RE: Terminology debate again

Date: Mon Jan 17 2000 - 21:49:54 EET

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 []
        Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:47 PM
        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
        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
>terminology before our language hits the mainstream. Words are
>I like to use them thoughtfully.
> However, also note that in the case of my last RP-ML posting,
>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

For more information about the rp-ml, see

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