Werewolf Classification (A special Name?)

[Vuldari]

A thought crossed my mind a few nights ago that I felt like tossing out to see what people think.

As you all know, I am bound and determined to defend the character of the Werewolf as I have come to know it ... Full Moons, Primal Violent Impulses, Forced (painful) transformations, etc. etc. ...

However, it is the primary desire of most of us here in the pack to create a NEW kind of werewolf that is different from the old movie monster incarnation. ... and it has been bothering me to no end that all of these creatures are being called the same thing, when they are clearly all quite different.

I've presented my opinions and reasons for wishing to keep them as distinct entities, but my preference to reserving the word "Werewolf" to primarily the more Campfire worthy stories and incarnations is clearly not going to fly with anyone else.

The word "Werewolf" just means too many different things to different people.


Here is my new Suggestion: - - - - - Could we give the "Monster" Werewolf it's own name?


Because we noticed a clear common form between various versions of werewolves, which is a certain mixed combination of Wolf and Human features, we saw fit to give it a common name so we all know what we are talking about.

"Gestalt"

How would everyone else feel about adopting a common term for Werewolves based around the template set by stories like Lon Cheney's "The WolfMan"?

Maybe we could call them "Talbot(s)" or "Warg(s)", or something else. (I'm sure we could probably come up with something better) ... it would be a term we would only use in descriptive conversation on the forum here, and not something that would actually be used in stories, just as I doubt most of our own incarnations of Werewolves would actually call their transformed state their "Gestalt" form in casual conversation about themselves.

It would just really relieve my mind to know that the most statistically familiar and well known incarnation of the Werewolf was solidified as a distinct character, instantly identifiable among all other incarnations.

Then, when talking about our OWN version of the werewolf, we could easily just say that it IS or is NOT a "[whatever]", and really say a lot without needing to say much at all.


I'm just curious about what everyone else thinks about this idea.


? ? ?

[Vagrant]

You could've done without calling it the most statistically popular werewolf, Vuldari...

But playful ribbing aside, this is an idea I could really get behind, and I agree with you. I'll be honest here, I do respect you and your right to an opinion, and if anyone ever told you that you couldn't have your view of Werewolves, I'd be one of the first to jump to your defence.

Everyone is entitled to their own ideals, and we really shouldn't have to fight over the identity of those ideals. That doesn't really allow us to share ideas and work together as a cohesive whole either, if we're all talking about different things without knowing it because they all fall under an umbrella term.

So why not? I can't see any reason why you shouldn't apply a term to your own Werewolf as well, and to be honest, I encourage you to do so. That'll help avoid the confusion I imagine, because people won't need to state what their Werewolf isn't ... that won't be required, but they can instead supply what their Werewolf is.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that we could probably have a talk about the different kinds of Werewolves. The type that can shift only to full Wolf (like Angua), the type that can only shift to gestalt form, the type which have complete morphological freedom (shape-shifters, if you like), and the type which follow the standards of Horror movie and ancient lore. [We could also try and factor in whether the Werewolf has freedom of mind with such classifications, perhaps a hyphen-based naming system...] We could try and put names to as many of these as possible.

Once we have these names available, we could offer an option in the profile to declare our personal favourite type of Werewolf, and that would appear on the left. That or we could simply stick that information in our signatures.

But regardless, having a basis for understanding which kind of creature we're talking about, and a way to supply that information, would in all cases be a good thing. So I'd say great call, Vuldari, I'm behind you.

[vrikasatma]

"Talbots," h'mm...

I like it, it's a nice homage. "Talbot," however, is an English family name, and could imply that all werewolves are one, incestuous family. That's okay if you want to introduce that angle, though...

Afterthought: Talbots are mediaeval hunting hounds. And as we all know, wolves despise dogs, particularly hounds.

[Chris]

I like the idea. My mind already behaves in a way like that.. for example, when someone says "werewolf" and shows something more akin to a wolf furry, or what's for all intents and purposes a normal quadrupedal wolf that changes into a human, my mind goes, "hey, that's not a werewolf, " even though it technically is.

Similarly, the werewolves in the game Legendary are described as basically something that's "not a man that changes into a beast and who can infect others, but it's own species with an unchanging form that's part ape and part canine", but still with a temper and pechant to violence like the classical werewolves. It's difficult for me to think of them as "werewolves", and more as "werewolf-like". They're still pretty cool, just not something I'd reactively call "werewolf".

