On  Wed, 11  Sep 1996  11:19:29 -0400  Mike Holloway  <[log in to unmask]>
said:
 
>There  is, in  fact,  an  english word  that  describes  the task.  It's
>"operator".
 
"Operator" does not describe all  the possible scenarios either. There is
no word in the  English language that does. Actually, I  doubt there is a
word  that does  in any  language, but  there are  better words  in other
languages. I'm sorry that it offends  you that the English language isn't
universally perfect in every possible  circumstance, but the simple truth
is that every  language has its strengths and weaknesses,  and English is
no exception.  Anyway, "operator" is  heavily loaded with  side meanings:
"phone operator", "computer operator",  etc. In the mainframe environment
in which LISTSERV  was developed, "operator" had a  very specific meaning
and referred to  the people in the computer operations  room who mind the
machines 24h a day. It would have been totally unsuitable.
 
>I suspect that "owner" was chosen  because LISTSERV was envisioned to be
>used strictly  by academics  on a  campus where  the operator  had total
>control of content and operation.
 
Actually   LISTSERV  was   developed   specifically  for   international,
cross-campus use where no one really "owns" anything legally. "Owner" was
chosen because  it seemed to  be the least inappropriate  word. Obviously
you disagree, and this disagreement leads nicely into your standard "They
didn't do what I said, how could they be so narrow minded" boilerplate:
 
>If I get any response at all from  someone at Lsoft it's not going to be
>a "thank you" for pointing out  obvious problems that could be corrected
>in the future. I'll be scolded for criticizing. This has happened before
>to me after  asking innocent questions about things going  wrong with my
>list. Again,  I think  this is  another language/cultural/communications
>problem.
 
  Eric