>From Jed: ...
> Terminology is often inaccurate and usually a generation behind. We often > pick a word for something new that describes the older object better than > the new one. Because there isn't a word for the new thing. ... This is why many (myself included) have felt that recent attempts, such as those launched from the Krivit and the Widom Larsen camp, in attempts to cast dispersions on the phrase "cold fusion", and most particularly the "FUSION" word in "cold fusion" have been petty, counterproductive, and in my opinion, politically motivated. It strikes me as nothing more than a ideological motivated product placement war. Anyone who has studied the field for the past 2 decades knows the CF phrase is nothing more than a placeholder. Meanwhile, everyone else who hasn't studied the field will more likely end up becoming confused. Sometimes, I find myself speculating that THAT is precisely what Krivit and WL hope will happen. It strikes me as an attempt to conquer and divide the ignorant by getting them into their ideological camp, before they know any better. I suspect such tactics will not work. The irony is the fact that even after the process is better understood, it is likely that the "cold fusion" phrase will continue to be used to describe the process, as perceived within in the poplar culture. It will linger on in the vocabulary for decades, if not longer. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
