I've had it with diagrams

I've had it with diagrams. I was sitting there in a meeting yesterday as it was explained that this rectangle represented a 'cloud' and exaggerated sets inside it 'centres'. It doesn't really matter what else it might have meant, but probably, if followed through, some misery to me at least having to fit in one or another of said catagories. Diagrams are abstract, but they attempt to define in basic terms, so if they are wrong, then you are in real trouble. However, architects love bloody diagrams for some reason, they can look a bit thoughtful and imaginative. But what happens if they are actually totally misleading? Maybe there is no need for a diagram at all! (I'd like to be able to draw you a diagram of my research methods but it's so obvious I'm not going to bother).

So I said

'Cloud is not a good name'

This is because cloud becomes cloudy which is vague and indistinct and you can't see through it and it signifies bad beer at best. It also implies rain and shadow and 'lonely as'.

Then I said

'And anyway that is not a drawing of a cloud, which should, diagram wise, be fluffy with rounded perimeters intersecting. You've drawn a pitch, maybe a field!'

This would seem to me to be the justification for my needing to leave the meeting early.

When plotting futures, which may indeed be murky, at least be careful with your words and lines.