RE: virus: FAQ: version 1.0

Wade T.Smith (
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 10:01:35 -0400

>I phail ( :-) ) to see how the creation of a new word which,
>of course, does not alter the meaning of the existing word, can be
>"insulting"? Or even "distancing". So I fail to see the point which is
>being made, and would like at least to try to understand it.

Well, because I side with Richard here, or he sides with me, or rather we have just picked the same side, the main reason I prefer to _ignore_ coined words is usually because they derive not from a _real_ need to create an entirely new word, but instead, usually turn out (as indeed 'phaith' turns out), to be an archly cute and derogative and elitist and _juvenile_ reworking of a present word, (and predominanly part of the teen culture as well), and I see the only reason for such manipulation, as opposed to creation, to be one of exclusion and even, yes, cultism and cliqueism, and I, for one, do not join such clubs.

One of the first reasons I embrace the net is because knowledge and information is freed here. (It ain't free, and it ain't necessarily true, but it is unshackled.) And the fact that I have to accept a new word, which sounds 'cute' and childish to me, rather than just accept (or ignore) a variant meaning (usually in general usage already) of a common word, well... just don't make it for me. I never even used 'far-out' during the time I could have. Instead I used 'in-close'.

So instead of 'phaith' I will use 'phooey' until such time as a real coin is minted here. 'Meme' is such a real coin, and hell, we still don't know what the fuck that is.