[sldev] Subject line relevance - was Upcoming viewer releases?

Gary Wardell gwardell at gwsystems.co.il
Tue Aug 28 20:12:52 PDT 2007


My, referring back to the recent open source meeting of last week, now here is a case where the subject of the post has very
little relation to the content.

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sldev-bounces at lists.secondlife.com
> [mailto:sldev-bounces at lists.secondlife.com]On Behalf Of Dale Glass
> Sent: Tue, August 28, 2007 10:33 PM
> To: Nicholaz Beresford
> Cc: Second Life Developer Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [sldev] Upcoming viewer releases?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:55:25AM +0200, Nicholaz Beresford wrote:
> >
> > Second Life from the inside out:
> > http://nicholaz-beresford.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> > Soft Linden wrote:
> > >Linden Lab isn't a monolithic "they."
> >
> > Well, I'd say that's an example of reality bubble.  From the inside
> > it may seem like this, from the outside it doesn't.  I hardly hear
> > anyone refer to a specific Linden, it's mostly "the Lindens" were
> > doing this or that.
>
> While I won't disagree that LL isn't nearly as transparent as it could
> be, "the Lindens" at least in my case is something that includes a lot
> of different things actually.
>
> For example, from my own memory of using that term, I've used it to
> mean:
>
> Plural, referring to Soft and Tofu when saying something like "the
> Lindens say there's a Linux voice binary in testing".
>
> Unknown, such as when I remember somebody announced something, but
> didn't pay attention/don't remember who said it.
>
> Intentionally obscuring the source: When I'm transmitting some
> information and am not 100% sure of that my information is correct
> (something like "I think the Lindens mentioned...") and want to avoid
> the possibility of misquoting something.
>
> LL as a whole, used interchangeably with "LL", for official
> information from blog/notices where I consider the exact Linden either
> not important, or didn't even bother looking at which one it was.
>
>
> Point being, IMO usage of the term doesn't necessarily mean  LL is
> impenetrable. Information sometimes gets lost or is intentionally not
> included.
>




More information about the SLDev mailing list