Thanks to the vigorous interaction with Elan, Ladislav, Ingo, and others on this list (I don't mean to slight anyone, I'm just too hurried to type all the names), I believe I now have a model which supports explaining all the different phenomena that have been part of this collection of threads (rope? ;-). I'll summarize it in a subsequent posting, with examples. As always, feedback and corrections are most welcome. Sincere thanks to all the discussing/debating partners who've made it possible (and fun). (Of course, my thanks to them implies no obligation to agree with anything that they may say in the future. ;-) -jn- P.S. The optional comments below DO NOT reflect my views toward anyone in these discussions, on this mailing list, or at REBOL.com, but merely as background to my general passion for precise terminology. An important issue distinguishing science from marketing or politics is that science uses language/terminology/jargon to communicate factually and unambiguously, while marketing and politics use language/terminology/jargon to provoke, influence, or impress (and, tragically, sometimes to obscure or mislead). I know what acetaminophen is and how my body (especially stomach and muscles) responds to it differently from aspirin. Therefore, I am not interested (except to be annoyed, probably) when a marketing suit wants to cover his package and advertisements with "NEW!", "IMPROVED!", "EXTRA STRENGTH!", or "Contains the ingredient that 4 out of 5 doctors recommend!". I ignore all of that nonsense and turn the package over to read the ingredients label. Applying this curmudgeonly rant to recent discussions, I try very hard in my own communications to use standard terminology for standard concepts, only introducing new verbiage when I'm really saying something that isn't well covered by existing language. The goal is that, when the other participant(s) in the exchange hear something unfamiliar, we can minimize the time spent on the question, "Is he really saying something new, or just expressing a familiar idea in a peculiar way?" I'm probably overzealous at times in urging this approach to others, but my own experience suggests that I've confused things more often by being too novel than by being too precise.