As for what to actually call the different styles.. I have no idea. I stink at naming things.

[Aki]

I don't particularly like the idea. I mean, why do we need it? Werewolf mythos is different because it can be. That's how myth works. You can change to how you need or want it to work in your works. I mean, we don't have different words for pretty vampires and ones that are ugly like Nosferatu or ones that are complete middle-road average joes. And there's not much to speak of for zombis besides calling the slow ones "shamblers" or the fast ones "runners" or such. What makes werewolves such a special case?

If one really needs to specify what type they're talking about you could always say "monstrous werewolves" or whatever is appropriate to what you're talking about in a thread. Don't see why that doesn't work just fine without creating more funky terms.

[Leonca~]

Sounds like an interesting idea. Werewolves have already been given a zillion different names ever since the first person thought them up however many years ago that was, since each country or region developed their own name and unique definition of how they would look and act. I see no reason for this to stop now that we have reached modern times.

[Vagrant]

Hm...

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if perhaps actually having a small area of our profile designated to explaining our Werewolves would be helpful as well.

I've actually thought long and hard on this, and I've even restarted typing this post a few times, so this might be a bit haywire and all over the place, so forgive me if it is.

Let's see ... I've already covered before that we could discuss tags, but let's consider other options. We could provide an "Other" option to select if none of the tags fit (I'll explain my reasoning for this later), and we could also make this system purely opt in. Like our custom-titles, we could simply stress that this is a system for people to use if they want to, not because they have to.

What you said, Aki, struck a chord with me, not because of my Werewolves, but because of my Dragons. This lead me to thinking that it would be nice if we could have some kind of indication that we have our own spin on things.

Dragons have basic categories too, like Eastern and Western, but they also have subcategories within our culture, such as Dungeons & Dragons, Tolkien, Pern, and so on. Those could be labels similar to how these Werewolf labels could work, but it wouldn't work to have "-variation" options, and "Other" options, this would entice people to look at that person's profile to see how their spin is different.

For example, someone could cite Pern-variation, and then explain a bit in their profile how their particular version works.

If a person has to select Other, then they could put in for a name in the thread where we'll talk about names.

I suppose my Dragons would be Dungeons & Dragons-variation, of a sort. My Werewolves would be shapeshifter-variation, because my Werewolves aren't that dissimilar from the new age Werewolves that a lot of people around here seem to like.

The only difference with my Werewolves would be that over the course of their evolution, they adjusted and adapted, and therefore ruled out the need for a full pack hierarchy, and therefore they don't have omegas. They have a Chief, whom is pack elected, and the Chief can choose two (or in special cases, three) Advisors/Intermediaries, but beyond that there's no structure--and packs can get pretty big.

The difference with my Dragons however would be more difficult to explain, because they tend to uphold the ideals of my mindset. Basically, they're fervantly egalitarian, despite the next Dragon's station or speciality, and due to being openly telepathic/empathic, they have no taboos beyond causing any creature suffering wilfully. And due to their telepathy/empathy, they usually figure out if they're doing that pretty fast.

I'll take a moment here to explain that most of the fun in my personal tales with these two groups is that they have such a hard time wrapping their heads around each other. The Dragons see the Wolves as stubborn, and sometimes too headstrong, and the Wolves see the Dragons as far too naive and gullible. But they also see the better side of each, too. They see something worth preserving, and that's why they look out for each other.

In the case of the Dragons, it's the ideals, for the Wolves; they're proud traditionalists who have a very strong culture with a past of tales and lore, this all fascinates the Dragons no end.

So most of the differences with my creatures are of the mind, that's why I could work with a "-variation", tag (Wolven Shapeshifter-variant, Dungeons & Dragons-variant). That way a person could tell what kind of creature I was working with at a glance, but if they wanted a more fleshed out explanation, they could take a look at my profile for more. And if there was no "-variation" element, or the tag wasn't "Other", they'd know they'd never even need to take a look.

So in the case of horror fans, they could select "Horror" (or "Warg"), and everyone would know where they'd stand.

/breathes

Okay, I think that's actually the best I've managed to explain it, so I'll leave it at that. I'm not going to write this again.

[Vuldari]

You could've done without calling it the most statistically popular werewolf, Vuldari.

What I meant was ... if one was to do a global poll or survey and asked a large number of random people on the street to describe what a "Werewolf" was, most of them would describe what they have seen in the movies.

