Re: Speaking of Improper Terminology

Subject: Re: Speaking of Improper Terminology
From: Hillary Russak <hrussak -at- SLAC -dot- STANFORD -dot- EDU>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:38:58 -0700

>Don Timmerman, dtimmerman -at- anl -dot- gov wrote:
>
>>Why? The use of master and slave as quoted below fits the definitions
>>provided by my 1993 Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, tenth
>>edition.

Larry Weber <larry_weber -at- HOTMAIL -dot- COM> wrote:

>Simple. Our users might go into convulsions after reading a word
>reminiscent of 19th century labor practices.
>
>Larry
>
>let the flames begin...

No flames here. I must agree that sensitivity should guide us in these
matters. The language is happily huge enough to provide plenty of
less-loaded language. (I even flinch at the "slave cylinder" in my shop
manual.)
-hil

Hillary M. Russak, Technical Writer
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
ES&H Division, Waste Management Department
hrussak -at- slac -dot- stanford -dot- edu
Office: (650) 926-3193
Pager: (650) 940-0741

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html


Previous by Author: Re: Microsoft Style Manual?
Next by Author: Re[2]: Speaking of Improper Terminology
Previous by Thread: Re: Speaking of Improper Terminology
Next by Thread: Re: Speaking of Improper Terminology


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads