regardless of anything the commerce department may decide.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 8:03














  • 2





    Not really found out (=*discovered*). It means that the commerce department officially decided that ZTE had been selling American goods to Iran. We use this word for things that need to be proved in some way. We don't usually use decide because it is either true or false that ZTE has been selling American equipment to Iran, regardless of anything the commerce department may decide.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 8:03








2




2





Not really found out (=*discovered*). It means that the commerce department officially decided that ZTE had been selling American goods to Iran. We use this word for things that need to be proved in some way. We don't usually use decide because it is either true or false that ZTE has been selling American equipment to Iran, regardless of anything the commerce department may decide.

– Minty
May 22 at 8:03





Not really found out (=*discovered*). It means that the commerce department officially decided that ZTE had been selling American goods to Iran. We use this word for things that need to be proved in some way. We don't usually use decide because it is either true or false that ZTE has been selling American equipment to Iran, regardless of anything the commerce department may decide.

– Minty
May 22 at 8:03










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














No.



The verb "to determine" has two (relevant) meanings that are quite different. Because of a quirk of phrasing, it is exactly the words "have sold" versus "sell" that let us know which sense is meant here. So no, you can't swap them without changing the meaning.



Sense 1: "To ascertain definitely"



(Loosely, this sense is about figuring out what happened in the past.)



This is the intended meaning. The US Commerce Department "ascertained definitely" that ZTE sold goods to Iran.



This is basically the same as what you say in your edit, that the US "found out" that it happened. But as commenter @Minty says, there's a difference between "finding out" and "determining". When you find something out, it's new—you've only just discovered (or been given) the evidence. When you determine something, you might have had the evidence for a long time, but you've been taking your time to examine the evidence and are just now making an official statement about what you've found to be true.



Sense 2: "To have a fixed intention of"



(Loosely, this sense is about what someone intends to happen in the future.)



This is not the intended meaning. If understood this way, the sentence would mean that ZTE "had a fixed intention" to sell goods to Iran: they planned to do it, and they were going to stick to those plans even if problems came up (which is the difference between wanting to do something and being determined to do it).



Why does "have sold" versus "sell" matter?



The problem is that Sense 2 is usually used in the passive voice: "I was determined to answer this question", not "I determined to answer this question". This makes it possible to be confused about who the subject is—who is doing the determining? Am I making up my own mind (Sense 2)? Or is someone else making a decision about me (Sense 1)?



Sense 2 should be followed by an infinitive in simple aspect, no matter the conjugation of "to determine":




I am determined to answer this question. (I have strong plans to do it.)



I was determined to answer this question. (I had strong plans to do it.)



ZTE was determined to sell goods to Iran. (They had strong plans to do it.)




On the other hand, Sense 1 will commonly be followed by the perfect aspect. (We typically talk about conclusions that were reached in the past, and so the thing the decision was about is "over and done with", which is what the perfect indicates.)




I was determined to have answered the question. (Someone decided I definitely gave an answer.)



ZTE was determined to have sold goods to Iran. (Someone decided they definitely sold the goods.)







share|improve this answer




























  • Thanks for the explanation. It helped. But shouldn't it be "present perfect" instead of "past perfect"?

    – shiva
    May 22 at 9:39











  • I would say those verbs are infinitives - I am determined to answer this question / he is determined to answer this question, I was determined to have answered the question / he was determined to have answered the question.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 10:40











  • @shiva: Quite right! Fixed. In fact, as Minty says, it's properly a perfect infinitive, neither past nor present.

    – Tim Pederick
    May 22 at 11:16




















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














No.



The verb "to determine" has two (relevant) meanings that are quite different. Because of a quirk of phrasing, it is exactly the words "have sold" versus "sell" that let us know which sense is meant here. So no, you can't swap them without changing the meaning.



Sense 1: "To ascertain definitely"



(Loosely, this sense is about figuring out what happened in the past.)



This is the intended meaning. The US Commerce Department "ascertained definitely" that ZTE sold goods to Iran.



This is basically the same as what you say in your edit, that the US "found out" that it happened. But as commenter @Minty says, there's a difference between "finding out" and "determining". When you find something out, it's new—you've only just discovered (or been given) the evidence. When you determine something, you might have had the evidence for a long time, but you've been taking your time to examine the evidence and are just now making an official statement about what you've found to be true.



Sense 2: "To have a fixed intention of"



(Loosely, this sense is about what someone intends to happen in the future.)



This is not the intended meaning. If understood this way, the sentence would mean that ZTE "had a fixed intention" to sell goods to Iran: they planned to do it, and they were going to stick to those plans even if problems came up (which is the difference between wanting to do something and being determined to do it).



Why does "have sold" versus "sell" matter?



The problem is that Sense 2 is usually used in the passive voice: "I was determined to answer this question", not "I determined to answer this question". This makes it possible to be confused about who the subject is—who is doing the determining? Am I making up my own mind (Sense 2)? Or is someone else making a decision about me (Sense 1)?