... thus "STATISTICALLY" popular and well known... not "BEST" ...

"Talbots," h'mm...

I like it, it's a nice homage. "Talbot," however, is an English family name, and could imply that all werewolves are one, incestuous family. That's okay if you want to introduce that angle, though...

Afterthought: Talbots are mediaeval hunting hounds. And as we all know, wolves despise dogs, particularly hounds.

It was just the first thing that came to mind. I don't think it's really the best choice either, as the name is so broadly used and common (in some parts of the world). I'm reluctant to use "Warg" either, since it is already part of Tolkiens personal mythology.


I don't necessarily think that we need to give names to EVERY specific variety of Werewolf.

I just think that, since peoples opinions of "Movie Style" monster werewolves seem to be so polarizing among many werewolf fans, it makes sense to me to provide an easy way for one to say if they are FOR or AGAINST that particular Template/Archetype.

Or ... use it as a starting point when describing a werewolf character by being able so say something like, "They are sort of like a "[...]", only they have no weaknesses to Silver, no super-regenerative abilities, and can shift anytime" ... etc.



We are all aware of that particular combination of specific attributes ...

Changes on a Full Moon ... Killed by a Silver Bullet ... Goes Crazy when Transformed ... Passed on by 'Bite' ... depicted as a "Curse" ...



Everyone knows it already. Why not give it a Name?



I'm pretty sure that almost everyone here would just use it to say, "I'm sick and tired of all the ["..."]s being the only kind of Werewolves I ever see in movies, and really want to see something DIFFERENT for a change", as has been the general consensus of most since the beginning.

That's fine.

I'm just proposing making that easier to say, without the need for one to describe the creature they are talking about every time. You just say it's name, and everyone knows exactly what you mean.



... all we need is a suitable Term or Name to label that particular Incarnation/Genre of Werewolf.


Should we just use "WolfMan"? ... or maybe something like "WorWulf"? ... "HollyWolf"? ... "Lycursed"? ... or some other word with a strangely appropriate other meaning that I don't know yet. (Like "Gestalt" which means something like "a combined form whose value is greater than the sum of it's parts")

Come on ... I'm sure someone can come up with better ideas than these (I hope).



Whether you love it or hate it, I really think the creature/genre needs it's own term/name (if only for the purposes of streamlining Werewolf related conversations).

[Vagrant]

Good grief, I'm hogging this thread...

First of all, I was just teasing, Vuldari. I knew what you meant and I didn't mean any harm by it. So I hope there was no offense taken, there.

Anyway, I agree with you, but as for the term ... does it have to be complex? How about just "Traditional" or "Horror"? We could call them Horror-Wolves if we had to, just to get the point across. But if you really want to convey what they are, then it's best to name them as closely to what they are as you can.

(Edited: I used a double-negative! Augh! Unclean!)

[Vuldari]

... but as for the term ... does it have to be complex? How about just "Traditional" or "Horror"? We could call them Horror-Wolves if we had to, just to get the point across.

"Horror" would sort of pigeonhole the plot of any story they are used in, which is something which I've been trying to explain doesn't need to happen. Just because the Lycanthropy makes the person act violently, doesn't mean the story has to be a Horror-Story.

"Traditional" would NEVER work, as there are far to many TRADITIONS about Werewolf stories that pre-date the version in question, which are quite distinct from one another. ... whose tradition? ... That is just not clear enough.

"Hollywood Werewolves" would probably get the point across for most (at least short-term), but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Also ... if movies like "Freeborn" (if it ever gets made), and "Camp Lycanthrope", and possibly others come along and stir up the film standard, that wouldn't really be valid any more.

"Monster" wouldn't really be specific enough either. A werewolf that turns into a 15 foot tall three headed demon "Cerberus" beast and breathes fire would be a "Monster" too, but that would not be the same creature.


... I think a single word that just means specifically that variety of Werewolf would be best.

I think that when one says "WolfMan" rather than "Werewolf", it is usually the specific creature I'm talking about that comes to mind first. ... the one seen in old movies, and in Halloween stories ... the kind of Werewolf that ye olde villagers would hunt down with torches and pitchforks and rifles loaded with silver slugs if they found out about ... the kind that is expected to try to maul or eat something every full moon, if left to it's own devices ...

