RE: Terminology debate again

From: Brock Hinzmann (
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 20:27:03 EET

Actually, I have always found fabber, fabricator, and even automated
fabrication to be more misleading than rapid prototyping or RP in describing
the current state of the art and I often wonder why Marshall continues to
use it. Automated Fabrication is a great goal, an application, but
certainly a lot of other technologies and equipment already do and will continue
to fill that application, albeit each with its own limitations as well.

I agree with Marshall's sentiment, in that some other term is desirable
to describe that revolutionary machine of the future, where cost-effective
automated fabrication of totally arbitrary one-off items is possible, but
the person or company that invents that machine is likely to get to name
it, like Xerox and Coke.

I like Marshall's enthusiasm, and creativity in general, and I would like
him to continue pushing the thinking in the industry, but I sometimes
wonder if he isn't beating a dead horse named Fabber.

Brock Hinzmann
technology navigator

KDenton wrote:
>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
>perfectly with what these machine do.
>Karl Denton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marshall Burns []
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:47 PM
> To:
> 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
> correct
> >terminology before our language hits the mainstream. Words are
> and
> >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
> call
> >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
>RFC822 header
>Status: U
>Return-Path: <>
>Received: from ([]) by
> (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA2CE
> for <>;
> Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:58:05 -0800
>Received: from major by with local (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for
> id 12AI8w-0004od-00; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:48:50 +0000
>Received: from [] (
> by with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for
> id 12AI8v-0004lQ-00; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:48:49 +0200
>Received: by with Internet Mail Service
> id <Z2VJRARH>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:49:55 -0500
>Message-ID: <551AEBFEC053D211B912000083947AE01FDBA0@mailsrv.williams-int.
>Subject: RE: Terminology debate again
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:49:54 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Precedence: bulk

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