RS> There is no valid difference of opinion. V.Fast is the informal name
RS> for the new ITU-T standard which will become V.34 when its formally
RS> ratified.

JL> V.Fast is the "working name" for the proposed V.34 standard.

RS> Which is saying precisely what I said in different words.

JL> Sure Rod, anything you say Rod. Playing with semantics as usual.

RS> You jump into a thread to 'correct' something, have it pointed out that
RS> your wording means the same thing as mine, and thats me playing semantics.

JL> No Rod. YOUR wording is incorrect.

We'll see. Looks like a semantic wank to me.

JL> An "Informal name" is a name not prescribing to any official or
JL> customary forms.

Well, if you cant make the connection between informal, formal and official...

JL> A "Working name" is a developmental name (ie. a
work-in-progress name).

Well, if you cant see that before official ratification, the standard is
being worked on and hence can have a working name...

I still cant see there is a blind bit of difference between your choice
of words and mine in the two paras at the top in any practical sense. If
you want to insist that only one word is the 'right' one, feel free, but
you presumably wont be too surprised if I say I think its a semantic wank.

JL> Since the name "V.Fast" refers to an official recommended
standard in
JL> development, it thereby adopts a prescribed form - that being an
JL> "unfinished" or "unratified" collection of
guidelines describing the
JL> technical functionality for electronic data transmissions up to
JL> 28.8kbps.

Which is the same thing as I said at the top,

  RS> V.Fast is the informal name for the new ITU-T standard which will
  RS> become V.34 when its formally ratified.

JL> In that sense, "V.Fast" can only be defined as a
"Working Name" and
JL> not an "Informal name" since an "Informal name"
adopts no associated
JL> form.

Suit yourself. I doubt you would find too many would agree that its quite
as simple as that tho.

RS> and thats me playing semantics. You sure you know what the word
RS> semantics actually means ? |-)

JL> You obviously don't  :-) .

We'll see, looks more like you missing the point utterly this time around.

JL> Lets see now:

JL> Semantics:   The science or study of meanings, especially applied to
JL> language.

Thats fine.

JL> Since you claimed that the phrase "Informal name" is the same as
JL> "Working name",

Nope, you jumped in and insisted that it was only correct to use the
style 'working name', and IMO indulging in a semantic wank when
purporting to 'correct' me.

JL> and having proven to you above that the two are mutually exclusive
JL> with different meanings,

You have actually done no such thing, just asserted it. That aint proof.

JL> my "correction" is in effect a clarifaction of your misunderstanding
JL> of the true meaning of the phrase "Informal Name".

Nope, its just a semantic wank of the first order.

JL> Consequently, this line of study falls directly within the field of
JL> "semantics".

Sure, no argument there. The point I was making was that it was YOU who
jumped in with a 'correction' and hence its you who initiated the
semantic wanking on the particular use of words. So its a bit rich when
I point out that we are both saying the same thing to be accused of
semantic wanking.

JL> An area in which you are known to use "silly debating
techniques" when
JL> attempting to backpedal on an incorrect statement or definition made
JL> by yourself.

And you arent actually debating yourself at all. Not even a hint of it ?

JL> Go figure, Rod.

I have figured already, you have got every single bit wrong. Pathetic
really |-)

Then there is the small matter that the thread was about other stuff too,
like how long V.FC is likely to be around for. You studiously ignore all
that stuff when its pointed out that the industry does tend to continue
to support standards for a very long time, in spite of your claim that
V.FC is doomed to a very short life. Just delete all that stuff and
persist with the semantic wanking, and accuse me of semantic wanking.
Yeah, right, whatever you say John |-)

--- PQWK202