Re: technical terms overhaul
On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 16:03:24 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:56:06PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:42:11 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:37:51PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link?
> > >
> > > If Eike is trying to start a social movement, this is... well, it's
> > > something. But you'll need much broader exposure and more voices to
> > > join yours, if you hope to prevail.
> >
> > Perhaps my question was too simple. I do not hope to prevail, just
> > obtain clarification. But maybe "you" does not mean "me".
>
> True. I got lazy, and mixed together sentences that are addressing
> both people in the cited material. Also, I didn't want to get into
> the whole gendered pronoun issue. Not in such a short email.
>
> P.S. I'd consider "goodlist" and "badlist" as replacement terms. They're
> short, both in terms of syllables and characters. Even shorter than the
> originals! That's a good thing. "Allowlist" and "rejectlist" both add
> a syllable, and the latter also adds characters.
Passlist and faillist, perhaps? Pass list already exists as a two word
phrase, so people are used to saying it.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: