View Single Post
Old 05-08-2012, 10:46 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 11,312

Well I'm basically indifferent either way; I usually try to base glossary decisions on Ppercs membership votes. Tonberry seemed to indicate that "heteroromantic" and "homoromantic" are words already in use, so for the sake of any who might hear those words and wonder about their definitions, I assumed it wouldn't hurt to add them. This would be an addition to the Ppercs glossary of course, not to any glossary on, and I don't know what the legal definitions/implications would be.

It never occurred to me to make the Ppercs glossary a legally-correct (or even entirely serious) glossary; it could be done but would require considerable research, and a re-building of the glossary from the ground up. For something like that, I'd be inclined to look for a nomination, and a majority vote, from the Ppercs membership. Nominating a couple of new entries is an easier proposition, so I (being a Ppercs member) don't mind making the nomination. The other Ppercs members can usually strike such ideas down with one or two votes.

If you feel strongly about it, I'll consider not nominating the words. (I don't plan on deciding either way for several weeks.) It's true that the words haven't appeared (to my knowledge) on Ppercs per se, so I guess Ppercs has less of a "vested interest" in them.

If you visit the glossary in question, you'll no doubt observe that lots of "questionable" entries are already in there. I don't personally nominate deleting entries as often as I do adding, but if other Ppercs members ask me to delete an entry, I take it seriously.

I could add a note to the Ppercs "polygamy" entry, strongly emphasizing the importance of using the correct legal definition. I guess I make these decisions to nominate or not nominate based on my own intuition (and any Ppercs member can do likewise without my go-ahead), but I try to take opinions outside Ppercs into account.

The sad fact is that people don't always use legally correct definitions, and "polygamy" is a prominent example of that. I've heard, for example, "polyandry" used in a way that doesn't suggest legal marriage. I've also heard "marriage" used in a way that doesn't suggest legal marriage. Incorrect, and arguably dangerous in certain situations, but people do it sometimes.

Right now, I just consider the Ppercs glossary to be a "general information" (occasionally even a "just for fun") resource. I don't even try to make it line up with the dictionary (let alone Oxford or Webster). My primary goal has been to make it reflect the words and definitions that exist in the minds and posts of the Ppercs membership, which by the way is a good argument for keeping that glossary separate from any assertions. But I don't want Ppercs to be "stuck in a bottle" either, so I sometimes nominate stuff that I run across on other sites (and then let the Ppercs membership decide if they want it). It's the best I can do with an ailing website (Ppercs doesn't get a lot of activity nowadays).
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote