Conference thebay::joyoflex

   How 'bout "ADD ACCESS_POINT" and "REMOVE ACCESS_POINT"?

   "REGISTER" doesn't sound right to me, given my (lack of) context.
   But if you have to use that verb, I'd think "UNREGISTER" would be
   acceptable.
   
   Unless you wanted to use "CHECK_OUT", which is what you do at a hotel
   when you're leaving, after you've REGISTERed.  :-) :-)
   
   -- Sam

    How 'bout DODGE?  You know, it's what they did when they didn't want to
    REGISTER for the draft.

    If REGISTER is used in the sense of "signing up," how about RESIGN
    as its opposite.
    
    Bernie

    I agree with .1 - what is wrong with ADD and REMOVE?  If you want
    to make the syntax clearer, or you have other ADDs and REMOVEs,
    how about ADD/REGISTER and REMOVE/REGISTER.
    
    As far as I can understand what you are doing is adding and removing
    a directory specification to a list, or register, of available
    directories.
    
    The syntax then becomes:	ADD /REGISTER  dir_spec  server_name
    or similar.
    
    Jeff.

    Have you also asked this in SQM::DCL?

    
    Re: ADD & REMOVE
    	We have decided to use add and remove until or unless we come
    up with something better.  The problem is that none of us really
    like it or think that it connotes what is going on.  I mean, when
    you enter this command, you aren't really adding the "access point",
    just making it available to be used.  It already exists.  Likewise
    the opposite should connote making the access point unavailable,
    not destroying it, as REMOVE might make you think.
    
    Re: DCL conference
    	I believe that we have posted our syntax (with ADD and REMOVE)
    in the DCL conference, and are waiting for comments.
    

    Well, if you want to be creative:
    
    REGISTER as a word could mean "doing GISTER over again"; using that,
    then the opposite of REGISTER would be DEGISTER; however since there's
    only a one-letter difference between the two words, we might stretch
    things a little by using UNGISTER or EXGISTER.
    
    How's that?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

re: .7	Oh, in that case, how about:
   
  	    "ENABLE ACCESS_POINT" and "DISABLE ACCESS_POINT"

   -- Sam

    
    How about:
    
    REGISTER and NO_REGISTER
    
    Sheri
    

    I used this during college...a lot!
    
    REGISTER and DROP

    Re .0:
    
    You might get a thesaurus and see if there is anything you like.  In
    the "erase" area, I kind of like "rescind". 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Would WITHDRAW make sense?

    How about INFORM (sever about) ACCESS POINT and
    WITHDRAW (information about) ACCESS POINT  ?
    
    
    RMM
    

    Re .0:
    
    FORGET ACCESS POINT.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Thanks for all of the suggestions...keep them coming.
    
    On WITHDRAW, I like that too, but there is a problem when you
    abbreviate it.  "WITH ACC POINT" gives the wrong connotation.
    
    I like RESCIND too, however people complain when a verb an it's
    opposite have only one letter different in their first four.
    
    	Peter
    

    Re .16:
    
    If you like "withdraw", then how about TAKEOUT (as in fast food)?
    The abbreviation could be TAKO ....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  When you _do_ decide on a verb, please let us know...
    

    
    Some dichotomies that come to mind:
    
    CLOSe   ...   DISClose
    CONCeal ...   REVEal
    COVEr   ...   UNCOver
    MASK    ...   UNVEil
    HIDE    ...   EXPOSE
    
    
    

    ASSOCIATE ACCESS POINT
    
    DISASSOCIATE ACCESS POINT
    
    (PLEASE, no bad jokes on the abbreviations!)
    
    

    
    I am sorry to report that the winner in the verb search is
    	ADD/REMOVE.
    
    Oh well, maybe they will be better when they are internationalized!
    
    		Peter
    

    Re .20:
    
    > I am sorry to report that the winner in the verb search is
    >  	ADD/REMOVE.
    
    That is a smart/stupid idea.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
     Re .20, .21.
     Yeah, I always thought that it was
     SPOT/REMOVE    :-)
     jc

    
    Rather than start a new note, I have appended this request here.
    I too, need a verb.
    
    Situation: We have a person dedicated to overseeing that Human
               Interfaces are readable, presented in a logical order,
               have key actions that are consistent and so on.
               To date, this process has been called "Human Factored"

 {  Opinion :  I find the Nissan "Human Factored" ads equally
               obnoxious. As if to say that they are the only cars
               built for humans.... Does that mean other cars are
               built for cattle?. :-) }

               Back to the topic at hand. 
               Thus, in our (common) vernacular, we say that a piece
               of software has been 'human_factored'. { Bluuuuggggghhh!!!}
               So, what is needed here is a verb that will express those
               same ideas.
    
               All ideas welcome. { Some more than others. :-)}    

               With thanks,
               jc   
                    
        
    

    How about 'This piece of software has a certified user interface'.
    
    Or 'This software has been user-friendlied' }};^}
    
    Does it have to be a verb? Can't you say it some other way?
    
    
    Ian.

    How about, "This software has been designed to be ...
    
    
      ...Idiot-proof"
    
    

    just for fun:
    
    "ergonomized"
    
    "homonized"
    
    "homoptimized"
    
    "fixed"
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re: .26

	My experience is that the best you can hope for is "idiot 
resistant."
					>>>==>PStJTT

Oooops! Wrong note. :-}

    	I rather approved of "user-friendlied", but it has the disadvantage
    of verbising something that isn't.
    
    	I would suggest "user-fondled". This gives the impression that not
    only has the software been tried out, but that both the software and
    the user enjoyed the experience.

    Human Factors Engineering has been applied to this product.
    
    If it must be a verb, how 'bout "corrected"? :^)
    
    Spd

    (going with the digression)
    
    Yes, why *is* "fixed" a euphemism for "neutered"? Wouldn't "broken"
    be better?
    
    	Jon

    
    Well, thanks for the suggestions. 
                   v-- (orite) for American purists (ourite) for English.
    My personal fav is "ergonomically engineered". Perhaps I'll
    re-introduce this phrase into the vernacular. ( Which is
    already very heavily Deccie_phrase laden. <~sigh> )
  
    However, special note for "homo optimized". I think that its 
    root structure ( Hominum Optimum ) is correct but suffers 
    from what it connotes.

    Special note too for the "for fun :-) " suggestions. They remind
    me that in some cases it is easier to 'fix' the user rather than 
    the software! :-)  
    jc
        
         
      

    I couldn't help but think of the Gary Larson cartoon where a dog
    is hanging out of a window in a car being driven away by his owners, 
    and is yelling to his friend on the street: "Hey guess what Rusty! 
    They're taking me to the vet today to be tutored!"

    in re .35 in re .33  I had always assumed that 'fixed' was meant
    in terms of fixing the problem...i.e. unwanted kittens or puppies.
    
    Bonnie

    Re .36 (Bonnie):
    
    Actually, I believe "fixed" was a locution from the Victorian era
    (or its remnants) when things reproductive-related had to be spoken
    of indirectly.  Thus, "castrated" becomes "altered" or "fixed."
    "Spayed" [frequently mispronounced "spaded"; the phrase "I had my
    pet spaded" invariably makes me think of someone smiting a poor
    animal with a shovel] seems to have slightly greater acceptance,
    but it, too, often is just referred to as "fixed."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    Re .25
    
    titled:      -< ergonomically egineered >-
                                  --
    
    This phrase was obviously suggested by an eghead.