Andy,

I think you are over-reacting. I believe I have made it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, that my comment was not directed at you. I implore you to re-read what you have quoted from me, as follows:

"It [the term obsolete] is tainted beyond salvage."

I would suggest that you take a look at the various auction sites. They are fraught with examples of current, in-use chips that are offered as "obsolete". But you don’t need to go check, because you know exactly what I am talking about. Now I suspect that some of those people are as adamant about their definition and usage of the word "obsolete" as you are. Which is why I contend that the term is tainted, and that it might be easier to discontinue using the term and instead come up with a set of different terms that allow for the various conditions of obsolescence.

Next I said,

"We should leave it [the term obsolete] for the unscrupulous, disinterested, and unknowing people on the periphery of our hobby."

First of all, this is directed to a future group of people that could only exist if my suggestion was adopted and successfully implemented. In the meantime, or in the absence of such a change, that group of people simply does not exist! So how can you possibly resent my comment to a non-existent group?

Secondly, SINCE WHEN ARE YOU ON THE PERIPHERY of this hobby? I frankly cannot understand how you could even think that my comments were directed at you, or were inclusive of you, given the level of activity and knowledge you have in this hobby.

So far, you are the Lone Ranger of resentment.

Let me also say that even though we are very close in agreement as to what obsolete means, it is the fact that you "don’t care if we ever agree" that means that there will never, ever, be consensus on what it does means. After all, how can I (or anyone else) come to an agreement with a someone who simply does not care?

And THAT, after all, was my primary point in this thread. And I still doubt that there can be consensus on what obsolete means.

Andy, I have made it clear that I was not talking about you. I have explained that I was addressing a future, not-yet existent group of people. And I have explained that even if that group existed, you would be disqualified.

So what is going on? I respect your knowledge, your position within the chipping community, your expertise and your opinions. And it is not my desire to argue with you, but I feel that you are purposely being thin skinned, or purposely argumentative, or something else, unknown to me, is going on. What gives? We can certainly go to personal e-mail if you prefer.

Respectfully, Jim Follis