Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 1406270" data-attributes="member: 1106">I'm an advocate of &quot;fluff&quot;, but I don't like the term.&nbsp; It implies negative connotations to it which it neither deserves, nor adequately describe it.&nbsp; It sets any argument off with &quot;crunch&quot; on the front foot, because that has no negative connotations.&nbsp; The word &quot;fluff&quot; implies filler by default.&nbsp; Your words can't change what the english language says the word means by default, and even if people come to understand that it has no negative connotations in time, those connotations still pop up subconciously, even now, to me.&nbsp; In the meantime, they make assumptions that crunch is bettah.&nbsp; And for someone who accuses Mouseferatu of caring too much about this issue, you seem to be hanging onto it in a hypocritical manner, almost as if you have an agenda that you like the word and it's negative implications - otherwise, why would you care it were changed?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 1406270, member: 1106"] I'm an advocate of "fluff", but I don't like the term. It implies negative connotations to it which it neither deserves, nor adequately describe it. It sets any argument off with "crunch" on the front foot, because that has no negative connotations. The word "fluff" implies filler by default. Your words can't change what the english language says the word means by default, and even if people come to understand that it has no negative connotations in time, those connotations still pop up subconciously, even now, to me. In the meantime, they make assumptions that crunch is bettah. And for someone who accuses Mouseferatu of caring too much about this issue, you seem to be hanging onto it in a hypocritical manner, almost as if you have an agenda that you like the word and it's negative implications - otherwise, why would you care it were changed? [/QUOTE]

Verification