4 ms·

He didn't say 'whore', though, that's the point. This person inferred 'whore' from 'promiscuous'.

• nkurz 10y ago
  He didn't say 'whore', though, that's the point Sorry to be snippy, but no, that's not the point. That's your point, and one possible counter argument. The worry is that while true, it's weak and specific, and leaves the way open to further attacks. By concentrating on the counterfactual I'm trying to address a broader issue. This person inferred 'whore' from 'promiscuous'. Who is "this person"? I don't think anyone inferred this -- it's a counterfactual. In particular, Perch did not use the term 'whore': https://medium.com/@nodebotanist/why-i-won-t-be-speaking-at-conferences-with-douglas-crockford-anymore-61bc29f028c https://medium.com/@nodebotanist/why-i-won-t-be-speaking-at-... I think it's also worth noting that the word 'promiscuous' already has a history in computers. Both I and 'danso' know the meaning of 'promiscuous' with regard to packet snooping. We didn't mention it here because it's amply discussed elsewhere, and because it's not relevant to the discussion we are having. The real question, as with "daemon processes" and "master and slave relationships" is whether this usage is appropriate today, not whether the usage has precedent.