Conference thebay::joyoflex

This mission, once approved by the Digital Services Management Team 
and the SMT, will enable {person} to drive more synergies 
within the site and to further develop {site} as one of our
Digital Services Centres.
    
    (minor changes to protect the innocent ;-)

I agree that .0 is God awful, but we've got to be careful here.  From the 
sentence formation and syntax, it seem fairly clear that the author is not a 
native English speaker.

Joy-of-Lex is a great forum for language snobbery, but should we really be 
making fun of people for whom English is a second language?

Just wondering.

Larry

    	The author of .1 is not a native English speaker. I cannot answer
    for the author of .0, but I would ask people adding to this note
    to make minor edits so that the author is not easily identifiable. I
    was a little unhappy that this was not done in .0.
    
    	It is valid to discuss and give examples of bad English here,
    but as .2 says we should avoid exposing individuals to ridicule.

>    	The author of .1 is not a native English speaker. I cannot answer
>    for the author of .0, but I would ask people adding to this note
>    to make minor edits so that the author is not easily identifiable. I
>    was a little unhappy that this was not done in .0.

    I am not quite sure what our moderator means by the last sentence in
    his first paragraph. I entered, in the base note, an English
    language document which is supposed to officially represent to our
    customers what a specific software package is supposed to 'do'. I
    also included a prefatory note that this is, in fact, a public
    document (and hence reproduceable). The prefatory note states that
    the text has been reviewed by US and European (SPO and ESPO)
    management. I do not who is the individual author of the note, if in
    fact one individual did write it, and I do not especially care. The
    text of .0 certainly does not identify anyone as the author.
    
    I _do_ care that it is abysmally written and edited, and that it is
    available to customers in this form. (Note that there is also a .ps
    version of the document given. Some customers will see the ASCII
    version, some the .ps version.)
    
    If we provide a document in English, it should be in acceptable
    English. If we provide it in French, it should be in acceptable
    French. I don't think this is a question of the propensity for
    noters in this conference to quibble over every solecism we can
    find.
    
>    	It is valid to discuss and give examples of bad English here,
>    but as .2 says we should avoid exposing individuals to ridicule.
    
    The author of .0, as far the public is concerned, is Digital; .0
    exposes Digital to ridicule.

    
    	Anyone hired as a writer in any language should not merely
    	be competent in the language.  The person should excel in
    	written exposition.  Explanations, documentation, instructions
    	are as much a product of our company as our machines and
    	software.  They are a mirror of ourselves, our standards, and
    	our goals that are viewed and judged by our customers.
    
    	To try to mitigate the travesty of language that .0 represents
    	by postulating the author was not a native speaker of English
    	is absurd.  The person was hired as a writer of the language
    	and cannot communicate in that language.  The writer, the
    	editor, and the manager are all to blame.  It is also unfortunate
    	that this is not an isolated case.
    
    	Although somewhat simplistic, we can look upon good writing as
    	that which conveys accurately and without confusion what the 
    	writer had originally in mind to the majority of people who 
    	understand the given language.  I have severe reservations
    	about allowing an author of such limited language skills as
    	the one of .0 to serve as a communicator for this company and
    	equally severe reservations about a hiring manager unable to
    	discern basic job requirements.

    Please note that the software in question is an ASSETS package and not
    an "official" product.  As a result, the original author is most likely
    the software developer.  It is also nearly certain that no technical
    writer was available to assist with or review the work.  We don't have
    technical writers in the field as a rule.
    
    I don't mean to condone this sort of thing, but it's everyday reality
    in the field.  The SPD is probably no worse than most customer
    documentation produces by the field EIS organization.  
    
    -dave

    I also find the moderator's request confusing.
    
    I don't know who the author of the original document was, though
    easily guessed that he/she was both
    (1) not a native English speaker and
    (2) not hired as an English technical writer.
    
    However, the author of .0, who quoted the original document, stated that
    the document had been reviewed and approved by appropriate parties.  If
    this is true, then we have a severe shortage of English-speaking editors.
    Perhaps this isn't news; I don't know.
    
    A number of firms in Japan, Korea, and other countries produce their
    user manuals in-house and do the translations to English in-house.
    They refuse to send the documents outside to translating services that
    have competent English writers, because then their own employees would
    lose face with each other.  They cannot admit that their own senior
    and/or most competent English speakers are inadequate.  Of course,
    another number of firms have learned better, in order to survive in
    export markets.
    
