After reading Leon's post on the use of the term diagonal or secondary and being from the old school of amateur astronomy and a declared pedantic when it comes to telescope nomenclature I figured it was time to have a bit of a rant about my all time pet peeves, namely the terms prime focus and plossl.
Rant mode:ON 
First off the rank is the term "Prime Focus". This term has been Bast**rdised beyond belief in the past 25 years or so by the amateur community, most notably by US magazines and authors writing to the amateur end of the market. Thankfully the professional astronomy world still uses the correct terminology.
For those of you who don't know, "Prime Focus" is short for Primary Focus and refers to the focus point of the first mirror or lens in an optical system, thus for example in a Newtonian Primary focus occurs at the location of the diagonal (a.k.a secondary mirror, flat). The focal point where your eyepiece is located is properly the
Newtonian Focus. In a SCT it's the Schmid-Cassegrainian focus, etc. Really "Prime focus" can only be applied to refractors, tilt mirror reflectors and the visual cage on telescopes like the AAT.
Secondly the plossl eyepiece. For reasons that I'm too cynical to list a very specific optical design that uses 4 lens elements has mysteriously grown extra elements, no longer makes it a Plossl. Nor is it a "super Plossl" or any similar name, it's a whole new design folks and should be named as such.
I wish, how I wish that various magazine editors, authors and columnists would be a bit more accurate and pedantic in their terminology, and spend the time to educate the newer, and not so new members of our fraternity in to using the correct terminology, rather than taking the easy way out and just dumbing down the terms.
Rant mode:OFF 