Words do indeed convey an idea. What is being debated is whether the use of the word "poached" conveys the correct idea.
"Poaching" a thing implies that a thing is owned and was unjustly taken.
Humans are employed, not owned. An employer<->employee relationship requires both parties to continue. If an employee breaks this relationship and makes a new one with another employer, there is no theft.
So why do we use the word "poach"? It does not convey what occurred!
My injection into the thread was to query whether a term having been used for a long time is reason enough to continue to use the word "poached" with its associated connotations. We have plenty of other words to use.
alt Hacker News
Words do indeed convey an idea. What is being debated is whether the use of the word "poached" conveys the correct idea.
"Poaching" a thing implies that a thing is owned and was unjustly taken.
Humans are employed, not owned. An employer<->employee relationship requires both parties to continue. If an employee breaks this relationship and makes a new one with another employer, there is no theft.
So why do we use the word "poach"? It does not convey what occurred!
My injection into the thread was to query whether a term having been used for a long time is reason enough to continue to use the word "poached" with its associated connotations. We have plenty of other words to use.