What is "woo"
Options
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There are even valid non-medical reasons for VLCDs. I'm just surprised that this is in the "woo" bucket. I thought "woo" was about magical thinking that didn't work not things that are evidence-based and medically relevant.
And while cabbage soup diets might not be healthy, they aren't the definition of VLCDs nor are all VLCDs bad. There is no need to group all VLCDs together.
And this goes back to my argument that it's poorly defined, no one agrees exactly what it means and will thus confuse the reader because person A will use it with one intent, person B will use it with a different intent while person C uses it with yet another intent. It serves nothing but confusion.
If you don't want to be understood, use woo. Also use it if you don't care or just here to belittle. Myself and many others will see those that choose to use it in those terms.
But if it is important to you to be understood and helpful, use the appropriate adult word.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.
This thread and the obvious various uses of that term within it is my rebuttal. Not everyone will read your definition and of those that will, few will retain it. But other words are universally well known and understood. If you want to be more assured that your information will be understood, don't use woo.
Many words, when they first enter the common vernacular, aren't widely understood. But as they are used more and more often, more and more people come to understand what they mean. Look at how many words are used each year that didn't even exist before and are simply accepted - 'bromance', for example. Many people use the word 'woo' on this site to mean the same thing that I do, and when asked, explain what it means. Then more people know what it means. And the knowledge spreads. Just because I stop using it doesn't take it out of common usage. I'll continue to explain it when asked, so that more people understand when others use it.
Well, clearly you'll eventually learn that woo actually means:
to try to make (someone) love you : to try to have a romantic relationship with (someone)
: to try to attract (someone, such as a customer, voter, worker, etc.) : to attempt to persuade (someone) to buy something from you, vote for you, work for you, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo
Can a word have multiple meanings? Do these meanings evolve?
Say it isn't so!0 -
-
Correct me if i'm wrong, but did you just use "lol" while condemning the use of "derp" by adults?MeanderingMammal wrote: »If it was meant to inform, they'd use informative words like dangerous, harmful or misleading. They don't use those words.
Personally if I'm going to describe something as woo, using one of those alternatives would lend it far more credence than it deserves.
Where something is unsubstantiated bollocks nonsense then sometimes ridiculing the information is an entirely appropriate response.
When discussing topics, I like to remain civil and void the use of poorly understood and very subjective words. Objective words get the point across without unnecessary belittling of people's legitimate questions. If a person can't use grown up words to have an adult discussion, then they should just avoid having conversations with other adults.
And in what world does saying something is dangerous lend credence to it? The next time I'm waking on a street where there's construction, I'm going to hope the warning signs say woo because saying danger doesn't lend enough credence to the situation.
Right?! When I see the word derp and woo used by adults....yikes. Especially derp......Lol.
That's some sweet trolling or some utter lack of awareness, but it's hard to tell which.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if i'm wrong, but did you just use "lol" while condemning the use of "derp" by adults?MeanderingMammal wrote: »If it was meant to inform, they'd use informative words like dangerous, harmful or misleading. They don't use those words.
Personally if I'm going to describe something as woo, using one of those alternatives would lend it far more credence than it deserves.
Where something is unsubstantiated bollocks nonsense then sometimes ridiculing the information is an entirely appropriate response.
When discussing topics, I like to remain civil and void the use of poorly understood and very subjective words. Objective words get the point across without unnecessary belittling of people's legitimate questions. If a person can't use grown up words to have an adult discussion, then they should just avoid having conversations with other adults.
And in what world does saying something is dangerous lend credence to it? The next time I'm waking on a street where there's construction, I'm going to hope the warning signs say woo because saying danger doesn't lend enough credence to the situation.
Right?! When I see the word derp and woo used by adults....yikes. Especially derp......Lol.
That's some sweet trolling or some utter lack of awareness, but it's hard to tell which.
Who cares which it was.
Either way it was delicious.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There are even valid non-medical reasons for VLCDs. I'm just surprised that this is in the "woo" bucket. I thought "woo" was about magical thinking that didn't work not things that are evidence-based and medically relevant.
And while cabbage soup diets might not be healthy, they aren't the definition of VLCDs nor are all VLCDs bad. There is no need to group all VLCDs together.
And this goes back to my argument that it's poorly defined, no one agrees exactly what it means and will thus confuse the reader because person A will use it with one intent, person B will use it with a different intent while person C uses it with yet another intent. It serves nothing but confusion.
If you don't want to be understood, use woo. Also use it if you don't care or just here to belittle. Myself and many others will see those that choose to use it in those terms.
But if it is important to you to be understood and helpful, use the appropriate adult word.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.
