Jens Ropers wrote:
If it acts like napalm but just happens to contain
''slightly''
different chemicals, ''plus added oxidisers'', then of course it's
''totally irresponsible'' to call the substance napalm.
Jayzuz, that would be like--like calling a land rover a jeep! Or
calling a whirlpool a jacuzzi!! Or--gasp--calling photocopying
xeroxing!!! How TOTALLY inaccurate!!!!
</irony>
Actually, from the perspective of the owners of those respective
trademarks (Jeep, Jacuzzi, and Xerox) it would be totally inaccurate and
irresponsible. You may not personally care about such things, but they
would go to a great deal of effort to discourage people from using those
terms incorrectly.
Wittingly or not, the elements of your analogy have a significant point
in common, which is that these are all trademarks in danger of
genericide (fortunately, a much less violent demise than those you have
been arguing about). Interestingly enough, I discovered that our article
on napalm states that it too is a trademark, belonging in this case to
Dow Chemical. However, my initial research was unable to verify this
claim. Does anybody have a source that could back this up? I rather
wonder whether napalm as a trademark might already have gone generic,
given how many people use it to mean any gasoline-based military
incendiary device, as shown by this discussion.
Instead of flaming each other from divergent points of view, perhaps we
could redirect our focus to getting facts correct in our articles.
--Michael Snow