RE: FAQs

Ted Molczan (molczan@fox.nstn.ca)
Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:37:30 -0500

Jean Monseur wrote to Sue Worden
about an apparent misunderstanding
over whether or not he had volunteered
to contribute a glossary to the faq
being developed. It is not clear to me
why SeeSat-L had to be copied, but
now that it has been, twice, here are
my thoughts:

>It is well possible that I made a mistake in writing my
>message, but, as far as I can remember, I wrote : 
>" I feel totally unable" not "enable".
>I am conscious that my English should be much improved
>and  confused to be NOT capable of compiling such a 
>glossary.

Please do not be apologetic about your
English. I respect anyone who learns
more than language. Your English certainly
is much better than my French.

>The only thing I could do for the community is noting the 
>terms that appear obscure to me in all the messages. 

A worthwhile contribution, no doubt, but
have you considered the potential benefits
to yourself if you produced the glossary?
First, think of all that you could learn
as a result of the research that you would
have to do. Second, consider the opportunity
to add to your command of the English
language.

>That job requires a lot of humility that could be hard to wear. 

All the more reason to do it. Humility is
a very worthwhile personal trait. Some of 
the most brilliant people and greatest
achievers I know are also the most humble.

>As an example: until recently I ignored what
>could mean " tle " , a term that is used in different meanings,
>as substantive, adjective, extension of files, while those things
>are not actually standard two lines texts but three lines 
>of variable contents.

Maybe we should allow for a new meaning:

tle = three line elements

>Great scientists dare speak their own language. Nils Bohr, 
>as everybody knows, spoke bohran, his own jargon that he was
>the only one to understand.
>As for satellite hobbyists, I wonder whether they are all
>great scientists or only a few of them. 
>I am still in two minds.

Well, judged solely by our tendency to use 
obscure jargon, many of us would be in line 
for a Nobel prize.

Sincerely,
Ted Molczan