This thread and the obvious various uses of that term within it is my rebuttal. Not everyone will read your definition and of those that will, few will retain it. But other words are universally well known and understood. If you want to be more assured that your information will be understood, don't use woo.
Many words, when they first enter the common vernacular, aren't widely understood. But as they are used more and more often, more and more people come to understand what they mean. Look at how many words are used each year that didn't even exist before and are simply accepted - 'bromance', for example. Many people use the word 'woo' on this site to mean the same thing that I do, and when asked, explain what it means. Then more people know what it means. And the knowledge spreads. Just because I stop using it doesn't take it out of common usage. I'll continue to explain it when asked, so that more people understand when others use it.
Well, clearly you'll eventually learn that woo actually means:
to try to make (someone) love you : to try to have a romantic relationship with (someone)
: to try to attract (someone, such as a customer, voter, worker, etc.) : to attempt to persuade (someone) to buy something from you, vote for you, work for you, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo
Can a word have multiple meanings? Do these meanings evolve?
Say it isn't so!
Learning what a word means obviously concerns the context and the intent of the usage. The Amerian English language is full of words that have multiple meanings, and the only way to determine which meaning is intended is to decide the context.
Obviously if users on MFP are saying something being discussed is woo, they aren't discussing a romantic relationship. And the second meaning is a similar variation to the one I listed earlier. The pitch is what creates the scenario.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There are even valid non-medical reasons for VLCDs. I'm just surprised that this is in the "woo" bucket. I thought "woo" was about magical thinking that didn't work not things that are evidence-based and medically relevant.
And while cabbage soup diets might not be healthy, they aren't the definition of VLCDs nor are all VLCDs bad. There is no need to group all VLCDs together.
And this goes back to my argument that it's poorly defined, no one agrees exactly what it means and will thus confuse the reader because person A will use it with one intent, person B will use it with a different intent while person C uses it with yet another intent. It serves nothing but confusion.
If you don't want to be understood, use woo. Also use it if you don't care or just here to belittle. Myself and many others will see those that choose to use it in those terms.
But if it is important to you to be understood and helpful, use the appropriate adult word.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.
This thread and the obvious various uses of that term within it is my rebuttal. Not everyone will read your definition and of those that will, few will retain it. But other words are universally well known and understood. If you want to be more assured that your information will be understood, don't use woo.
Many words, when they first enter the common vernacular, aren't widely understood. But as they are used more and more often, more and more people come to understand what they mean. Look at how many words are used each year that didn't even exist before and are simply accepted - 'bromance', for example. Many people use the word 'woo' on this site to mean the same thing that I do, and when asked, explain what it means. Then more people know what it means. And the knowledge spreads. Just because I stop using it doesn't take it out of common usage. I'll continue to explain it when asked, so that more people understand when others use it.
Well, clearly you'll eventually learn that woo actually means:
to try to make (someone) love you : to try to have a romantic relationship with (someone)
: to try to attract (someone, such as a customer, voter, worker, etc.) : to attempt to persuade (someone) to buy something from you, vote for you, work for you, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo
Can a word have multiple meanings? Do these meanings evolve?
Say it isn't so!
Learning what a word means obviously concerns the context and the intent of the usage. The Amerian English language is full of words that have multiple meanings, and the only way to determine which meaning is intended is to decide the context.
Obviously if users on MFP are saying something being discussed is woo, they aren't discussing a romantic relationship. And the second meaning is a similar variation to the one I listed earlier. The pitch is what creates the scenario.
Are you sure?
Isn't a comment complaint about MFP is that there is too much flirting/it's a pick up place/etc?0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There are even valid non-medical reasons for VLCDs. I'm just surprised that this is in the "woo" bucket. I thought "woo" was about magical thinking that didn't work not things that are evidence-based and medically relevant.
And while cabbage soup diets might not be healthy, they aren't the definition of VLCDs nor are all VLCDs bad. There is no need to group all VLCDs together.
And this goes back to my argument that it's poorly defined, no one agrees exactly what it means and will thus confuse the reader because person A will use it with one intent, person B will use it with a different intent while person C uses it with yet another intent. It serves nothing but confusion.
If you don't want to be understood, use woo. Also use it if you don't care or just here to belittle. Myself and many others will see those that choose to use it in those terms.
But if it is important to you to be understood and helpful, use the appropriate adult word.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.
This thread and the obvious various uses of that term within it is my rebuttal. Not everyone will read your definition and of those that will, few will retain it. But other words are universally well known and understood. If you want to be more assured that your information will be understood, don't use woo.
Many words, when they first enter the common vernacular, aren't widely understood. But as they are used more and more often, more and more people come to understand what they mean. Look at how many words are used each year that didn't even exist before and are simply accepted - 'bromance', for example. Many people use the word 'woo' on this site to mean the same thing that I do, and when asked, explain what it means. Then more people know what it means. And the knowledge spreads. Just because I stop using it doesn't take it out of common usage. I'll continue to explain it when asked, so that more people understand when others use it.
Well, clearly you'll eventually learn that woo actually means:
to try to make (someone) love you : to try to have a romantic relationship with (someone)
: to try to attract (someone, such as a customer, voter, worker, etc.) : to attempt to persuade (someone) to buy something from you, vote for you, work for you, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo
Can a word have multiple meanings? Do these meanings evolve?
Say it isn't so!
Learning what a word means obviously concerns the context and the intent of the usage. The Amerian English language is full of words that have multiple meanings, and the only way to determine which meaning is intended is to decide the context.
Obviously if users on MFP are saying something being discussed is woo, they aren't discussing a romantic relationship. And the second meaning is a similar variation to the one I listed earlier. The pitch is what creates the scenario.
Are you sure?
Isn't a comment complaint about MFP is that there is too much flirting/it's a pick up place/etc?
That's why I stay out of the Chit-Chat forum.0 -
In all honesty, people are getting so angry over this word - 'woo' - I think it has a legitimate origin. According to the MacMillan dictionary: To woo is to try to persuade people to support you or to buy something from you, especially by saying and doing nice things. So while it may have been loosely used as a noun - 'that's woo ' here on the boards, I think when it's used that way, what we are saying is that you have been taken in by a sales pitch.
Well, this definition makes sense in the context of the people getting taken in by weight loss products.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I didn't say I was trying to define woo.
I didn't say you were trying to define woo.
It's still a weak argument, and you should feel bad.
Nah, it's not an argument, it's my opinion and dem feelz is the whole point, apparently.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There are even valid non-medical reasons for VLCDs. I'm just surprised that this is in the "woo" bucket. I thought "woo" was about magical thinking that didn't work not things that are evidence-based and medically relevant.
And while cabbage soup diets might not be healthy, they aren't the definition of VLCDs nor are all VLCDs bad. There is no need to group all VLCDs together.
And this goes back to my argument that it's poorly defined, no one agrees exactly what it means and will thus confuse the reader because person A will use it with one intent, person B will use it with a different intent while person C uses it with yet another intent. It serves nothing but confusion.
If you don't want to be understood, use woo. Also use it if you don't care or just here to belittle. Myself and many others will see those that choose to use it in those terms.
But if it is important to you to be understood and helpful, use the appropriate adult word.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.
This thread and the obvious various uses of that term within it is my rebuttal. Not everyone will read your definition and of those that will, few will retain it. But other words are universally well known and understood. If you want to be more assured that your information will be understood, don't use woo.
Many words, when they first enter the common vernacular, aren't widely understood. But as they are used more and more often, more and more people come to understand what they mean. Look at how many words are used each year that didn't even exist before and are simply accepted - 'bromance', for example. Many people use the word 'woo' on this site to mean the same thing that I do, and when asked, explain what it means. Then more people know what it means. And the knowledge spreads. Just because I stop using it doesn't take it out of common usage. I'll continue to explain it when asked, so that more people understand when others use it.
Well, clearly you'll eventually learn that woo actually means:
to try to make (someone) love you : to try to have a romantic relationship with (someone)
: to try to attract (someone, such as a customer, voter, worker, etc.) : to attempt to persuade (someone) to buy something from you, vote for you, work for you, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo
Can a word have multiple meanings? Do these meanings evolve?
Say it isn't so!
Learning what a word means obviously concerns the context and the intent of the usage. The Amerian English language is full of words that have multiple meanings, and the only way to determine which meaning is intended is to decide the context.
Obviously if users on MFP are saying something being discussed is woo, they aren't discussing a romantic relationship. And the second meaning is a similar variation to the one I listed earlier. The pitch is what creates the scenario.
Are you sure?
Isn't a comment complaint about MFP is that there is too much flirting/it's a pick up place/etc?
That's why my Avatar pic is me in my WEDDING dress ha ha ha ha!!!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I didn't say I was trying to define woo.
I didn't say you were trying to define woo.
It's still a weak argument, and you should feel bad.
Nah, it's not an argument, it's my opinion and dem feelz is the whole point, apparently.
So you are using sarcasm to say the subjective experience is risible.
That's just as bad as proposing a dictionary definition as the One True Definition and then writing:
"Learning what a word means obviously concerns the context and the intent of the usage. ... The pitch is what creates the scenario."
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions