17 Mar
2005
17 Mar
'05
6:04 p.m.
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Richard Campbell wrote:
The only sarcasm was displaying the established use of IP for "Internet
Protocol". The rest was dead serious. If someone uses that
(american-lawyer-"invented"?) acronym to bunch together completely unrelated
(and NOT universally accepted, nether bunched together nor by themselves)
concepts, ideas, conventions and laws, instead of referring to the exact
concept they are intending, they are doing this out of two possible reasons:
1. Ignorance. Perhaps the person using the acronym isn't aware these are a
number of completely unrelated concepts bunched together? Perhaps it is, but
isn't aware that by using the acronym it's hurting others (by using the
acronym it gives the acronym credibility)? Perhaps it isn't a person, but a
sheep doing what "all others" (within visual range) do? The possibilities
are almost endless - but the result is still hurting others.
2. Malice, to (try to) spread the venom to make people believe there is some
such universally accepted umbrella term in the real world, where all the
concepts they try to cram under this umbrella most certainly are separate,
and completely unrelated issues.
Giving the ones using that acronym the benefit of a dubt, I believe most
uses are due to ignorance.
But whatever the reasons people use that acronym, it still is spreading of
FUD - and it is hurting others (too).
/Mike
Ermm....IP = intellectual property...
I think that was another one of Mike's sarcastic jokes that nobody
ever gets ;)