Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:05:11 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|