Sense 2 should be followed by an infinitive in simple aspect, no matter the conjugation of "to determine":




I am determined to answer this question. (I have strong plans to do it.)



I was determined to answer this question. (I had strong plans to do it.)



ZTE was determined to sell goods to Iran. (They had strong plans to do it.)




On the other hand, Sense 1 will commonly be followed by the perfect aspect. (We typically talk about conclusions that were reached in the past, and so the thing the decision was about is "over and done with", which is what the perfect indicates.)




I was determined to have answered the question. (Someone decided I definitely gave an answer.)



ZTE was determined to have sold goods to Iran. (Someone decided they definitely sold the goods.)







share|improve this answer




























  • Thanks for the explanation. It helped. But shouldn't it be "present perfect" instead of "past perfect"?

    – shiva
    May 22 at 9:39











  • I would say those verbs are infinitives - I am determined to answer this question / he is determined to answer this question, I was determined to have answered the question / he was determined to have answered the question.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 10:40











  • @shiva: Quite right! Fixed. In fact, as Minty says, it's properly a perfect infinitive, neither past nor present.

    – Tim Pederick
    May 22 at 11:16
















5














No.



The verb "to determine" has two (relevant) meanings that are quite different. Because of a quirk of phrasing, it is exactly the words "have sold" versus "sell" that let us know which sense is meant here. So no, you can't swap them without changing the meaning.



Sense 1: "To ascertain definitely"



(Loosely, this sense is about figuring out what happened in the past.)



This is the intended meaning. The US Commerce Department "ascertained definitely" that ZTE sold goods to Iran.



This is basically the same as what you say in your edit, that the US "found out" that it happened. But as commenter @Minty says, there's a difference between "finding out" and "determining". When you find something out, it's new—you've only just discovered (or been given) the evidence. When you determine something, you might have had the evidence for a long time, but you've been taking your time to examine the evidence and are just now making an official statement about what you've found to be true.



Sense 2: "To have a fixed intention of"



(Loosely, this sense is about what someone intends to happen in the future.)



This is not the intended meaning. If understood this way, the sentence would mean that ZTE "had a fixed intention" to sell goods to Iran: they planned to do it, and they were going to stick to those plans even if problems came up (which is the difference between wanting to do something and being determined to do it).



Why does "have sold" versus "sell" matter?



The problem is that Sense 2 is usually used in the passive voice: "I was determined to answer this question", not "I determined to answer this question". This makes it possible to be confused about who the subject is—who is doing the determining? Am I making up my own mind (Sense 2)? Or is someone else making a decision about me (Sense 1)?



Sense 2 should be followed by an infinitive in simple aspect, no matter the conjugation of "to determine":




I am determined to answer this question. (I have strong plans to do it.)



I was determined to answer this question. (I had strong plans to do it.)



ZTE was determined to sell goods to Iran. (They had strong plans to do it.)




On the other hand, Sense 1 will commonly be followed by the perfect aspect. (We typically talk about conclusions that were reached in the past, and so the thing the decision was about is "over and done with", which is what the perfect indicates.)




I was determined to have answered the question. (Someone decided I definitely gave an answer.)



ZTE was determined to have sold goods to Iran. (Someone decided they definitely sold the goods.)







share|improve this answer




























  • Thanks for the explanation. It helped. But shouldn't it be "present perfect" instead of "past perfect"?

    – shiva
    May 22 at 9:39











  • I would say those verbs are infinitives - I am determined to answer this question / he is determined to answer this question, I was determined to have answered the question / he was determined to have answered the question.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 10:40











  • @shiva: Quite right! Fixed. In fact, as Minty says, it's properly a perfect infinitive, neither past nor present.

    – Tim Pederick
    May 22 at 11:16














5












5








5







No.



The verb "to determine" has two (relevant) meanings that are quite different. Because of a quirk of phrasing, it is exactly the words "have sold" versus "sell" that let us know which sense is meant here. So no, you can't swap them without changing the meaning.



Sense 1: "To ascertain definitely"



(Loosely, this sense is about figuring out what happened in the past.)



This is the intended meaning. The US Commerce Department "ascertained definitely" that ZTE sold goods to Iran.



This is basically the same as what you say in your edit, that the US "found out" that it happened. But as commenter @Minty says, there's a difference between "finding out" and "determining". When you find something out, it's new—you've only just discovered (or been given) the evidence. When you determine something, you might have had the evidence for a long time, but you've been taking your time to examine the evidence and are just now making an official statement about what you've found to be true.



Sense 2: "To have a fixed intention of"



(Loosely, this sense is about what someone intends to happen in the future.)



This is not the intended meaning. If understood this way, the sentence would mean that ZTE "had a fixed intention" to sell goods to Iran: they planned to do it, and they were going to stick to those plans even if problems came up (which is the difference between wanting to do something and being determined to do it).



Why does "have sold" versus "sell" matter?



The problem is that Sense 2 is usually used in the passive voice: "I was determined to answer this question", not "I determined to answer this question". This makes it possible to be confused about who the subject is—who is doing the determining? Am I making up my own mind (Sense 2)? Or is someone else making a decision about me (Sense 1)?



