Wow, what a terrible article. The disingenuity is astounding. >Pornography is fake. True, but that's not why the analogy is used. Pornography is a visual medi

Wow, what a terrible article. The disingenuity is astounding. >Pornography is fake. True, but that's not why the analogy is used. Pornography is a visual media that conveys some of the pleasure of an act without the viewer actually going through the effort of doing it. >Pornography's aim is to sexually excite the viewer. Are geeks sexually excited by the eBay data?… >pleasure comes from many things that are non-sexual such as eating… >So let's swap 'geek porn' for a 'geek feast'. But why isn't "feast" defined symmetrically? A feast's aim is to gastronomically excite the user. Are geeks gastronomically excited by the eBay data? The whole rant is semantic nonsense, defining words in a way that begs the question. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good rant. I just like my rants to make sense. The real reason not to use the Porn Analogy is stuffed in the last paragraph: "Many people are uncomfortable with pornography and don't want pornography analogies in professional work."