- From: <hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 12:26:59 -0400
- To: Erik Aronesty <earonesty@montgomery.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu
Referer is only spelt "wrong" if one insists on petit borgeois notions of spelling-correctness. This movement must be seen as a reactionary and authoritarian attempt to impose an artificial and unnecessary conformity on language and is therefore a movement of political and social control and to be resisted as such. When I proposed the "referer" field to Tim I used the alternative spelling as a means of signalling the iminent need to deconstruct the concept of spelling, in particular the notion that machines should follow human models of communications in issues which are entirely conventional. From the point of view of the machine the signifier "referer" is superior to that of "referrer" by virtue of being a byte shorter while referencing the same designatum. I interpret fact that this differentiation between signifier and signified was brought to light by the "referer" field as an unconcious but nevertheless valid recapitulation of Goedel's incompleteness theorem. I suggest that future comment in this thread be transferred to alt.postmodern. Phill
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 1996 09:30:10 UTC