On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 13:15, Jack Byers wrote: > > > Jack Byers [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hal Burgiss responded to another thread: > > >Mutt + procmail is light years ahead of this stuff. Especially, when > >you consider vim can be used as the editor. > > > I am reasonably sure most members of this list, > and almost surely Hal himself, > really know that "light year" is a technical term: > > specifically it is a measure of _distance_ ; > and said another way, it most certainly is not a measure of _time_ > which is the sense it was used in the above quote. > > Sadly, this kind of thing seems to have entered the popular jargon of the > day. > I even ran across some technical type article in the NYtimes a year or so > ago > that misused the term in just the same way. > > It's no worse than saying "miles ahead of" but that is badjunk use too. > > call me an old f**t if you must, but I couldn't help responding to this > > regards > Jack > > As a professional lurker on these lists, actually, I'm learning and really don't have much to add, except in these cases. You're right, the sayings, "light years ahead", or, "miles ahead", refer to distance, not time. However,the authors are suggesting that the distance between A and B (miles, light years, leagues)can be compared to the difference in achievement, value, whatever, the metaphor its being used for. So, while the comparison may be vague sometimes, its acceptable, at least in the New York times stylebook.
Just an fyi Keep up the good work Jim Lann -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
