# You "Goofed"? You Fuckin' "Goofed'? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 1, 2005, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110 "2005-08-01T08:28:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/21 "2005-08-01T19:12:08Z")
> [@Tyrrell McAllister](#): > > Are you seriously suggesting that the word “goof” has a precise, widely-agreed-upon definition in the engineer’s lexicon? No, I was talking about “test flight”. But **Tuckerfan** has a point that “goof” does not really convey the gravity of the situation. In particular, “goof” tends to connote an unintentional mistake rather than bad judgment (which NASA has raised to an art form). On the other hand, at least Griffin is being more or less honest with himself and others about the fact that there is a problem. Dan Goldin would have probably said that the media are blowing it out of proportion so would you please give him a break because he doesn’t have time to deal with crackpot Chicken Littles who don’t know how rockets work anyhow, and things are faster, cheaper and better, so please cut my budget. (Goldin is the guy who was in charge of NASA during the time they were busily laying the groundwork for the Columbia accident.) And Sean O’Keefe, master accountant, was out there talking about how the foam couldn’t have caused the Columbia accident because it was just like a lid blowing off a cooler sitting in the back of his pickup going down the highway. Griffin is still OK in my book. ---
**Author:** ![GrizzRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7ba0ec/32.png) [@GrizzRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrizzRich)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/22 "2005-08-01T19:37:58Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > /snip/… and then somebody dies and it’s the end of the world…/snip/ For them… yeah. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/23 "2005-08-01T21:36:24Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Look. The Space Shuttle has done over 100 missions with only two accidents. That’s a better than 98% success rate. And that’s the old, unsafe way. > > These people have less than a 1 in 50 chance of dying. I’ll take those odds anyday. And if they die, well, nobody said that space travel was safe, all wishes to the contrary. > > I swear, people latch on to the most irrational stuff. This foam problem has existed from day one, and then somebody dies and it’s the end of the world. Space travel is not safe and it never will be, science fiction notwithstanding. Astronauts are pretty hardcore people. they want to fly so much, I think they would accept almost any risk, just to keep flying. However, those of us on the ground in NASA and DCMA (I are one of them) have the job of keeping those risks as low as possible. Considering the number of flights, the success rate is phenomenal. However, we are still on the hook to minimize the risks. As a personal perception from the bottom looking up, purely speculative and anecdotal, there is still too much emphasis on “making schedule” at the expense of QA (quality assurance) and S&MA (safety and mission assurance). ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/24 "2005-08-01T21:42:55Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > NASA’s headquarters is in D.C. :slaps self: Yeah, I knew that. I should’ve said that I thought Mission Control is in Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/25 "2005-08-01T22:04:41Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > :slaps self: > Yeah, I knew that. I should’ve said that I thought Mission Control is in Texas. Yeah, they’re still south of Houston, AFAIK. ---
**Author:** ![Bytegeist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Bytegeist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bytegeist)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/26 "2005-08-01T22:31:18Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > :slaps self: > Yeah, I knew that. I should’ve said that I thought Mission Control is in Texas. Right. I thought you surely did. But I took your phrase “big wigs” to be referring to the people ultimately in charge: Griffin and his staff. They’re the ones who decide whether there will or should be more shuttle missions, which is what the OP is on about. Of course the top people here in Washington are informed by experts all over NASA, including engineers at Johnson I’m sure. It’s a very collaborative decision. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/27 "2005-08-01T22:50:42Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Look. The Space Shuttle has done over 100 missions with only two accidents. That’s a better than 98% success rate. And that’s the old, unsafe way. > > These people have less than a 1 in 50 chance of dying. I’ll take those odds anyday. I dare say you wouldn’t. If any airline lost 1 plane in 50, it wouldn’t be able to pay people to get on board. Still, I’m all for cutting NASA some slack. Yes, they used to just roll the dice. Now it seems that safety concerns are given proper attention. They probably fixed 98% of the foam issues, fixing the rest does not seem to be technically impossible. For all we know, those gap fillers could have been an issue on other flights, we just never took that close a look. The shuttle isn’t broke, but we can’t deny the fleet is aging and we need to get the next generation of spacecraft up to speed. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/28 "2005-08-01T22:56:20Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > No, I was talking about “test flight”. Well, ok, but then it was a little weird for you to say “Engineers use language like they use numbers - words have specific, fixed definitions,” when you really just meant for that to apply to one phrase, and were specifically excluding the only other piece of language at issue in this thread. > [@](#): > > But **Tuckerfan** has a point that “goof” does not really convey the gravity of the situation. In particular, “goof” tends to connote an unintentional mistake rather than bad judgment. Perhaps, but it takes a huge amount of time and effort to ensure that one’s utterances “tend to connote” only precisely what one wants. This is evident in the large fees demanded by marketing and PR firms. That’s time and effort I’d rather NASA spent elsewhere. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, at least Griffin is being more or less honest with himself and others about the fact that there is a problem. [snip] Griffin is still OK in my book. I agree with your assessment, including your appraisal of the other administrators, which I snipped. To me, this indicates that his use of the word “goof” does not allow us to conclude that he needs some sense beat into him with a clue by four, such as the OP offers. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/29 "2005-08-02T00:43:05Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Look. The Space Shuttle has done over 100 missions with only two accidents. That’s a better than 98% success rate. And that’s the old, unsafe way. > > These people have less than a 1 in 50 chance of dying. I’ll take those odds anyday. This is an incorrect application of probability; it’s like saying that if you flip a quarter five times and it comes up heads 4 of those tosses, that your odds of getting tails on the sixth toss is 20%. Nope; the odds are always 50%. NASA has never really developed even a first-guess value for the odds of a launch and operational failure. Such a calculation would be rife with guesswork and assumptions, of course, but at least it would be a starting point. Instead, they assume that any situation that hasn’t caused trouble in the past, even if it exceeds safety limits or deals with a phenomenon unconsidered by Shuttle designers, just isn’t a problem. As for doing it “the old, unsafe way,” it doesn’t appear the Band-Aids that have been applied have done _anything_ to mitigate the problem, much less address the root cause. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > I swear, people latch on to the most irrational stuff. This foam problem has existed from day one, and then somebody dies and it’s the end of the world. Space travel is not safe and it never will be, science fiction notwithstanding. You’re correct; the foam problem has existed since Day 1. That it has continued to–allowed to–exist, despite warnings from engineers and physical evidence of damage is emblematic of the core problem; not that the Shuttle is a complicated, failure-prone design, or that space travel is inherently dangerous, but that NASA addresses _known, repeated problems_ by ignoring them, and justifying their deliberate obtuseness by arguing that since the failures haven’t yet resulted in a catastrophic accident that they must not be any kind of problem. This is not _irrational stuff_; if the Shuttle were hit by a piece of orbital debris, or an SME came apart without warning, despite inspection and with no indications of problems, then we could chalk it up to the normal hazards of spaceflight and the dangers of engineering a design with low safety margins. These are the kind of hazards that the astronauts and the space program has to accept. But the problems that resulted in the loss of _Challenger_ and _Columbia_ were well-documented and were ignored by the brass for years. They are problems that could have been fixed–not without expense of course, but correctible nonetheless–but instead NASA managers have relied on risk projections that go beyond optimistic and dive headfirst into fantasy. What is objectionable in the use of terms like “test flight” and “goof” is that this clearly isn’t a test flight, what with five nonessential crewmembers aboard, and two and a half years spent attacking a potentially catastrophic problem with bailing wire and white paint to no effect whatsoever goes way beyond “goof” and into misstep, blunder, or foul up. For NASA, this is SNAFU[sup]\*[/sup]. Stranger [sup]\*[/sup]Situation Normal, All Fucked Up. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/30 "2005-08-02T02:59:50Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > What do you expect from the masters of understatement? They called the Challenger explosion a “major malfunction”! Maybe because they are more careful in their choice of words than the general public, and you. The Challenger did not “explode”, even though it may have looked like that on the launch video. Structural failure led to the rupture of the external tank and the orbiter was torn apart by aerodynamic loads that exceeded its design limits. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/31 "2005-08-02T05:01:28Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > The Challenger did not “explode”, even though it may have looked like that on the launch video. Structural failure led to the rupture of the external tank and the orbiter was torn apart by aerodynamic loads that exceeded its design limits. > [@](#): > > [thesaurus.com](http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=explode)(bolding mine) > Main Entry: burst > Part of Speech: verb > Definition: blow > Synonyms: barge, blow up, break, crack, detonate, discharge, disintegrate, erupt, **explode** , fly open, fracture, fragment, gush forth, perforate, pierce, pop, prick, puncture, run, rupture, rush, shatter, shiver, splinter, split, spout, **tear apart** > Antonyms: attach, connect, fasten, hold together, implode, join > Source: Roget’s New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1) > Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. Care to try that again? ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/32 "2005-08-02T05:44:24Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Care to try that again? The ignition of the fuel from the ruptured external tank was a secondary result of the accident. It was not the primary cause of the accident, and the fuel deflagrated (burned rapidly), it didn’t detonate. The orbiter broke up due to aerodynamic forces that exceeded its design limits. These aerodynamic forces were the result of loss of attitude control at high speed. Attitude control was lost because of the structural failure of the stack. Think of it like a fighter aircraft that loses a wing while traveling at high speed. The loss of the wing will produce forces that cause the aircraft to lose attitude control. Once the aircraft starts to yaw, aerodynamic forces will cause it to break up. The airframe isn’t strong enough to fly sideways at high speed. The aircraft’s fuel tanks may rupture and the spilled fuel may ignite, but that is a secondary effect. