CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Monfils, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:31:21 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Yes, the word "amateur" seems to have taken on a rather negative connotation
in recent years.  Many people take it as meaning someone who doesn't know
much yet or isn't very good at something yet - essentially a synonym for
novice, and antonym for expert.  Originally the word meant "one who is not
paid", as opposed to a professional (one who is paid) for otherwise similar
services.  It was understood that an amateur could be just as knowledgable
and proficient in a field as a professional.  An amateur simply did it as an
avocation rather than a profession.  Perhaps the most obvious application of
the term in days gone by was the Olympics - the greatest athletes in the
world - all amateurs!  Of course the appearance of the "Dream Team" pretty
well trashed that application.  Anyway, collectors certainly cannot be
categorized like specimens, but I didn't take the current thread as a
serious attempt to do that.  So much of it was tongue-in-cheek if not
downrght silly.
Paul M.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2