Without taking sides on the prone/supine terminology question, I do have a strong reaction to the Benabou/May/Dubuc concern that respect for a field is undermined by its adoption of frivolous terminology. This may be a valid concern for a young field like category theory, but for a more mature subject such as physics, a more relevant concern is the undermining of the ability to poke fun at oneself by the fear of not being taken seriously. Has the adoption of frivolous nomenclature for quarks ("strange," "charm," "beauty" and even "quark" itself) diminished in any way the world's respect for quarks and their investigators? And what of computational topology? Should we turn a blind eye to whether Scott is sober, and substitute a more genteel euphemism for his bottom? Vaughan Pratt