[45474] in North American Network Operators' Group
Words should be redefinable at all (not)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Rhett)
Sat Feb 2 13:43:26 2002
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:42:41 -0800
From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@isite.net>
To: Alan Hannan <alan@routingloop.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020202104241.A9784@isite.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Alan Hannan <alan@routingloop.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020129223503.A18957@routingloop.com>; from alan@routingloop.com on Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 10:35:04PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> People should be free to define these terms as they see fit,
> with no central authority defining what is what (and I don't
> think there should be).
Those first 12 words are the bane of everybody who actually gets work done.
No, regardless of the fact that Americans (myself included) feel the need
to redefine words that had perfectly good and clear meanings in the first
place (myself not included), having a variable and subjective vocabulary
means that succinct, objective discussion is nearly impossible.
There are dozens of papers written on this topic, some dating back over a
thousand years. Scientists have long gotten past this battle. Learn from it.
--
Joe Rhett Chief Geek
JRhett@ISite.Net ISite Services, Inc.
