Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 1406222" data-attributes="member: 957">OK, well, like I said, we must really travel in different circles.&nbsp; There have been threads here in the past on whether people prefer fluff or crunch.&nbsp; A lot of people say they like them equally or even prefer fluff.&nbsp; Did YOU think that those people were saying that they prefer USELESS stuff?&nbsp; Seriously, can you explain to me how anyone (newbie or otherwise) could read statements from people advocating fluff and not immediately conclude from the context that the term MUST have a non-negative meaning.I do not know anything about SCUBA diving.&nbsp; If I go to a SCUBA board and post a &quot;rant&quot; that I dislike them using lingo that I can not immediately understand (be it new words or modified usage of existing words), the reasonable response from them is going to be to blow me off as a thin skinned whiner.The only connection I can see between your complaint and language usage as I experience it is that fluff is used as filler more often than other elements.&nbsp; But being USED AS filler DOES NOT mean IT IS filler.&nbsp; Art is not filler, but it can and has been used as filler.Crunch is not filler, but it can and has been used as filler.&nbsp; Fluff is not filler, but it can and has been used as filler.Wide margins and blank space...&nbsp; Well that is just filler.Anyway, even if you got your wish and the word went away (which is about as likely as it is that Henry will get his wish and Munchkin will go away) I really do not think it would matter.&nbsp; Say we start using the word &quot;flavor&quot;.&nbsp; Well, six months or a year from now people who like flavor in their products are going to start complaining about people using the term &quot;flavor&quot; as a means of expressing negative opinion.&nbsp; In my totally personal and may not hold up to scientific scrutiny assessment, there is a significantly larger market for mechanical product than there is for non-mechanical product.&nbsp; This puts people who do prefer non-mechanical on some degree of defensive.&nbsp; There will always be some tension between groups wanting publishers to cater to their preference.&nbsp; It is not the kind of thing that people are going to take to the streets with torches and pitchforks over.&nbsp; But they will start getting sensitive about use of language.&nbsp; It is simply human nature.&nbsp; Any term meaning &quot;non-mechanical&quot; is going to wind up understood the same as &quot;fluff&quot;, dictionaries not withstanding.The Book of the Righteous is Great.&nbsp; The crunch in that book is quite good.&nbsp; But it is the fluff that is awesome.&nbsp; The fluff in the Book of the Righteous is among the most useful material I own.&nbsp; There is nothing remotely oxymoronic about that statement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 1406222, member: 957"] OK, well, like I said, we must really travel in different circles. There have been threads here in the past on whether people prefer fluff or crunch. A lot of people say they like them equally or even prefer fluff. Did YOU think that those people were saying that they prefer USELESS stuff? Seriously, can you explain to me how anyone (newbie or otherwise) could read statements from people advocating fluff and not immediately conclude from the context that the term MUST have a non-negative meaning. I do not know anything about SCUBA diving. If I go to a SCUBA board and post a "rant" that I dislike them using lingo that I can not immediately understand (be it new words or modified usage of existing words), the reasonable response from them is going to be to blow me off as a thin skinned whiner. The only connection I can see between your complaint and language usage as I experience it is that fluff is used as filler more often than other elements. But being USED AS filler DOES NOT mean IT IS filler. Art is not filler, but it can and has been used as filler. Crunch is not filler, but it can and has been used as filler. Fluff is not filler, but it can and has been used as filler. Wide margins and blank space... Well that is just filler. Anyway, even if you got your wish and the word went away (which is about as likely as it is that Henry will get his wish and Munchkin will go away) I really do not think it would matter. Say we start using the word "flavor". Well, six months or a year from now people who like flavor in their products are going to start complaining about people using the term "flavor" as a means of expressing negative opinion. In my totally personal and may not hold up to scientific scrutiny assessment, there is a significantly larger market for mechanical product than there is for non-mechanical product. This puts people who do prefer non-mechanical on some degree of defensive. There will always be some tension between groups wanting publishers to cater to their preference. It is not the kind of thing that people are going to take to the streets with torches and pitchforks over. But they will start getting sensitive about use of language. It is simply human nature. Any term meaning "non-mechanical" is going to wind up understood the same as "fluff", dictionaries not withstanding. The Book of the Righteous is Great. The crunch in that book is quite good. But it is the fluff that is awesome. The fluff in the Book of the Righteous is among the most useful material I own. There is nothing remotely oxymoronic about that statement. [/QUOTE]

Verification