Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!uvsq.fr!freenix!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.radix.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!not-for-mail
From: buzzard@TheWorld.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: Scary jargon (was: Default parser responses: how do they affect the gaming / authorship experience?)
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <Gpn0sn.5xC@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:55:34 GMT
References: <792c6202.0201030304.527f194d@posting.google.com> <a1d760$p08$1@news.lth.se> <GpLGIt.JnI@world.std.com> <a1ebji$3po$1@news.lth.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
Lines: 20
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:97069 rec.games.int-fiction:68023

In article <a1ebji$3po$1@news.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson <mol@df.lth.se> wrote:
>Sean T Barrett <buzzard@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>It seems to me these "violent" metaphors get used because
>>there is a central metaphor of a process as a "living
>>creature". *That* seems like a pretty obvious, coherent,
>>and not-complaint-worthy metaphor.
>
>I agree, except that the "living" metaphor actually is objectionable:
>it mystifies and personifies the computer. The reasoning is that naive
>users shouldn't be led to believe that there's anything strange going
>on inside the computer, or that it's alive or even sentient.

Computers aren't people and aren't sentient, but nothing
in this set of terminology implies they are. (There is
stuff with the computer talking back personably that is
objectionable on these grounds)

We don't murder ants, we kill ants. Similarly processes.

SeanB