The only reason I'm reluctant to adopt that term for this purpose is because I think there are probably at least a few people who still would consider that just another term for Werewolves/Lycanthropes in general, as well as possibly meaning other things ... like that guy who lived with a Pack Of Wolves as part of the pack for a while (for research) and other uses/definitions.

Also ... would most people even Notice if one said "WolfMan" instead of Werewolf, and know they meant something specific by using that term instead of the other?

I really think it should be something that can be instantly recognized, and only needs to be described or defined Once if one has not seen or heard the term before (Like "Gestalt").


... assuming we even do anything with this idea at all ...

[Vagrant]

I still think we should, base labels of understanding are a great foundation to work from. The only trap we could get ourselves into is making them too complex and all-encompassing, which is why I suggested the variant system.

For example, a review can use labels to dictate whether a game is decent; perhaps buy, rent, ignore. But if you use a scale of 10 or 100, then elements of confusion are brought into play, and one begins to wonder how someone could quantify that score.

So the need for iconic labels, labels which are descriptive, is necessary. That's something I agree with you on, but I too would be cautious about taking terminology that already exists and twisting it to mean something else. That could prove self-destructive, as it may cause more confusion than it could solve.

"Well, that's what Wolfman means there, but that's not what Wolfman implies here."

Actually, someone recently made this point out to me, and that stuck with me. It was when I was confused over the origins of gestalt, and it was pointed out to me then that the Pack avoids using terms that've already been used for this very reason. Of course, I couldn't help but see the genius and the logic in that statement, and that's something we need to keep in mind.

(To give full credit, it was Silverclaw that pointed this out to me.)

Anyway, back on topic, that's why I was trying to help you find a term which was both iconic, yet perhaps was given context by its use inside of these forums. And context is important.

I don't really have any new suggestions, but I'm beginning to think that something like Hollywolf or Bollywere might be the best options at the end of the day, they're a portmanteaux of Holly/Bollywood, and that's iconic in and of itself, but the way in which they're used could be something that's singularly implied for pack context alone.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

[Midnight]

.

[JoshuaMadoc]

Zoanthropes.

[Vagrant]

Zoanthropes.

Isn't that term strongly tied with Warhammer 40k and Tyranids? The only other place I've seen it used is in Bloody Roar, and there it was applied to sentient, responsible were-creatures.

[JoshuaMadoc]

Zoanthropes.

Isn't that term strongly tied with Warhammer 40k and Tyranids? The only other place I've seen it used is in Bloody Roar, and there it was applied to sentient, responsible were-creatures.

Zoo + Anthropos = Animal + Man. I brought it up because it's a viable term, not because it's the video game equivalent of the "Lycan" bandwagon.

[Leonca~]

I like the name HollyWolf. I’ve been calling the movie versions “Hollywood Werewolves,” “Movie Werewolves,” or “Bipedal Werewolves” for a long time now, but I can see how those terms might not be specific enough. HollyWolf could be used to describe any that closely follows the Lon Chaney Jr. version (as most of the movie versions seem to do, to some extent or another). Or you could also use a term like “Traditional Hollywood,” since the majority of the older movies were like that.

[Saber]

Uh nobody beleives me that im a werewolf...

[Kaebora]

Uh nobody beleives me that im a werewolf...

Of course not. Two reasons why I wouldn't believe someone that made that claim.

A) If werewolves existed, they wouldn't expose themselves to the public with fear of being rejected from society.

B) The concept of werewolves in ancient times was not the same as werewolves we think of today. Originally a pair of murderous cannibalistic people in 19th century London society were each called a "wolf", and it developed from there. There are many origin stories, but none tie in the weird claims people bring to this forum.

As for anyone that isn't a werewolf movie fan, such a claim would make them think you're either crazy, watch too many horror films, or crave attention.

To be blunt with you, in my opinion it's just your attempt to get attention. If you just tell the truth now and admit you're kidding us, nobody will be mad. We'll be appreciative that you stopped the ruse sooner than later... and continue to post here with more constructive conversation. Well, I wont rant on this again anyways. If you continue to claim you're a werewolf I can't stop you. Just trying to keep you from embarrassing yourself.

[Vuldari]

Zoanthropes.

Isn't that term strongly tied with Warhammer 40k and Tyranids? The only other place I've seen it used is in Bloody Roar, and there it was applied to sentient, responsible were-creatures.

Zoo + Anthropos = Animal + Man. I brought it up because it's a viable term, not because it's the video game equivalent of the "Lycan" bandwagon.

Why would we use a term that eludes to a broad range of ANY Animal/Human combination, when the term I'm suggesting we create or adopt would be intended to be far more specific?

... not just specifically Werewolves, but a certain distinct variety of Lycanthrope ... a name for just the kind depicted in the Pop Media of recent history ... specifically the : Full Moon, Silver Bullets, Hunt By Night, hidden but troubled by day, Scary Campfire Folklore Legend, passed on by bite as a traveling curse : kind.

You know ... the one that almost everyone here is sick of. (Except for me and a handful of others)

It could even be somewhat derogatory sounding. It is a version of the creature that no one in their right mind would ever WANT to Be. ... it would make sense if the term made it sound unappealing, because it IS. It's a kind of Lycanthropy that turns people into MONSTERS in the form of Wolves against their will. (generally speaking) It's a kind of Werewolf people should be both Afraid of and have Pity on.

... you know ... THAT kind of Werewolf.


I'm proposing coming up with a name for THAT kind of Werewolf, and just that one specifically.


Purely for the sake of clarifying, streamlining and simplifying conversations about Werewolves here in the Forum, the same way we use the word "Gestalt".


... because it seems like we are constantly talking about it anyway, only it takes a long while to describe sometimes. It seems like every other Newbie types a great long post about what they don't like about typical Werewolves, and how they want to see them presented in a more positive light ... yadda, yadda ...


It just might make things a bit easier if we just had a word for them so one could say:

"Oh ... you mean "[...]"s? Yeah ... join the club. I'm sick of them too."

... or ...

"Hey ... I still like "[...]"s. 'AWIL' and 'THE WOLFMAN (starring Lon Cheney Jr.)' were CLASSICs".

... or ...

"My character is a Lion "[...]". He's just like a classic werewolf, only he changes into a Gestalt Lion instead of a Wolf, is vulnerable to Gold instead of Silver and changes at High Noon on every cloudless sunny day instead of only once a month." (weird, I know ... I'm just making up examples)


It is a base starting point that we all here (love it or hate it) are intimately familiar with, and most people, almost no matter where they are from, know it as well.


"Zoanthropes" just sounds like a different way of saying "Anthros" or "Anthropomorphics" ... and I'm pretty sure it is already used elsewhere.

I think we would want to avoid using terms that have other established meanings that may confuse people. If (while browsing the forum) someone new here looks up the definition of "Gestalt" elsewhere, our use of it actually makes sense. However If one looked up "Zoanthropes", they would probably think we are talking about Theriantropy or Roleplaying, or maybe the "Bloody Roar" games, and be totally confused.


... an interesting word though. I just don't think it would work here for that purpose.

[RedEye]

How about "CryptoLycoAnthropes"?

Crypto from Cryptozoology: The study of Legendary or Unknown Animals
Lyco from Lycos: the Greek word for Wolf
Anthrope/Anthropes/Anthropology/ etc: Manlike (s) Manlike (p) Study of man or men (the "ology" is the giveaway)

Then there's always "Old Fuzzball", although that isn't all that scientific.

[Vagrant]

I really like CryptoLycoAnthrope even if it is a bit of a mouthful, it's just fun. Perhaps we could really mash it up and compress it a bit ... maybe Lycryptos, but that's probably terrible and lacks the charm of the long title.

I also really like "old fuzzball", been called that once or twice myself, even though I'm really not all that old.

[Vuldari]

I really like CryptoLycoAnthrope even if it is a bit of a mouthful, it's just fun. Perhaps we could really mash it up and compress it a bit ... maybe Lycryptos, but that's probably terrible and lacks the charm of the long title.

UGH ... "Cryp-to-Ly-co-An-thrope" is a stumbling, fumbling word with too many syllables. I don't like that at all ... just because it feels so wrong to try to say. It sounds like an entire sentence.

I like the use of "CryptoZoology" though.

"Lycrypto" or just "Lycryp" (the fewer syllables, the better) sound like interesting suggestions though. ... hmmm ...

Assuming we use any name at all, I think references to either old Hollywood or CryptoZoology in the name/word might be good options. Either would be inherently suggestive of the words intended meaning, even before being explained or defined.

[Scott Gardener]

I believe in naming things in the most self-explanatory manner possible, using existing words before resorting to new ones. I have been thinking of werewolves in terms of archetypes, i.e. "heroic werewolves," "monsterous werewolves," and so forth. I've used the term "consensus werewolf" to describe the contemporary consensus popularized today by people like us, as a reaction against the monsterous werewolf.

The problem with my own method is that it's fairly imprecise. For one thing, some of our consensus werewolves can appear pretty monstrous. So, admittedly, my method can get a little wordy.

[Vagrant]

As far as my personal opinion goes, I agree with you Scott, I've said things should be named as they are and archetypes would be a good way of doing that. This thread has had so many fantastic ideas for possible names though, that I can see why it would be hard for anyone to decide on one. Since this is Vuldari's idea though, I'd imagine it should be his choice.

And I don't see anything wrong with a wordy system. In fact, I'm hoping that once a name has been decided upon, a thread can be created (by whomever desires to do it) to chronicle the Pack's Werewolf definitions. Having definitions and labels never hurt Dragons, and Werewolves are becoming almost as varied as them these days, so getting some kind of organisation in order would be worthwhile. I don't think it matters all that much if it's a bit complex and wordy, as long as it's intuitive.

(Edit: Rewrote this post, it didn't convey what I wanted it to, so I changed the wording and made it more concise.)

[Vuldari]

Generally speaking, we are all going to define our own stories and characters our own ways regardless.

This idea is a dynamic concept at the moment ... I have recognized a possible need or use for a new word, but it's not quite clear yet what it should be, or how it should be used.

I'm really reluctant to the idea of making a whole catalogue of names and archetypes. That would be a headache, and more annoying than helpful, IMHO.

Each and every one of us is going to vary our opinions and renditions as time passes, and from each other. "Consensus" categories I think would be broken too quickly and become invalid before they really begin to become useful.

For our OWN interpretations, it's probably best to just go about as we do and just explain them in detail, rather than create clear-cut divisions preemptively and then ask each other to put our characters in one category or the other. ... Lycanthropy seems to be in a state of creative reinvention at the moment, so most or all new ideas will be breaking category and rule barriers anyway.

It is only in the sense that the variety of creature in question is in the "PAST", and thus set as-is that I feel it may be appropriate to name it. That is how they USED TO do it ... a set of rules and general expectations that all seemed to follow and accept for a good 50 years or more, but few seem willing or eager to stick to any longer.


However ... a variation on my original idea sprang up last night, inspired by some of the input you've been giving, as well as new thoughts I've had since starting the discussion.


It seems to me now that the "Werewolf" is not the only creature that has a retro-modern incarnation. Like I began to think about in my "Monster Movie Madness" thread, which didn't really go anywhere, "The WolfMan", while the version of it in question was at peak popularity, was part of a whole classification of creatures, like vintage theatrical versions of Vampires/Dracula, The Mummy, and various other things that went "Bump" in the night.

... and all of them are going through a sort of Re-invention right now, with new floods of "Vampire", "Werewolf", and a trilogy of "Mummy" movies in recent history.

The word that was rolling through my head last night was "HollyCrypto" ... which basically would refer to Pop media representations of mythical monsters, specifically beginning with the advent of the modern ("Hollywood") motion picture.

So, at this point, there would actually be at least two generations of this going on. Vintage/Classic/Retro HollyCrypto (Early 1900's - 1980's), and Modern HollyCrypto (Mid/Late 1990's - Today).

Because the technology available was limited in the vintage generations, the Monsters were more about the Psychology factor (mental/emotional drama) to draw in the audiences and make an impact. ... which I think was kind of awesome.

More modern incarnations are all about the "WOW" factor ... how big, how fast, how strong, and how many things it can smash or cause to explode in the course of a single story/film.




All of this of course is just another suggestion for consideration.

As for "My thread ... my choice", even if we compiled a list of suggestions and I choose, or we all choose by vote (perhaps in a poll) a winning word/term for this ... if no one here wants to use it, then ... well ... whatever.

I'm certainly not INSISTING that we all start using language I'm inventing from now on. I'm just throwing the idea out there. If this was a bad idea to begin with, then "Oh well". It's no big deal really. ... but if we DO start using a new word/term, I think it should be chosen and accepted by consensus, rather than by me, because if I'm the only one who likes it, then I would be the only one who uses it, which would defeat the purpose of the whole thing.




"HollyCrypto" ... does that make sense to anyone else, or does that just sound really weird?

Another possible word to add to the theoretical list I suppose.