    I almost replied immediately to .0, to compare the situations and ask
    (rhetorically) if Digital has the same problem.
    
    Now, the base document doesn't entirely look like the work of a non-native
    English speaker.  There are a bit too many buzz-phrases in it.  It looks
    like it WAS edited after being written, and that an editor and reviewers
    were grossly incompetent.  Perhaps someone knows differently though.  If
    I'm wrong, if the original author did insert all those buzz-phrases, we
    still have too many incompetent reviewers.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    	I am possibly over-sensitive. The document in .0 is describing a
    security product, and as a security consultant I have to deal with the
    people responsible for it and its documentation. I had seen a draft 
    of .0 several months ago, but since I was arguing that release of the
    product would be detrimental to DEC I was not too interested in the 
    details of the quality of documentation. First get the project
    cancelled, and fix the documentation later ;-}
    
    	I believe all of the people involved in producing the document in
    .0 are located in the U.S., though that says nothing about their native
    languages. The quotation names the product manager, who *must* have
    been on the review list and takes responsibility for the document, even 
    if the document was produced by a technical writer.
    
    
    	I realise the note was in a non-restricted notes file, but it is
    still good noting etiquette to ask permission of the author before
    quoting it, and I suspect that permission would not have been granted
    for this purpose.

       In the UK, which I now know is not the centre of the universe, 
       there has been much debate about the decline in the standards of 
       written and spoken English.
    
    <FLAME ON>
    
       I must agree with those replies that refer to our written material 
       as being critical to our image with customers.  If the written 
       material presented to customers is grammatically incorrect, 
       mis-spelt, unintentionally ambiguous, or whatever, it can have 
       varies results.  At least it contributes to the destruction of our 
       credibility.  They reason that if we cannot put together a quality 
       document it begs the question of whether we can put together a 
       quality product.  At worst it may be damaging for our customers.  
       (A Gartner Group study of the US DoD found that between 5 and 8 
       per cent of all fatal accidents are caused by errors in technical 
       documentation - I just hope none of that was our documentation).
    
       My worst experience was with a proposal that I co-authored with a 
       salesman.  It was to carry both our names.  One section he wrote 
       had a 'sentence' without a verb.  I asked him to put a verb in.  
       He refused on the grounds that it was readily implied from the 
       preceding sentence.  He only added a verb when I deleted my name 
       from the title page.
    
       As part of the Total Quality Management programme, I suggest that 
       we all have a responsibility to improve the image we present to 
       our customers.  If that includes improving the standard of 
       English, or whatever language is used, in EIS, Sales, etc. then go 
       to it!  I also believe we should not let managers get away with 
       poor linguistic standards.  That includes their own, as well as 
       that of their staff.
    
    <FLAME OFF>
    
    Nick
    

    Mr. Moderator, you say he needed permission?  He had permission to
    re-post it outside of Digital, so I wouldn't worry about here.
    -- Norman Diamond
    
    Excerpt from .0:
            <<< DYPSS2::$3$DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DECDETECT.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< DECdetect for VMS >-
Note 2.0                               SPD                             2 replies
DYPSS1::TROXELL                                       8 lines  28-JUN-1991 12:07
    [...]
    The SPDs are releasable to the public.

    	The node name and username of the person who posted it are not
    releasable to the public. Digital will not even allow them to appear on
    his own business cards. They should have been excluded.
    
    	The text of the SPD is fair game, but I would have been inclined to
    remove the name of the product manager from the end since there it adds
    nothing  to a discussion of the text and I  think metadiscussions
    should be held elsewhere since they add nothing to bad English
    consideration and do not even provide good examples for this note
    though they might help a bit if only we could forget some of our rules
    for good style when conducting a metadiscussion of this sort.
    
    	Dave

Nice one Dave!!!

>    	 The text of the SPD is fair game, but I would have been inclined to
>   remove the name of the product manager from the end since there it adds
>   nothing  to a discussion of the text and I  think metadiscussions
>   should be held elsewhere since they add nothing to bad English
>   consideration and do not even provide good examples for this note
>   though they might help a bit if only we could forget some of our rules
>   for good style when conducting a metadiscussion of this sort.
    
I suppose the challenge is either to punctuate your 87 word sentence, or to 
create an even longer one which is still understandable?

                           ;-)  ;-)  ;-)  ;-)  ;-)

Nick

    >      He refused on the grounds that it was readily implied from
    >      the preceding sentence. 
    
