W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

Re: otiose vs odious

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:38:33 -0400
To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Message-Id: <91A9E2FE-FB48-11D7-9477-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>

On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 01:31  PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> Just to be clear, since I'm afraid some people didn't catch the
> correction, Bijan was calling Tim's spec-stack argument [1] "otiose"
> (pointless, superfluous, wasted) [2] not "odious" (abominable,
> detestable, execrable) [3].

And I use it with the rather more neutral connotation of "superfluous". 
Which I believe is how it's most commonly used and the implicatures are 
quite polite.

No "personal" attack was made; indeed, it's unfortunate that my 
deliberately neutral word choice didn't survive the phone line noise.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 13:38:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT