I feel the need to clarify some of my postings. Due to some public and private mails I realized that most people though that I was talking about the nLab. Well, all the time, when referring to "ghetto" or "subculture" I was aiming to the WHOLE of the category community within mathematics, not at the nLab within the category community. Actually, I was not even aware of the existence of the nLab. Due to this controversy, I visit the nLab and at first sight I essentially (not fully) agree with Andre's comments about the nLab in his recent posting. I say, go ahead !, nice work ! I can add that I liked the lack of solemnity and the freedom to write down your understanding without fear to be wrong, and the freedom of the reader to insert comments and ask questions. The whole thing is very useful to all interested in the subjects being written about, and should not to be taken as a book in final form, which is not intended to be. Encyclopedia (18 century) and Bourbaki are very important, but some fresh air is also important. I do not appreciate that a controversy about terminology be dismissed by derision by saying "thanks for trying to move the discussion away from terminology and back to actual mathematical matters". This kind of solemnity makes me shit !! No need to move away from terminology, nobody is forbidding you to discuss mathematics by discussing terminology, it is not one thing or the other. We were talking about terminology, yes !!. Why not !. Terminology is important, great mathematicians worried about it. The "evil terminology" is wrong, somebody would even say evil, and it is important that it does not establish itself. This is not a fight, to abandon a terminology does not mean to loose a fight, it just mean to become aware of some sides that were not properly considered at the beginning. The looser is at the end the winner. The challenge (not a minor challenge) is to find a good word "x" (or xxxx, which means the same thing in spite to have four x's, ja!) to mean "invariant under equivalence", or its negation, once we agree that such a word is necessary due to the need of brevity justified by frequent use (if this happens to be the case). We can discuss the mathematics involved in the presence or lack of invariance under equivalence, nobody forbids this by talking about the terminology utilized. e.d. [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]