>I think Bill is just trying to make a point that the name stinks, and I
>agree with him. Yes the meaning is well defined and accurate, but the
>term is misleading. Sure, it isn't going to go away.
>See, I still didn't say the correct name. I had to use it when teaching
>about it, but I made sure everyone knew I didn't like it.
Not only did you NOT use the term "single-point ground" neither you nor
Bill have made any suggestion for a more accurate term that is simple,
while remaining descriptive.
I would suggest that since we are speaking about some sort of grounding
concept that the term "ground" needs to appear in the term. And it will need
a one-word or two-word modifier to distinguish this concept from
concepts -- so make a suggestion. If you can come up with something that
is better, more accurate, and no more cumbersome, then I can support that.
Then we can start working on other terms like "blind curve" and "dead end".
I am SURE there must be more accurate terms for these as well. The
use of "no exit" is no better than what it replaces ("dead end") because if
you get in there must be a way out -- clearly an exit.
Until then I will continue to use the well-established standard definition for
all of these terms.
And I will continue to silently protest the "standard" that a quoted
word at the
end of a sentence should contain the period inside the quote. The
period is for
the entire sentence and is not part of the quote! So I refuse to
take part in
this "insanity". (See, I can live on the wild side as well and
refuse to live
TowerTalk mailing list