    Hmmm.  On this side of the pond we native speakers of English tend to
    use "inferred" in such cases...
    
    ... and now back to the regularly scheduled meta-discussion...  Sorry
    'bout that, Nick, all in good fun...  Dan  :-)  :-)

    "Implied from" is a grammatical misconstruction that couls lead to
    mental misconstruction.  To clarify:
    
    "Inferred from" - you can draw some sort of conclusion - not
    necessarily correct - from the info.
    
    "Implied by" - the info suggests something.
    
    So there.  We now return you to whatever...
    
    -d

	o  .0 was not too bad, based on some stuff I've seen

	o  It's so easy to delete or change stuff that might give away
	   authorship.  I use live examples all the time in classes I
	   teach, presentations I give, etc., and always remember to
	   protect the "innocent."   You can put the original writer in 
	   the stocks for all I care, but I don't think it will do any 
           good.

	o  Don't forget that there's a lot more to good tech writing
	   than knowing the difference between "imply" and "infer"

		-- C

    I thought .0 was fine writing, but then I code for a living :).

    >> I thought .0 was fine writing, but then I code for a living :).

	...and it's really fine coding too, Hoyt.

	8-)

    Hoyt
    
       Are we allowed to guess what it is that you have coded?
    
       One or two products come to mind!
    
       	 	8-)
    
    Nick

   >> Hoyt
    
   >>    Are we allowed to guess what it is that you have coded?
    
   >>    One or two products come to mind!


	Wait, I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on Hoyt's abilities
	here.  His prowess at the keyboard is legendary - nay, mythical.

	8-)
	Di

    In our published, publicly distributed documents, we are just as bad
    technically as .0 is linguistically.  Last year I read the hardcopy
    DECnet-Ultrix manuals, and they were riddled with errors.  Presently
    I'm reading parts of the VAX C (for VMS OS) manuals, and they are
    not as bad, but still discouraging.  Maybe it's better when they're
    unreadable, so no one can catch the technical errors.  :-(

$ set note/mode=(chiding,tongue_in_cheek)

Jeez, Norman, is this a new product, something I've not heard about?  I
know about ULTRIX(R), Digital's implementation of the UNIX(R) operating
system, but I'm unaware of any Digital product called Ultrix.

$ set note/mode=serious

As a writer in the Open Software Publications group (An ULTRIX writer,
in more casual terms), I'm conscious of the fact that Digital can lose
its right to use ULTRIX as a trademark if we don't use the name properly
in our writing.  There is US legal precedent for this; Company A sued
Company B for using A's trademark in advertising without A's permission,
and the court ruled in favor of B when B was able to show that A's
employees didn't even care enough about the trademark to use it properly
in internal memos.

Please, folks, it's ULTRIX, not Ultrix.

-d

--------

UNIX is a registered trademark of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.

    -d:
    
    With regard to:
    
    >I know about ULTRIX(R), Digital's implementation of the UNIX(R)
    >operating system [...]
    
    ULTRIX is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation; it is not
    a registered trademark.
    
    					andrew

Edit .20 to read ULTRIX(tm).  Hasty fingers...

-d

    Re .21
    
    I have previously been told that we have to use Digital trademarks
    as adjectives rather than nouns.  This is why I speak of DECstation
    stations, VMS OS, Ultrix OS, etc.  I have not previously been told
    that the trademarks have to be fully capitalized.  I was not aware
    of any trademark cases that depended on other than the first letter
    being capitalized.
    
    Regarding Unix OS, I don't think we have a problem, because I don't
    think Unix System Laboratories Inc. capitalizes it UNIX.  Furthermore,
    I have saved a newspaper advertisement placed by a branch of AT&T
    which used the word Unix as a noun.  However, having learned the habit
    of using it as an adjective, I continue to do so for the time being.
    
    If we lose our trademarks due to violating our own rules, it will
    not be because of notes in places like this.  It will be because
    of public documents like Guide to VAX C (Order Number AA-L370D-TE,
    dated February 1989) on page 1-12 line 13, using ULTRIX as a noun
    rather than an adjective.  Or have I previously been misinformed
    about adjectives vs. nouns?
    
    Incidentally, the same manual says at the bottom of the title page:
       digital equipment corporation
       maynard, massachusetts
    Does this mean that everyone can call themselves digital equipment
    corporations now?
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    Re: .24
    
    	"I have previously been told that we have to use Digital trademarks
    	as adjectives rather than nouns.  
    
    	...
    
