<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Saying what "guinea pig" is wrong term because these creatures have<br>
nothing to do with pigs is not ridiculous -- it's a perfectly valid<br>
statement.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wait, what?! Am I dreaming or you actually said that?</div><div>However, if you think that even "guinea pig" is a wrong term - then yeah, I guess there is no way to convince you that "intellectual property" isn't.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> The problem is -- how important is the fact that "guinea<br>
pigs" are not pigs. If it's important fact, then you should be careful<br>
to note it every time you speak about "guinea pigs" -- and probably it's<br>
better to reject the term entirely. If it's not so important -- well,<br>
then it's probably better to ignore the problem. For me and you, it's<br>
not the issue, but for some biologists (and probably for followers of<br>
certain religions), it is important to know whether "guinea pigs" is<br>
really pigs or not.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Exactly. It is obviously important to biologists, since the question whether quinea pigs are pigs is directly related to their jobs. Yet I don't see them arguing on the topic or calling to reject this term. Why? Because it is just wording, which is meant to clearly refer to things. Now, obviously everybody understands what kind of thing "guinea pig" refers to (you know, these kind of small creatures, like hamsters but bigger) - so there is no problem in using the term. In the same way, everybody understands what kind of phenomena the term "intellectual property" refers to (you know, copyright, patents and all of that) - so again, there is not problem in using this term.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Ilya.</div></div></div>