From: Gordon Worley (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 23:33:49 MST
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 01:06 AM, Mitch Howe wrote:
> The problem wasn't that Sysop was a threatening term -- the contrary;
> had a very neutral connotation. The problem was that Sysop refers
> to a certain minimalist, Friendly type of Singleton SI. This has left
> with "Singleton SI" as the only way to define the category we have often
> casually, if improperly called "Sysop".
Well, it reads like we have a term, so I fail to see the problem.
'Sysop' is pretty obscure if you're not familiar with multi user
systems, so 'singleton SI' seems just a good for the more general case.
I rank it with being about as intuitive as the term 'Singularity'. Yes,
it gives you a basic sense of what is meant, but you have to delve
deeper to figure out the exact definition in the context.
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose firstname.lastname@example.org it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT