From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0411_01C69B96.FE286E20
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Your definition is for comercialize.  It is not for productize.

Rich

  "Gary Britt"  wrote in message =
news:44a3d578{at}w3.nls.net...
  Yes and No.  No they are not the same thing in the sense that one =
(commercialize) is acceptable and proper usage while productize is NOT.  =
Yes they are the same thing in the sense that both refer to taking =
something, including an idea or concept, and turning it into something =
that can be exploited in commerce.

  Gary
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:44a3892e{at}w3.nls.net...
       Commercializing and productizing are not the same.  The English =
language has lots of words with similar or overlapping but distinct = meanings.

    Rich

      "Gary Britt"  wrote in message =
news:44a308b4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      Commercializing would be the correct term and the term that has =
been in wide use for decades.  For example, phrases such as the "right
= to commercialize derivative works" of a copyrighted product have
existed = for many decades.  Productizing is non-standard usage that would
seem to = me was created by people who are less verbal than they needed to
be.  = Whether the term was created at or is used at places other than =
Microsoft is of no concern.  Anyone who uses the term anywhere is using =
non-standard english that a more verbal and more educated person would =
certainly avoid. =20

      Just because literate people might understand what a speaker means =
when they say "our product is 'more gooder' than the competition"
= doesn't make it proper usage.  Therefore, I find your argument that the =
meaning and intent of a speaker who uses "productizing" is
discernable = to the listener is not a credible defense of its usage.

      Gary
        "Rich"  wrote in message news:44a2e7a9{at}w3.nls.net...
           I have no spin.  I can say that productizing as a verb is not =
double speak.  It gets used all the time to describe taking a = technology,
prototype, internal tool, etc and making it or incorporating = it into a
product.  To someone who speaks English you would think the = meaning would
be clear.  I very much doubt it is a Microsoft term.  I'm = sure it is
widely used.

        Rich

          "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the =
bridge"> wrote in message news:44a043f0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
          Mike N. wrote:
          > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:41:53 -0400, "Rich Gauszka" =

          > wrote:
          >=20
          >> "With most of our effort now working towards productizing =
mature aspects of the=20
          >> WinFS project into SQL and ADO.NET, we do not need to =
deliver a separate=20
          >> WinFS offering."
          >=20
          >   "productizing" - adv (English): Special word to
introduce =
doublespeak and
          > make it sound like you are saying something significant when =
you wish avoid
          > the real subject because you are not comfortable talking =
about it.

          I will be curious to see Rich S's spin on this.

          Adam
------=_NextPart_000_0411_01C69B96.FE286E20
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Your
definition is for=20
comercialize.  It is not for productize.
 
Rich
 

  "Gary Britt" <glb{at}gencog.com>=20">mailto:glb{at}gencog.com">glb{at}gencog.com>=20
  wrote in message news:44a3d578{at}w3.nls.net...
  Yes and No.  No they are not
the same =
thing in the=20
  sense that one (commercialize) is acceptable and proper usage while =
productize=20
  is NOT.  Yes they are the same thing in the sense that both refer =
to=20
  taking something, including an idea or concept, and turning it into =
something=20
  that can be exploited in commerce.
   
  Gary
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:44a3892e{at}w3.nls.net...
      
Commercializing and =
productizing=20
    are not the same.  The English language has lots of words with =
similar=20
    or overlapping but distinct meanings.
     
    Rich
     
    

      "Gary Britt" <glb{at}gencog.com>">mailto:glb{at}gencog.com">glb{at}gencog.com>
wrote in =
message news:44a308b4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      Commercializing would be the correct term =
and the=20
      term that has been in wide use for decades.  For example, =
phrases=20
      such as the "right to commercialize derivative works" of a =
copyrighted=20
      product have existed for many decades.  Productizing is=20
      non-standard usage that would seem to me was created by people who =
are=20
      less verbal than they needed to be.  Whether the term was =
created at=20
      or is used at places other than Microsoft is of no concern.  =
Anyone=20
      who uses the term anywhere is using non-standard english that a =
more=20
      verbal and more educated person would certainly avoid.  =

       
      Just because literate people might =
understand what a=20
      speaker means when they say "our product is 'more gooder' than the =

      competition" doesn't make it proper usage.  Therefore, I find =
your=20
      argument that the meaning and intent of a speaker who=20
      uses "productizing" is discernable to the =
listener is not a=20
      credible defense of its usage.
       
      Gary
      

        "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:44a2e7a9{at}w3.nls.net...
           I have no =
spin.  I can=20
        say that productizing as a verb is not double speak.  It =
gets used=20
        all the time to describe taking a technology, prototype, =
internal tool,=20
        etc and making it or incorporating it into a product.  To =
someone=20
        who speaks English you would think the meaning would be =
clear.  I=20
        very much doubt it is a Microsoft term.  I'm sure it is =
widely=20
        used.
         
        Rich
         
        
          "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemole=">mailto:"4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the'>"4thwormcastfromthemole=
hill\"{at}the=20
          field.near the bridge"> wrote in message news:44a043f0$1{at}w3.nls.net...Mike=20
          N. wrote:> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:41:53 -0400,
"Rich =
Gauszka"=20
          <gauszka{at}hotmail.com>>=20">mailto:gauszka{at}hotmail.com">gauszka{at}hotmail.com>>=20
          wrote:> >> "With
most of our effort now =
working=20
          towards productizing mature aspects of the
>> WinFS =
project=20
          into SQL and ADO.NET, we do not need to deliver a separate=20
          >> WinFS
offering."> >  =20
          "productizing" - adv (English): Special word to introduce =
doublespeak=20
          and> make it sound like you are saying something =
significant=20
          when you wish avoid> the real subject because you are =
not=20
          comfortable talking about it.I will be curious to see =
Rich S's=20
          spin on=20
this.Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0411_01C69B96.FE286E20--

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