Universally understood? If that were true there wouldn't be any debate, would there?
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 14:16, Chris Mason <chrisma...@belgacom.net> wrote: > Don > > We are not dealing with a language - that would be another campaign such as > getting rid of the stupid misuse of "issue" or "issues" for "problem". We > are > dealing with explaining technical matters where there is an opportunity for > ambiguity if we don't stick to universally understood, accepted and > mandated > expressions. > > Chris Mason > > On Mon, 2 May 2011 17:53:54 -0400, Don Leahy <don.le...@leacom.ca> > wrote: > > >Usage gives meaning. That's how languages evolve. Acronyms too, > >apparently. ;-) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
