[Asrg] Proposed corollary to Godwin's law

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 19 June 2009 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8F53A6B8F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7XHXs5yPgSsz for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8813A6AD1 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 61844 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2009 10:06:04 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 19 Jun 2009 10:06:04 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0906; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=HoIQlJM1x0ZxsjUH9xHC73teQvRlHmWGNS8Q23D9hsg=; b=H7RTIPUTF3hAXQKJaHRuX4BYgDlH9pPPN9n28zilYXzt5xsoI/wueuTKkfwLDE7mrFBY0jFcyzXGb0TgdE/nKXqFbrPqUJ5s41zIC0Fpvz5ctq4cVtV88pmhBTkGpnLzDJt3bCTObiKaNnhDuwowiBmhw08Hvp2grwp4jUYV9ok=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0906; bh=HoIQlJM1x0ZxsjUH9xHC73teQvRlHmWGNS8Q23D9hsg=; b=U0ZZrrhZLhJw5owHglvmyw+OP+hqtE3tiOq2W1vNAxs8e5v+TG0DZk+H0kgFvJgZDyUwwr0FpDJ2R6X2D3SNxVC5Vxjrxv2a/ioQHk8EZwO2j225OnpKtCbIBwjw93HGsK1jTHzWTZxLXaTa8kkZzJmKPr2UUUtcDIBtOg98X00=
Date: 19 Jun 2009 10:06:04 -0000
Message-ID: <20090619100604.2572.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <4A3B3335.6040507@tana.it>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Asrg] Proposed corollary to Godwin's law
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:05:53 -0000

>On thefreedictionary I read
>   Synonyms:  responsible, answerable, liable, accountable, amenable
>   These adjectives share the meaning obliged to answer, as for one's
>   actions, to an authority that may impose a penalty for failure.

I think that as soon as you start quoting the dictionary, you've lost
the argument.

In any technical field, one needs jargon as a shorthand to refer to
agreed concepts.  Some jargon words are made up (byte), but most are
normal words used in new ways (parser).  When you start quoting the
dictionary, you're arguing that some word has only its conventional
meaning, which is generally not true for any word used in a technical
context.  Words like responsible, accredit, certify, are evolving into
jargon, but we haven't yet come to consensus on what if any jargon
meaning they have.  The dictionary doesn't help, so leave it out of
this discussion, please.

R's,
John