<html><body name="Mail Message Editor"><br>On Jun 30, 2008, at 4:03:34 PM, "Michael Ossipoff" <mikeo2106@msn.com> wrote:<br><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: blue; color: blue; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: -webkit-monospace; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">> Cylindric projections are a specialization of pseudocylindric. Whether it is incorrect to call a cylindric projection "pseudocylindric" is something best left to > those of uselessly pedantic temperment.<br><br>Oh come on now, you're saying that no one should ever say anything about the merits of a term.</span></blockquote>
I fail to see how my comment could be interpreted anywhere nearly so generally.<br><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: blue; color: blue; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: -webkit-monospace; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "></span></blockquote><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: blue; color: blue; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: -webkit-monospace; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">No one can deny that saying that a cylindrical projection is "pseudocylindrical" has something of a self-contradictory sound. How about generalized-cylindrical, or cylindricalish, or something like that? Maybe some would say that "generalized-cylindrical" is too long, and that "cylindricalish" is too colloquial-sounding. But the -ish, -isch, -isk, -ic suffix has a lot of historical validity. Maybe it acquired its colloquial popularity because of its brevity, but that shouldn't deny us the use of that brevity.</span></blockquote><div>This does not see
m to be going anywhere. Good luck.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-- daan Strebe</div><div class="aol_ad_footer" id="u75A960F9316E4119B86E928E5CA2D582"><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px"><A title="http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=aolcmp00050000000011" href="http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=aolcmp00050000000011" target="_blank">Get the Moviefone Toolbar</A>. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!</FONT></div></body></html>