From: /m 

>I understand that the aim of the language is to obscure.

Think: lawyers.  And EULAs.

 /m


On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:59:51 +0100, Adam
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>>    Obscure to whom?  Even you understood it?
>>
>
>
>I understand that the aim of the language is to obscure.
>
>Make up a word (or even a series of words), say it with authority &
>people will nod sagely & pretend to understand. It's a very old trick.
>It used to be referred to as pompo-verbosity
>
>Adam
>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>     "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
>>     
field.near the bridge">
>>     wrote in message news:44a641eb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>     Rich wrote:
>>     >    I commented only on the incorrect and silly assertion that a
>>     > discussion of productizing technology is double speak.
>>     >
>>
>>     It is language designed to obscure.
>>
>>     It's to give people the feeling as they walk away that something is
>>     happening to WinFS & that they understand what that thing
is where the
>>     truth is no where near that.
>>
>>     Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5