List and Marshall,
I was the originator of that email to Marshall and did not send it as a
complaint I was just wondering how long Marshall would be tagging his
messages with such a translation. It seems to me that it would be easier to
just use and accept what seems to be the industry standard.
By the way I do not agree that the current terms are misleading. They fit
perfectly with what these machine do.
Karl Denton
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Burns [SMTP:Marshall@Ennex.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:47 PM
To: RP-ml@bart.lpt.fi
Subject: Terminology debate again
Dear RP-World,
I've received a private complaint about my use of terminology,
and I
thought I would share my response with the list, see below. Further
comments, in public or private, are welcome.
Best regards,
Marshall Burns
President, Ennex Corporation
Marshall@Ennex.com
Los Angeles, USA, (310) 397-1314
www.Ennex.com
-----The complaint-----
>>I know we have had this discussion before but... I notice that
when you
>>respond to an email you use your own terminology throughout the
email and
>>then give some form of a translation explanation at the end.
Wouldn't be
>>easier if you used the "standard" terminology up front?
-----My answer-----
> Easier, yes. But the popular terminology is flawed and since we
are at
>the leading edge of a revolution, we have the opportunity to set
the
correct
>terminology before our language hits the mainstream. Words are
powerful,
and
>I like to use them thoughtfully.
>
> However, also note that in the case of my last RP-ML posting,
you'll
>notice that there is no popular term for "industrial fabber,"
except to
call
>it "an RP machine that isn't a concept modeller."
>
>Best regards,
>Marshall Burns
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 23:02:38 EEST