It is just that I have been away from CL for many years now, so I don't
yet feel 'comfortable' with the terminology that I am re-learning.

So, to be better Lisp users, we all try to understand the terms used to
describe how things work in Lisp.

Take the term "binding" for example.  The CL HyperSpec glossary
describes that word as a noun. (a person, a place, or a thing)

Well we can pretty well rule out 'binding' as being a person<g>

It is tempting to think of a binding as a thing. (a value, for example)
These "values" can change during the course of running the Lisp
program.

A binding could also be thought of as a place, a particular place in a
RAM memory chip, or if virtual memory is being used perhaps a
particular place on a hard disk platter.  These "places" where the
binding "is at" can change during the course of running the Lisp
program.

As to whether a binding is a place or a value stored in that place or
the combination of a place-and-a-value - - - all that does not seem to
be nailed down in the description of "binding". (in the HyperSpec)

Does that hurt us?  Maybe.  We might come to differing conclusions
about how a segment of code will work, depending on what we expected a
"binding" in that code to do.

Can we avoid that predictament?  Mostly we can, by experimenting with
"bindings" and becoming aware of how they act in many differing
situations.

We can each ask ourselves, how certain are we that our particular idea
about "binding" is correct.

We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but I don't think we
will wind up agreeing about what a binding is, exactly.

I am content to let the subject drop, but will listen intently to
others as they discuss this subject amonst themselves.

Thanks to all, you have cleared the air quite a bit regarding
"bindings", and no doubt many lurkers have benefited also.