From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e4b2dce209393666
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jim_snead <basswoodNObaSPAM@my-deja.com.invalid>
Subject: Re: Business Week (12/6/99 issue) article on Software Quality
Date: 1999/12/08
Message-ID: <004aa0e3.b7f5c816@usw-ex0102-011.remarq.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 558432802
References: <B46A7702.169C%houseofcards@surfree.com>
 <m37liyerpj.fsf@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <82hk54$cbc$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net> <82lv4i$aso$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Originating-Host: 207.58.25.250
X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com
X-Trace: WReNphoon3 944715699 10.0.2.11 (Wed, 08 Dec 1999 21:01:39 PST)
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 21:01:39 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Wren-Trace: eBw5ERAJTgRPXgkHCksSGgovAQBUHFkAGF4QEBhIVwxEVAlFXA5cXEJISA==
Date: 1999-12-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <82lv4i$aso$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison
<dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> In article <82hk54$cbc$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>   Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > a three level designation starting with "mistake/error", that
produces
> > a software
> As a reader, you loose me right here. This kind of lingusitc
revisionism

-------------------^^^^^

You can look it up, internet and email have revised the English
language such that the term "loose" no longer means "not tight"
but means the same as "lose" as in "lost".  Another
common net term is the completely fabricated single word "alot" 
meaning "a lot" or "many".
These terms are not typos but learned net behavior. The studies
make for some interesting reading.

> has throughout history been the exclusive domain of shrills and
> crackpots. There is ample proof that changing the word used to
> describe
> something has absolutely no impact on the meaning people give the
> concept. To make matters worse, the "improved" term is invariably
> longer
> and more mushy-mouthed.



* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!