And a reminder from an earlier post:

"But hey real science opposes arguements based on authority so why don't we actually discuss the technical issue instead of talking about meds, cultural bias, or just shouting shut up already? It's clear that at least a significant plurality (at least about 1 in 3 that has weighed in on the issue) due get the technical issues, although it's sad that so far it doesn't appear that an informed majority exists."

That means whether you're a butcher, an astronomer, some other scientist, a software engineer, another engineer, or even a student you should have a place in the debate as long as you actually try to discuss the technical issues rather than your Grondine style tactics of late. If you don't want to discuss the issue don't. If you do, please try to do it on a technical level. If you don't think my insistence on accurate definitions is truly a technical debate, you're welcome to your opinion but I will ignore you.

One aside note: A further review seems to indicate the board is about evenly split as to whether or not the new definition sucks. I miscounted Phil based on inititial comments and missed a few infrequent participants.

Regards,
Mark