    	"If we lose our trademarks due to violating our own rules, it will
    	not be because of notes in places like this.  It will be because
    	of public documents like Guide to VAX C (Order Number AA-L370D-TE,
    	dated February 1989) on page 1-12 line 13, using ULTRIX as a noun
    	rather than an adjective.  Or have I previously been misinformed
    	about adjectives vs. nouns?"
    
    See note 763.11 for one person's (my) opinion that this "adjective"
    rule is completely silly, because tradenames are, like other names,
    proper nouns.
    
    Nonetheless, most manuals humor this rule by describing in their
    prefaces what they call "conventions" to the effect that:
    
    	In this manual, "Foobar" refers to the VAX Foobar software product
    
    etc. for all tradenames used in the manual.
    
Lew Lasher

.24>                                       I have not previously been told
.24>    that the trademarks have to be fully capitalized.  I was not aware
.24>    of any trademark cases that depended on other than the first letter
.24>    being capitalized.

If you want an informed opinion on this, ask a lawyer.  Since you bring it up
here, ...

I believe that trademarks need not be fully capitalized; however, they are
case-sensitive.  If All-In-Fun is a trademark, then one should not write it as
all-in-fun or ALL-IN-FUN or aLL-iN-fUN.


>    Incidentally, the same manual says at the bottom of the title page:
>       digital equipment corporation
>       maynard, massachusetts
>    Does this mean that everyone can call themselves digital equipment
>    corporations now?

I believe that "digital equipment corporation" is not a trademark, and you
probably could start your own company with that name.  Just don't expect the
stock to do well on Wall Street with a name like that!

    	I have worked with both terminals and line printers that were
    upper-case only. You didn't have much choice but to fully capitalise
    everything, trademarks included.

    >See note 763.11 for one person's (my) opinion that this "adjective"
    >rule is completely silly, because tradenames are, like other names,
    >proper nouns.
    
    Oh, I fully agree.  I believe I remarked in that note that even a
    lawyer would say he drives a BMW, and would not say that he drives
    a BMW car.  However, I do my best to obey orders that appear clear
    enough and not illegal or immoral.  Surely the writing of gems like
    "DECstation station" reveals my opinion along with obedience.
    
    I have not even seen an assertion that legal opinion requires
    capitalization to be matched exactly.  The word "should" (in .26
    I think) falls short of such an assertion, and that's why I haven't
    worried about it yet.
    
    Regarding 763.whatever, by the way, it would be simpler if the lawyers
    would simply send a message to everyone who tries to enjoy their work,
    telling them to cease and desist.  :-) :-(
    
    Oh, and I can just imagine if all our competitors started referring
    to their own equipment generically as vaxen.  "Our vax is based on an
    80586 and supports more applications than their SPARC vax."  Would that
    hurt our image?  Would that reduce sales of real VAX data processors?
    
    >Nonetheless, most manuals humor this rule by describing in their
    >prefaces what they call "conventions" to the effect that:
    >	In this manual, "Foobar" refers to the VAX Foobar software product
    >   etc. for all tradenames used in the manual.
    
    Can't even find that statement in the Guide to VAX C.  (Well, I don't
    have it on-line for a more reliable search.)
    -- Norman Diamond

    Trademarks are indeed case sensitive, both ours and other companies'.
    
    In order to be recognized, a trademark must be used in the form under
    which it is registered or made known, and there is a pretty good-sized
    DEC-STD document describing how Digital's and other companies'
    trademarks are to be used by Digital employees.  These guidelines are
    intended to apply to published documentation, but for reasons of legal
    protection they *should* be followed just as carefully in internal
    communication.  The company is very clear on this point.
    
    The one-word name for our company, for instance, is Digital, not
    DIGITAL or DEC.  The form DIGITAL is to be used to represent the
    Digital logo when the logo cannot be represented properly.  The term
    DEC is to be used in reference to products in whose name it appears,
    such as DECnet or DECstation.  In interoffice memos that are printed on
    devices incapable of rendering graphics, the logo is to be represented
    as follows, and in no other manner:
    
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ TM
    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    | d | i | g | i | t | a | l |
    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    
    As an interesting note to the "digital equipment corporation/maynard,
    massachusetts" thing, Legal has recently pointed out that downcasing
    the city and state names is inappropriate; the most recent documents
    published will have those names init-capped.  (I know; I changed the
    templates for OSP's front matter pages back in March.)
    
