Paul,

Yes, of course we should have change. We do seem, however, to be tossing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater though...

Not all change is intrinsically good -or- bad simply because it is change. However, these days we seems to presume that to be good one must change. I disagree for the aforementioned reasons plus your excellent response.

Thank you.

As for Ed Rauh's contributions I can only answer to your comments with a hearty amen! <s>


>>Actually, I dislike the general degrading of the english language I've seen over the last 40-50 years. >
>
>>I'm not sure what one can do about this lack of intellectual discipline as society has all but abandoned any kind of desire for 'exactness' in using the language.
>>
>
> I'm of the opinion that if language doesn't evolve, change, etc. to suit the times, it's going to die. Want a language that's more "exact" and not changing? Try Latin. Having said that, it DOES bother me that simple things like sentence structure seems to be going the way of the dinosaur. I don't care so much that the meaning of words is changing, but I think communication gets vastly more difficult when people can't even put two words together in a coherent thought. It may be that since programming demands attention to syntax, it draws in people who think sentences should make syntactical sense (now that's an interested sentence) ;-) I've gotten so many e-mails from people that are practically incomprehensible that I'm amazed they can brush their teeth w/o poking their eyes out. There is definitely something to be said for clarity of thought and the ability to be able to convey that thought in writing.
>
>One person here that does a great job of conveying his thoughts is Ed Rauh. He does an amazing job with his usage of the language <g>