My view is let the sleeping dog be. I see no compelling argument to change it other than spite.
While never personally bothered by then legacy terms, I can accept that they cause unease for some. On the other hand, I find resisting change or advocating to undo this change in the name of preserving history to be simply spiteful.
Our entire domain is defined by constant change and you swim needlessly against the current to lament that we do not go back to some prior state.
Comments
My view is let the sleeping dog be. I see no compelling argument to change it other than spite.
While never personally bothered by then legacy terms, I can accept that they cause unease for some. On the other hand, I find resisting change or advocating to undo this change in the name of preserving history to be simply spiteful.
Our entire domain is defined by constant change and you swim needlessly against the current to lament that we do not go back to some prior state.
It's okay to course correct and have principles though. One can go forward again after going backwards.
What principle are you trying to uphold? Change is bad? I haven't actually seen you present a compelling principle.