From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Mon 28 Sep 1998 - 22:33:39 EEST
Ash Munday complains strongly about (and I quote) "computer wank-speak":
> "HW is more scalable than RQ."
> "HW is supports a higher level of abstraction than RQ."
> "HW uses a different paradigm to RQ."
Add: "4th generation RPG"
"process-oriented vs. outcome-oriented".
Personally, I think this sort of Pseudo-Management-Speak off-putting
when I come across it in _computing_ -- and then I can at least console
myself with the thought that I'm getting _paid_ for wading through
the crap. In this context I can merely think, "What a revoltin'
development".
> David Dunham said he liked the idea of cities being represented as
> directed graphs...
> Alex said bi-directional graphs would be better...
That's not quite what I said; I should clarify, as I already had to
off-line, that I was attempting a little "in-group" irony, not trying to
make any sort of serious point, graph-theoretical or otherwise. (Failed
Big, evidently.)
> There again, they did come back when bribed with 100 word character
> descriptions, being fairly terse communicators when they want to be.
Not me; I've never created a HW character in my puff.
> Jane tried to defend herself from being a God Learner, but failed.
Stephen Martin says that he had it Proved to him by a Chaosium staffer
that denying one was a God Learner merely proved that you were. (So
he stopped doing so -- we're not fooled Steve, you know!) Probably
this sort of provision will be included in Jack Straw's next Crime
/Anti-Terrorist/My Son the Dope Dealer/Charging 17.5% on HW box sets
Bill, so keep the ducking stool well-oiled, Ash.
Slainte,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 18:24:51 EEST