Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Flammable posting
Message-ID: <101@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 12:21:05 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.101
Posted: Wed Feb 27 12:21:05 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 03:25:10 EST
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 27


I could see this one comming.

>  According to Strunk and White:
>
>     Flammable.  An oddity, chiefly useful in saving lives.
>     The common word meaning "combustible" is inflammable.
>     But some people are thrown off by the "in-" and think 
>     "inflammable" means "not combustible."  For this reason,
>     trucks carrying gasoline or explosives are now marked
>     FLAMMABLE.  Unless you are operating such a truck and 
>     hence are concerned with the safety of children and
>     illiterates, use "inflammable."

NEVER use "inflammable"!  The word is much too dangerous to exist.
Strunk and White have an unfortunate idea about the purpose of
language.  Do they mean we should only use the word "flammable" when we
want to communicate?  I can only conclude that they are NOT concerned
with the safety of children and illiterates.  The language is confusing
and should be changed.  What advice does Strunk and White have for the
families of those killed by the word "inflammable"?

	Yes, they died in great pain, but the language remained pure.

				Ralph Hartley
				siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
				rlh@cvl