Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2111026" data-attributes="member: 7240">So, it's your position that the best terminology we can come up with for discussing published setting materials is one that insults some of the people in the discussion? Sorry but I think we can do better. I think we can come up with terminology that is descriptive and not insulting to anyone. One isn't always in the mood to "claim" and subvert whatever derogatory term is thrown at them. Surely we have large enough vocabularies and cognitive capacities to settle on terminology that isn't pejorative.Some people do. Some people don't. Why not have terminology that is more descriptive and less controversial. What is the special thing that "fluff" expresses as a term for which no other word will do? You appear to be attached to it for some reason. Is the only reason people are attached to the term the fact that it is already in use or does it, in fact, indicate something? If it's just an empty term, why is it important to keep it? If it is an especially expressive or precise term, let us know what is being expressed by "fluff" that couldn't be expressed as effectively with another term?</blockquote>