Re: [tech-3d] Terms and Definitions

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ray Zone gives credit where it's truly due.

I'd add that the courtly ISU is, if anything, far too modest in asserting
its authority.  By "authority" I don't mean the arbitrary dictates of some
power-mad cabal ruthlessly squelching discussion and dissent.  I mean
authentic, persuasive authority that grows from a history of intelligent
technical study and generous promotion of stereography in all its forms. 
The ISU has as good a claim to such authority as any group - better than
any I can think of - and Abram is an excellent example of the kind of
person who has brought ISU to that stature.  There are many others in the
roster with him, and the accumulation of their views is no monolith of
rigid conformity, rest assured.

I enjoy Officer Klooswyk - always have.  In our P3D and T3D forums, Abram
has lucidly reviewed fundamental topics in stereo theory and practice,
pointed out some persistent areas of confused usage and/or differing
opinion, and recounted the journey by which ISU came to its current
version of the glossary, while acknowledging the perils of prescriptive
definition.  Curious parties may want to search those postings and learn
from context.  I've also been the beneficiary of direct tutelage from
Abram on-list, without a penny of tuition asked or paid.  On many
occasions he has good-naturedly played patient, droll Tortoise to my
impetuous, flummoxed Achilles, and has the annoying habit of being right
far more often than not.  He posesses a keen sense of humor, which is
always in evidence.  Consequently, I am predisposed to defer to the gentle
remonstrations of this reluctant "policeman" - but that's just my
experience, you see.  I'd rather chuckle than chafe.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that I, for one, support the
general adoption and continued improvement of the ISU glossary, and would
gladly proselytize for its use here in T3D, of all places.  That is, if it
is readily available on line.   It's a good glossary and has no decent
competition.  The extension of that achievement by Rupkalvis and the
California contingent should be very interesting.  Will there be any
on-line discussion somewhere that interested lurkers can quietly follow,
by invitation, before this sticky cake comes out of the oven? 

On a semi-conciliatory note, none of us has any coercive power on
Yahoo!groups or elsewhere, to my knowledge.  Usage is ultimately
voluntary, and must be rooted in self-interest.  Those who feel oppressed
by the very idea of standardized nomenclature in technical discussions
remain free to use any terminology they like, ignore complaints, and see
how far it gets them.  They may also print their own currency, convert
their AC house current to DC (or vice versa), keep their financial records
in base-12 notation, and trace their own constellations in the heavens. 
Who's to say them nay?  It's all arbitrary, right?  Let freedom ring!

Your most obedient servant, I remain etc.,
Bruce Springsteen






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/520353/_/981768455/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->