Sense 2 should be followed by an infinitive in simple aspect, no matter the conjugation of "to determine":




I am determined to answer this question. (I have strong plans to do it.)



I was determined to answer this question. (I had strong plans to do it.)



ZTE was determined to sell goods to Iran. (They had strong plans to do it.)




On the other hand, Sense 1 will commonly be followed by the perfect aspect. (We typically talk about conclusions that were reached in the past, and so the thing the decision was about is "over and done with", which is what the perfect indicates.)




I was determined to have answered the question. (Someone decided I definitely gave an answer.)



ZTE was determined to have sold goods to Iran. (Someone decided they definitely sold the goods.)







share|improve this answer















No.



The verb "to determine" has two (relevant) meanings that are quite different. Because of a quirk of phrasing, it is exactly the words "have sold" versus "sell" that let us know which sense is meant here. So no, you can't swap them without changing the meaning.



Sense 1: "To ascertain definitely"



(Loosely, this sense is about figuring out what happened in the past.)



This is the intended meaning. The US Commerce Department "ascertained definitely" that ZTE sold goods to Iran.



This is basically the same as what you say in your edit, that the US "found out" that it happened. But as commenter @Minty says, there's a difference between "finding out" and "determining". When you find something out, it's new—you've only just discovered (or been given) the evidence. When you determine something, you might have had the evidence for a long time, but you've been taking your time to examine the evidence and are just now making an official statement about what you've found to be true.



Sense 2: "To have a fixed intention of"



(Loosely, this sense is about what someone intends to happen in the future.)



This is not the intended meaning. If understood this way, the sentence would mean that ZTE "had a fixed intention" to sell goods to Iran: they planned to do it, and they were going to stick to those plans even if problems came up (which is the difference between wanting to do something and being determined to do it).



Why does "have sold" versus "sell" matter?



The problem is that Sense 2 is usually used in the passive voice: "I was determined to answer this question", not "I determined to answer this question". This makes it possible to be confused about who the subject is—who is doing the determining? Am I making up my own mind (Sense 2)? Or is someone else making a decision about me (Sense 1)?



Sense 2 should be followed by an infinitive in simple aspect, no matter the conjugation of "to determine":




I am determined to answer this question. (I have strong plans to do it.)



I was determined to answer this question. (I had strong plans to do it.)



ZTE was determined to sell goods to Iran. (They had strong plans to do it.)




On the other hand, Sense 1 will commonly be followed by the perfect aspect. (We typically talk about conclusions that were reached in the past, and so the thing the decision was about is "over and done with", which is what the perfect indicates.)




I was determined to have answered the question. (Someone decided I definitely gave an answer.)



ZTE was determined to have sold goods to Iran. (Someone decided they definitely sold the goods.)








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 26 at 13:48

























answered May 22 at 8:53









Tim PederickTim Pederick

2231 silver badge7 bronze badges




2231 silver badge7 bronze badges
















  • Thanks for the explanation. It helped. But shouldn't it be "present perfect" instead of "past perfect"?

    – shiva
    May 22 at 9:39











  • I would say those verbs are infinitives - I am determined to answer this question / he is determined to answer this question, I was determined to have answered the question / he was determined to have answered the question.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 10:40











  • @shiva: Quite right! Fixed. In fact, as Minty says, it's properly a perfect infinitive, neither past nor present.

    – Tim Pederick
    May 22 at 11:16



















  • Thanks for the explanation. It helped. But shouldn't it be "present perfect" instead of "past perfect"?

    – shiva
    May 22 at 9:39











  • I would say those verbs are infinitives - I am determined to answer this question / he is determined to answer this question, I was determined to have answered the question / he was determined to have answered the question.

    – Minty
    May 22 at 10:40











  • @shiva: Quite right! Fixed. In fact, as Minty says, it's properly a perfect infinitive, neither past nor present.

    – Tim Pederick
    May 22 at 11:16

















Thanks for the explanation. It helped. But shouldn't it be "present perfect" instead of "past perfect"?

– shiva
May 22 at 9:39





Thanks for the explanation. It helped. But shouldn't it be "present perfect" instead of "past perfect"?

– shiva
May 22 at 9:39













I would say those verbs are infinitives - I am determined to answer this question / he is determined to answer this question, I was determined to have answered the question / he was determined to have answered the question.

– Minty
May 22 at 10:40





I would say those verbs are infinitives - I am determined to answer this question / he is determined to answer this question, I was determined to have answered the question / he was determined to have answered the question.

– Minty
May 22 at 10:40













@shiva: Quite right! Fixed. In fact, as Minty says, it's properly a perfect infinitive, neither past nor present.

– Tim Pederick
May 22 at 11:16





@shiva: Quite right! Fixed. In fact, as Minty says, it's properly a perfect infinitive, neither past nor present.

– Tim Pederick
May 22 at 11:16



Popular posts from this blog

Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029