In <cae1xxdfkms1d9p+emdpioapnugq-rvtanjcvxo+uuz99r8s...@mail.gmail.com>, on 05/04/2013 at 08:56 AM, John Gilmore <jwgli...@gmail.com> said:
>In situations of this kind the needs of the unlettered must come >first. The word 'inflammable' does not mean 'cannot be set aflame'; >some of the unlettered nevertheless sometimes judged that it did; >the case for disambiguation, for using 'flammable' instead, was >thus compelling; and the change was made. As Quine put the >matter, "Semiliteracy, however offensive, is not a capital >offense". Sometimes it is, e.g., reading "inflamable" as "nonflamable" and lighting a match near an open container. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN