Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The important questions - by Tom Tomorrow [View all]caseymoz
(5,763 posts)74. Oh? I just looked it up.
In my Webster's New World College Dictionary that I was required to buy in journalism school. It's not in there. Now, I did buy that in the eighties, but it appears the term was a bit remote at least. And of course, I said the term was either new or remote, so that just demonstrates again that you don't understand relevance.
Even so, I looked it up on dictionary.com, and this is what they say about the word's origins:
A word coined by Jack E. Myers to represent current and future lines of products implementing the concepts of his MetaModel, and also to designate his company The Metadata Company that would develop and market those products.
A data and publication search performed when Myers coined the term, early in the summer of 1969, did not discover any use either of the word "metadata" or "meta data". Myers used the term in a 1973 product brochure and it is an Incontestable registered U.S. Trademark.
So, they not only know it wasn't use seventy years ago, but they know the exact time it was coined, who coined it, what use they had, and that the use was remote and very specialized until the government recently took over Mr. Myers' Trademark apparently as a kind of Orwellian eminent domain. And it appears the government has assigned it a different meaning. All I know is what the meaning sounds like it should be.
Seventy years? More like forty, but you did just pull that out of your ass, didn't you? Like me, you only heard the term the for the first time five weeks ago, and so you presumed it always existed with the current usage. This is exactly what a fascist government loves you to do for it. You've been well-trained.
I'll tell what: someone with your wisdom, intellect and fearlessness belongs in a different party than I do. I don't even respect you enough now to refrain from insulting you. So with that, you go on ignore. Goodbye.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
K & R. I'd say he's in danger of being thrown under the bus, but I suspect...
RufusTFirefly
Jul 2013
#4
K&R& How many of these have we seen defended by long time posters right here? n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Jul 2013
#7
If the info Ed Snowden exposed is relevant, why isn't the info from James O'Keefe relevant?
baldguy
Jul 2013
#22
Democratic Senators, a former Democratic President, and former intelligence agents disagree.
Maedhros
Jul 2013
#59
"All of Snowden's assertions are lies" and, simultaneously, somehow terribly TERRIBLY damaging
MNBrewer
Jul 2013
#61
So, just because you don't *understand* something, that automatically means it's nefarious?
baldguy
Jul 2013
#73
I love how the male news reader finally smiles at the very (first these messages) end....
democrank
Jul 2013
#46