Can't I select more than one!
I have to say that I'd like to vote for most of the unmentionables on the list, but this term (see subject - I won't repeat it again for fear of being too offensive) needs some defending as it is a useful tool for the IT savvy.
When your herculian patience and fortitude are finally tested to the limits of endurance whilst trying to explain something excrutiatingly complex (like how the monitor isn't the 'computer') to your wife/girlfriend/senile mother-in-law you can always fall back on this word to prevent your brain from imploding with sheer frustration.
I'd have been dead from 'committed-to-results' induced skull imploding frustration so long ago I wouldn't have managed to make it into the contract market to earn oodles of cash (none of which I have any more sadly). So give this term a break and leave it off the list.
Fire away commentards
Because the fucktards that really push the Web 2.0 agenda are the same fucktards that really pushed Web 1.0, got it wrong, now they're saying, "Yes, but this is how it should *really* be done, coining a few bob without really contributing anything other than their own agenda.
iCunts, the lot of them
Would ROFLMAO if they all just disappeared up their own rectards and got PWNED.
iJobs, cuz there's no fucking thumbnail for O'ReillyTards.
So many abominations to choose from... why do we have to only choose one? Wouldn't the survey still produce interesting results if everyone was allowed to vote for as many or as few of the words as they felt like? Perhaps even /more/ interesting or accurate results, because people wouldn't be forced to choose artificially between things they hate equally, which might lead to 'tactical voting' or other distortions? You can still declare the one with the most votes the winner, but the placing of the runners-up would be much more realistic.
for all of them?
The terms listed are often used by uncool, self congratulatory 2hats with little or no understanding of what is actually behind the said terms/acronyms. They are usually used to give the impression that the person using them is savvy in that area when the opposite is so often the case.
lol is the only term/acronym listed that I actually use and I would quite happily forfeit the use of this if all the others were eradicated. And why is the misspelling of "the" not there? The usage of "teh" does not make one seem elite, sorry L337, it just makes one appear to be an abject tosser.
And what about the word "ghey", why is that not there?
Yes languages develop and change overtime, but it seems to me these acronyms/terms are just dumbing down the English language for the amusement of the lowest common denominator.
Of course being an old git with at least a rudimentary grasp of English could explain my Luddite approach to the bastardisation of the English language.
Being only able to cast a vote for one of those listed items I chose *tard. For the simple reason that to me it has never been a retarded action to obtain something for free. Paytard works, freetard doesn't.
I note that (at the time of writing) there are only two of us who detest "LOL". Let me remind you that it's the (I hesitate to grace it with this term) "word" used by humourless cretins in place of a large sign stating "Please laugh, that was a pathetic and feeble attempt to say something humorous".
Paris, because I could make her LOL just by dropping my kecks.
Looks like I'm not alone in my hatred for "2.0"
Mix friends reunited and a BBS (are they both 1.0, or 0.6 BETA RC7?) and you have Web 2.0? Right? Or am I wrong? Is 2.0 every site you can contribute to (and therefore is the Reg 2.0?).
I don't know.
I barely care.
All I know is I will LMAOTISMS when the term 2.0 gets pwned
That's a wonderful sounding word that just rolls off the tongue. It also brings back memories of my children trying to eat ice creams before their hand to mouth coordination was sufficiently developed to reliably get the latter inside the former. The videos/pics of which are now probably illegal.
Brazilians use the term "internaut" -> internet + astronaut to describe any one who uses the Internet.
Whenever I read this I imagine editors of pop magazines and computer columns in newspapers giggling like preteens.
Ted Kaczynski, wherever you are, I understand you a little bit better.
The one that has been most irritating me recently is 'lulz' meaning lols meaning laughs. Usage: "I did it for the lulz."
LOL was useful shorthand, the written version of a common verbal signal.
LOLs is annoying because it doesn't work - you can't laugh out louds at somethings.
LULZ is even worse! It just makes no sense.
Of the other words on your list:-
Fail is not really a *net* neologism and can be used in a completely technology free context. It's just a harmless insult - fine.
Interweb is a form of mocking/parodying the less technically knowledgable, who originally misused the phrase accidentally rather than deliberately - fine.
pwn is, again, used to mock the original typo - fine.
Edutainment and Mashup are not really net related, but they are doubtless the result of idiots trying to be clever, so probably do deserve their place in the list.
LOL, ROFL, and OMFG are hardly neologisms - most of them have been in use for 20+ years - as long as they are used strictly for typing efficiency or where data fields are limited in size, they are completely out of place in this vote.
What I really have a problem with is people (mostly lesser educated hacks than your good selves, and marketing people) who make up words (or copy made-up words) that at least try to sound 'cool' or clever to try and impress people - i.e. blaggers. But the bottom line is that new words/phrases are useful, when meaningfully constructed; memory-stick (a stick with memory in it), electronic-mail (mail sent electronically), filesharing (sharing files), lap-top computer (a computer that sits on top of your lap*) are all words/phrases which bear some relation to the meaning. OTOH the word "podcast" bears no relation to its meaning "digital audio clip/stream" which is why it's creators should probably be made to suffer.^
* unlike notebook or netbook, neither of which, to the best of my knowledge, are books.
^ along with all the other neolotards (Sorry, I claim parody on that one! Readers: please never type/utter that word again - I mean it!).
Okay, I found Urban dictionary and got definitions for all the ones I didn't know apart from ROFLCOPTER. There WAS a definition for it, but I only understood about one word in three of the definition so I'm still none the wiser.
Something to do with a computer game was about as much as I could comprehend.
This post has been deleted by its author
Ah, 2.0-2.0 retrospect... I forgot to suggest "action item". I shall perform an action, which is recorded as an item on a list held by a project management type. How new, and exciting! How about I do THIS, they do THAT, and you shaddup with your action-item-call-to-action-lookit-me-I-manage-meetings crap? Ah, purged until my next meeting...
Maybe when El Reg determines the winning phrase, alternatives can be proposed. OED-esque rules must be followed, whereby the explanation cannot use words that are more 'complex' than the word being defined, must be concise, and use as many of the other candidate net neologism as possible. Yes, the last two are at odds; welcome to the English language.
Paris... known for action, not quite an item...but on many a list.
It was hard work making a single choice, but then I remembered some classics like:
"...*2.0 will expand our big-box, bluesky, multi-tiered, user-centric thinking and be an enabler of..."
Urgh! I am no good (thankfully!) at spouting that marketing drivel but a guy I worked with (developer) could just come out with it to the point it actually sounded like real marketing speak and got marketing people excited. It's enough to make you cry.
And don't forget it's two point oooooooooooooo ... because 'zero' is too harsh and sounds of first generation and we are a progressive, dynamic ... *baulk* *grrr*
The reason people people hate "2.0" is because it was invented by neolot^H^H^H^H^H^Hblaggers who were trying to be clever. I believe it is trying to suggest that the 'net has been re-invented in a second generation, which is total crap. The 'net has been evoloving steadily over more than 40 years, and there's been no single change that could suggest that it has been completely re-invented.
There are people who suggest that "2.0" refers to a web where content is "user generated" (and that *that* is the revolutionary change worthy of a new major revision number) which again, is total crap. Although prior to "2.0" and the popularity of 'blogs' and 'social networking' there was a period where the 'net was to some extent dominated by corporate content, before that, it was always generated by the people who use it
Even prior to the web, there was USENET, which was populated by "user generated content," which like todays so called "blogs" and forums was largely comprised of people talking shit, interspersed with the occasional gem of wisdom. The only two things that have changed on the 'net in the last 25 years are that there are more people using it, and that the UI has become easier to use - the latter largely accounts for the former - (okay, so maybe there's some more bandwidth too). The underlying use of the 'net hasn't really changed.
A much more accurate, although still nonsensical, term would be 1.297.43.8739 (I don't care if that number's wrong, I made it up)
There is nothing "Accurate" or "Properly used" about "2.0"
"Netizen" is hardly a neologism either. To my certain knowledge, it was in common usage on usenet at a minimum of 14 years ago (along with it's evil twin "Netiquette") and is mentioned in Howard Rheingold's vomit inducingly saccharine tome "The Virtual Community", whose frontispiece bears the copyright date of 1994.
And many of the other terms in the list pre date even that, esp w/r/t LOL, ROFL, *tard, and even "pwn/pwnage/pwned", which despite what modern ganers think, is a fine example of the typo wordplay typical of usenet, which predates the web by approximately a decade.
And while I'm pedantically pontificating, "Mashup", while a genuine neologism, is not a 'net' neologism, rather it is a word that was born in the music industry (or some subculture thereof) and subsequently repurposed.
Of the remaining candidates, while there are a few that really boil my piss, esp. the particularly vile "webinar", which is not just a gut wrenchingly web cheerleader-y portmanteau of the lowest order, but also stunningly inaccurate given the commonly received meaning of the word "seminar", the only one in sufficiently common parlance and increasingly threatening to burst free of the net and infect everyday usage (at least where I can see it), is the bastard son of a thousand screaming maniac postfixes "2.0".
I picked 2.0. It's a pointless term, challenge anyone to come up with an example of what it means and, like Steve Sutton says a few posts above, if you challenge several people to agree what it means they can't come up with anything. Some claim "2.0" involves social networking somehow, despite networks being used for "social" networking for over 40 years (see PLATO for instance). Others claim AJAX or the like, then having to come up with convoluted arguments on why the advanced web stuff in the 1990s was not 2.0 despite having every feature they list. In short, @Ian "I mean, it's certainly the most accurate and properly used of the terms given."... no it's not.
blook and plix sound pretty annoying, but I've never heard anyone use either term so much as once, so they therefore don't trouble me.
freetard is not too great without a counteracting commercialtard term for riaa backers etc., or microsofttard term for people who back microsoft's every mistake over free software. But, meh, it's just too entertaining to watch the word "freetard" bait the real rabid, well, freetards.
Podslurping sounds disgusting, but, I don't pod-anything or i-anything so I don't get exposed to this term enough to bother me.
I understand why everyone wants 2.0 removed, but consider that it's a term that allows us to release a software/service at version 1.0 and then release a better one later, rather than having to call the first one "Beta".
Of course, to make that work we'll still have to convince people to stop releasing their new stuff in beta.
First, I voted for "* 2.0" and I'm very glad to see it is way out in the lead so far. There is only one World Wide Web, and it was invented by TBL with some help from his friends. His contribution, interestingly enough, consisted largely of removing unnecessary elements. People had been agonizing about the complexities of maintaining hyperinformation for decades, until TBL said "Never mind that, let's just get started and do it". Turns out 99% of the stuff on the Web doesn't need (or deserve) to be maintained anyway... The retards who brought us "Web 2.0" don't seem to realize that they haven't even understood TBL's vision of the Web yet. It actually embraces everything worthwhile that's in Web 2.0.
Second, my real hatred is reserved for words starting "cyber-". The original word, "cyberspace", is sprayed around by ignorami to show off their familiarity with the Internet. In fact, it was coined by William Gibson to describe an entirely different kind of space - a specific type of virtual reality - in Neuromancer and other novels.
Actually, allowing multiple choices is more likely to result in inaccurate counting than allowing only a single choice. This is because in a poll like this, the natural reaction is to vote for most or all of them. This inflates the numbers and increases the likelihood of ties. There are dozens of ways of analyzing rated choices (1st, 2nd, 3rd), but they all have drawbacks, not the least of which is the added complexity. By forcing you to choose the one you really hate the most, the Register is providing the simplest process with a very high likelihood of returing the worst net neologism.
Besides, Sarah Said So.
I couldn't find blog on the list. It is such a ugly word. I think it is a spin on the word log, but doesn't sound anything like it. Only when you read it you will see the similarity. Say it to yourself, log and then blog. They sound nothing alike. It sounds like some solid waste product coming out of something or someone. The word that I think is closest is plug, but there is a b there. So I am trying to connect b and plug and then I end up with butt plug, and then I swiftly relocate myself.
Sidenote, my Opera spellchecker didn't have blog in it's dictionary.
Thought that was a distance far, far smaller than a nanotube?
Saw it on the Bellylarf's article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3742662/Why-I-feel-sympathy-for-the-police-officers-who-shot-Jean-Charles-de-Menezes.html
'course, like all El Reg commentards (oops!) , I 'stand erect to be corrected'. And whipped. Please!
-Sheesh. Sara(h) - what has El Reg started now? Becoming too "PC", and I aint talking about my (stolen) lappie. (Shi*t! Done it again! LOL! (aw shi*t, another one) ;-)
© of smiley natch, dammit.........
OK, I'll fuc*k off and stay there.
Taxi - definitely NOT to Stockwell tube station!!!
1f 0n3 w45 5m4r7 3n0u6h 4nd h4d 3|173 h4(k1n6 5k1||5 17 w0u|dn'7 83 d1ff1(u|7 70 (r3473 4 6|084| 807-n37 4(r055 7h3 3xp4n53 0f 7h3 1n73rn37 wh1(h (0u|d 83 5(r1p73d 70 v073 4u70m471(4||y 0n 0n35 83h4|f wh1|57 4p34r1n6 70 83 d1ff3r3n7 p30p|3.
if ya wasn't a n00b and had leet haxor skillz it wudn't be hard to make teh cloud of interwebz automagically pwn teh voting mechanism and look like loadsa different netizens.
if one was smart enough and had elite hacking skills it wouldn't be difficult to create a global bot-net across the expanse of the Internet which could be scripted to vote automatically on ones behalf whilst appearing to be different people.
Didn't Paul Weller once sing "That's edutainment"
I feel physically sick when I hear people use the term Web 2.0. One of my clients recently had some consultants in who told them they needed to get more "Web 2.0". They actually have this in their strategy document now. It's so embarrassing.
Have to say, though, it was a pretty close call with Webinar, which is pretty stomach-churning as well. Yuck.
I cannot believe they did not include 'cewebrity'.
Ok, thank gawd it hasn't quite caught on but whoever came up with this term should be banned from the internet for ever, if not from media in general.
At first I thought the word was a pun on people with a certain speech problem but it turns out to refer to the sort of people featured in Weezer's "Pork and beans" video.
I'm disappointed that my personal bugbear was left out.
I feel that anyone who uses "All your bases are belong to us" or any variation thereof, should be brutally castrated* with a blunt and rusty meat cleaver.
*before the girls feel left out, I'm sure some appropriate alternative could be thought up.
"When your herculian patience and fortitude are finally tested to the limits of endurance whilst trying to explain something excrutiatingly complex (like how the monitor isn't the 'computer') to your wife/girlfriend/senile mother-in-law you can always fall back on this word to prevent your brain from imploding with sheer frustration."
What's wrong with, "It's technical"? It's served me well for years.
I originally voted for "mashup" but have decided to go with "*2.0" now, after an insurance company, which uses an add that is like the apple pc vs mac too and fro, started to promote their insurance as "insurance 2.0".
I doubt many insurance buyers would get the meaning of "insurance 2.0" but now that "*2.0" (does "*2.0" have a meaning?) has jumped the species barrier into and is using the sordid world of insurance to spread it's evil contagion, it must be stamped out.
Most of the votes so far seem to dislike "2.0" etc. and to give "ZOMFG" and the like an easier ride.
Agreed that the content of 2.0 might be the biggest pile of powerpoint-flavoured dysonist crapwank and badgers' paws ever, but as a _neologism_ to refer to the topic, it's not bad. Equally "edutainment" and "webinar".
Now WTF is WTF? Why is ROFL funny? These are just the crude linguistic shorthands of dullards.
Would Stephen Fry ever ask us to downcast the podload of his mashup? I believe so (should he ever wish to inflict such a thing on the blogosphere)
Would the esteemed Fry respond to Alan Davies' witticism with a ROFL? I think not.
Erm do you mean Mr Fry 2.0 - www.stephenfry.com
visitor, to the official Stephen Fry website. It has been some time in the making, but at last Version 2.0 is here. Some regulars will, inevitably, take a little time to get used to this new frysphere...
As for Downcasting the PodLoad isnt that Laurie Taylor (thinking aloud)