    The word UNIX is, as I stated, a *registered* trademark of UNIX System
    Laboratories.  We in the Open Software Publications group have received
    explicit instructions on the use of that trademark, said instructions
    having been provided by USL, and they state clearly that the word is to
    be used as an adjective and that it is to be in all uppercase letters. 
    Any other use, say these instructions, constitutes abuse of the
    trademark.  These instructions say further that (except in Japan) the
    trademark attribution statement in our books is to read, "UNIX is a
    registered trademark of UNIX System Laboratories in the USA and other
    countries."  I've forgotten the Japanese form.
    
    We have received similar injunctions regarding the use of the word
    ULTRIX from Digital's own legal group, and these instructions, in all
    essentials, parrot those from USL regarding their trademark.
    
    -d

    
    
    		"DECsystem system"
    			-- Digital Equipment Corporation
    
    
    		"Pizza, pizza"
    			-- Little Caesar's

	I believe that 'digital equipment' is not a valid trademark,
	because of a trademark restriction which prohibits 'descriptive'
	names.(Most computer manufacturers, and even IBM, are digital
	equipment corporations -- as opposed to analog equipment corporations,
	such as thermometer manufacturers.)

	According to this rule, a beer name such as 'Foamy' could not be
	a trademark,  since it could be argued that all beers (or at
	least MOST beers)  are foamy.  However, incorporating the brewer's
	name, i.e. 'Splatz Foamy'could result in a valid trademark.  

	The digital logo makes a valid trademark because it also 
	combines a presentation style which is unique. Digital 
	Equipment Corporation also identifies a very specific identity.
	
	If a company was making outrageous claims about digital computers,
	or Digital computers, or even digital equipment, our own Digital 
	Equipment Corporation might not have much of a say in the matter.
	
My layman's 2 cents worth,

Ian S.

    Downcasing is the process of converting from uppercase to lwercase,
    i.e., moving the case down.  :-)
    
    If "Foamy" cannot be a trademark for beer, how can it be a trademark
    for an aerosol shaving preparation?  It's owned by Gillette.
    
    -d

Oh, *now* I see.  That explains why people ask me if Digital's VAXes
suck as much as the ones at Sears.  :-)

-d

    Re .38: Isn't it OpenVMS for Alpha AXP V1.0? I think they could have
    come with a shorter name...
    			Denis.

    >Isn't it OpenVMS for Alpha AXP V1.0?  I think they could have
    >come with a shorter name...
    
    Nope -- exactly the opposite.  Digital employees are required to use
    trademarks as adjectives, not as nouns.  For example, we have to speak
    about ULTRIX operating system V4.3.  We can't speak of ULTRIX 4.3,
    because we'd lose the trademark and every competing vendor would be
    able to talk about all their ultrixes.
    
    So, I think this must be OpenVMS for Alpha AXP operating system V1.0,
    or OpenVMS for Alpha operating system AXP V1.0, or something like that.
    
    [I remain confused about why Digital company refers to itself as Digital,
    instead of Digital company.  Isn't Digital company worried about losing
    the trademark on its own name?]
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    I also remain confused as to exactly why, but I have talked to the DEC
    intellectual-property lawyers on this point, and they claim it helps.

    I remember years ago when digital watches were first made, it was about
    the time that DEC park opened, and a lot of people thought, yes you've
    guessed it, that Digital made the watches!
    
    Jon

       
       
       RE: .41
       
    >able to talk about all their ultrixes.
                                  ^^^^^^^^
       
       Wouldn't this be ultrici (ultrix plural)?
       :-)

    <<< Note 898.45 by PASTIS::MONAHAN "humanity is a trojan horse" >>>
     -< ultrices, by analogy with matrix. >-
    
    Yeah, I'd agree with this one, Ultrici doesn't feel right.
    
    Jon

     Only if they stand erect and are gently waving in the breeze.

    Re .45, .46
    
    No analogy with matrix is required.
    
    Although ULTRIX is a Digital trademark, there is indeed a Latin word
    VLTRIX (ultrix in minuscules), which is pluralized in the nominative
    case as VLTRICES/ultrices.  For all you VMS chauvinists out there, I
    cannot resist pointing out that the word means "revenge."  I wonder if
    the creator of our ULTRIX trademark was aware of this poetic irony.
    
    -dick

    G'day,
     Is there a latin word VMS/ums in miniscules? If so, what does _that_
    mean??
    
    
    
    derek

    Yes, ultrix is feminine.
    
