Terminology debate again

From: Marshall Burns (Marshall@Ennex.com)
Date: Mon Jan 17 2000 - 20:46:34 EET

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

Los Angeles, USA, (310) 397-1314

-----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
>terminology before our language hits the mainstream. Words are powerful,
>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
>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/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 23:02:38 EEST