On Tuesday, 12 August 2003 at 19:11:36 +0930, Dan Shearer wrote: > Which means that, in some golden future, there might be a term that is > none of the common options and if not a completly accurate description > (which is what Greg was seeking to open debate on) at least has no > historic baggage. Aurgshjaksda, perhaps. > > I'm just pessimistic that such a thing is possible in the near term > without risking losing the audience entirely. Don't be pessimistic, be realistic. Not everything needs to be done in the near term. It's good to think of the long term as well. > An unprecedented number of people are tuned in right now thanks to a > coincidence of influences around the world. People with business > interests based on this stuff aren't looking for it to change now. People with business interests are used to buzzwords changing. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Attachment:
pgp00016.pgp
Description: PGP signature