    There isn't a word VMS/ums; a Latin scholar would point out that -s
    isn't a valid case ending in any declension or number.
    
    -dick

re .50

>                            ... a Latin scholar would point out that -s
>    isn't a valid case ending in any declension or number.

What about 'urbs'?   That's nominative singular, but I don't remember
the gender nor to which declension it belongs.  I think it means 'city'.
It sticks in my mind as one of the words with exceptional pronunciation.
It is pronounced as though it were spelled u-r-p-s.  The 'b' becomes
unvoiced in order to pronounce the 's' correctly.

Dave C.

    So, "suburbia" should really be "suburbsia"?
    
    And what about all these urbsan legends floating around?

    Nothing to add to all of this wonderfulness, but as long as my P_N is
    currently pseudo-Latin (-: it seems appropriate for my recent notes in
    SoapBox :-) I thought I should flaunt it.
    
    Your loss...
    
    :-)
    
    Dan
    
    (-: Hi Walter, wish I had the time to ADIVNCT in SPQR... )-:
    

    Gee, Dan, it would be so easy to make your pseudo-Latin P_N into real
    Latin:
    
    Notator sanus in Colloquia Notarum insana
    
    You got time for J-O-L and not SPQR?  That's discrimination on the
    basis of ethnic background, you oughta be fined or summat.
    
    -dick

    OK, I'll risk it:

    	"A sane noter in an insane colloquium of noters"	???

    I think "insane" is modifying colloquium and not noters. Right?

    ... I have essayed the recommended "real Latin" from Dick's .55. 
    Unfortunately, for those of us with the good taste to use VAXnotes with
    its terminal interface, this does not fit.
    
    And ANYWAY, it isn't nearly as funny (in the eyes of THIS beholder) as
    the preceding lame translinguistic punnoid on 
    
                         "Mens sana in corpora sano."
    
    QVESTION to Latin scholars -- whence cometh the above QVOTE?
    
    And btw I feel further emboldened to burden you with a later version of
    the P_N I was using in SoapBox yesterday:
    
                     "Noter sana in NotesFile unsanitary"
    
    Kinda a running sore(woops I mean running JOKE).
    
    And anent Latin pollution -- 
    
    Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
    

    Nil illigitimum carburundum!
    
    
    8-~!
    
    djw

    Thank You SO much for your explanation in .59, M. Walter, and
    especially for the French chuckle at the end.  (-: I had not realized
    that both your linguistic knowledge, and your generosity of spirit,
    were so COMMODEious. :-)
    
    Hee Hee,
    
    Dan

    Dan,
    
    R U still or already in the office ...???
    
    	VV SCVRRANTIQVA ("the old joker")
    

    Re .59
    
    Actually, "Orandum est, ut sit mens sana in corpore sano" was penned
    by Juvenal in his _Satires_.
    
    Re .63
    
    PJ's mode, Walter, is when one is IN VESTE DORMIRE.
    
    -dick

    Re .56
    
    Your translation is essentially correct.  Actually "colloquia notarum
    insana" means "an insane Notesfile (conference of notes)."  Digital
    PP&P says we can't call each other insane noters, but it doesn't
    prohibit calling the notesfile itself insane, which it in fact often
    appears to be...
    
    -dick

    Wow -- another expansion of my Latinglosaxon horizon!  
    And, what does the digrammatic !-) acronym stand for -- 
    Prisoner of Joyoflex?  Professional Joker?  Paralyzed Jester?
    
    	W :-)
    

    I always read it as 'mens sana in corporate sauna' :-) :-), loosely
    translated as 'a bright employee joins his boss in the bath' which the
    Japanese have adopted quite widely. 


                                                 - Rik -

    Walter,
    
    is there a language you DON'T know??? :-)


                                                 - Stoneshop -
    

    I don't *think* Walter knows Cherokee, but I could be mistaken.
    
    -dick

    Ricarde, ane mi callide, :-}
    
    "quite rite" -- only one sentence in Nootka:
    	
    	tl-imsh-ya-itl-i-ma: "he invites people to a dinner"
    
    For details see Benjamin Lee Whorf, "Language, Thought, Reality", an
    enthralling book on the context of semantics and epistemology (wow!).
    
    C U l8r, l-e-g8r,
    	VV. :-]
    

    Re:.68, WARUTAH,
    
    I was wondering about the use of SAYONARA until I read your farewell
    notices :-(. Sorry to see you go.
    


                                                  - Rik / Stoneshop -