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/33 "2005-08-02T06:08:14Z")
> [@Tyrrell McAllister](#): > > I’m glad to see that, but why is this relevant? Are you under the impression that I think you “care about who’s toes [you] step on”? Why? You asked me why I thought I’d be able to get things done if I was there as opposed to the folks who are currently mismanaging the show, and I’ve explained it to you. > [@](#): > > Well, now we’re just repeating ourselves, but my point is that, no, the words _alone_ don’t indicate that. > **Hyperelastic** ’s testimony, evidently based on firsthand experience, is evidence (though not proof) that NASA deserves criticism. Your linguistic analysis is not. You don’t know any engineers, do you? An engineer’s _ **first** _ instinct is to speak in _ **jargon** _ and _ **not** _ layman’s terms like “goof.” For him to say “goof” means one of two things: Either he’s _not_ taking things seriously, or someone (namely a high paid marketing and PR firm) “fed” the term to him, in order to _downplay_ the matter. IOW, NASA’s covering shit up again. **Not** good. Lest you think that I’m expecting too much of Griffin to think like an engineer when his current position is that of head of NASA, you need to take a [look at his record.](http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive04/griffinarch_111504.html) And [here](http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/index.html) you can find a [speech](http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/116056main_Mike_Griffin_Town_Meeting.pdf) (warning PDF file!) where he describes himself as “King Nerd” and says the following: > [@](#): > > The use of the L-points carries a delta v penalty in the variously several hundred meter per second range to use it effectively and it carries a transit time delay of a couple days on either side, so you have to carry consumables and stuff to make up for that and people are sitting around twiddling their thumbs and so whether or not the L-points are useful in our first stages of lunar return I kind of doubt. In the context of a more fully developed architecture, if you fast forward 20 years in the future and we’ve got a base on the moon and it’s like McMerto in Antarctica, then I can see a role for the L-points in that kind of scenario if, again, and mostly L-1 if that makes sense. But you probably didn’t actually invite me here to discuss orbital mechanics. I mean, I can, but then I need a whiteboard or something. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/34 "2005-08-02T06:21:14Z")
And take a look at [this](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4736941.stm) story. Apparently, they left some gap fillers in the wrong place and are worried that they might cause problems on reentry. > [@](#): > > Stephen Robinson will remove strips that are sticking out between heat shield tiles on Discovery’s belly. > > Nasa is concerned the dangling material - called gap fillers - could cause part of the shuttle to overheat as it re-enters the atmosphere. Okay, so if NASA was all hellbent on fixing the problems **before** they sent _Discovery_ up, then **how the bloody fuck did this happen?** ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/35 "2005-08-02T06:30:10Z")
> [@](#): > > But I took your phrase “big wigs” to be referring to the people ultimately in charge: Griffin and his staff. They’re the ones who decide whether there will or should be more shuttle missions, which is what the OP is on about. > > Of course the top people here in Washington are informed by experts all over NASA, including engineers at Johnson I’m sure. It’s a very collaborative decision. My brother workd for NASA subcontractor for a few years. He seems to have had a lot of respect for every engineer (who was functioning as an engineer) at NASA. However, he had a pretty low opinion of just about every project manager he encountered among the subcontractors and the further he got from real engineering, either among the subcontractors or in NASA, the lower his opinion got. My brother is _not_ someone who simply hates management, but over and over he saw engineers bring up serious issues about one project or another, only to be told that they were interfering with target dates and that they needed to shut up and “do their job.” :rolleyes: Shooting the messenger seemed to be the preferred method of dealing with any problem that was pointed out. (These were not all safety issues, but we have already seen how closely safety issues match the pattern he described. And while he has since left the subcontractor, his tenure definitely covered the period when they were supposedly making the current shuttles safe.) It is entirely possible that the guys at the very top sincerely want to know the facts, but the culture of avoidance and denial is so embedded in the middle to upper management of the guys doing the work that it may be impossible for them to get an honest answer. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/36 "2005-08-02T12:58:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, he had a pretty low opinion of just about every project manager he encountered among the subcontractors and the further he got from real engineering, either among the subcontractors or in NASA, the lower his opinion got. My brother is _not_ someone who simply hates management, but over and over he saw engineers bring up serious issues about one project or another, only to be told that they were interfering with target dates and that they needed to shut up and “do their job.” :rolleyes: Shooting the messenger seemed to be the preferred method of dealing with any problem that was pointed out. … It is entirely possible that the guys at the very top sincerely want to know the facts, but the culture of avoidance and denial is so embedded in the middle to upper management of the guys doing the work that it may be impossible for them to get an honest answer. I can verify this. Schedule is the master. On the one hand, we are told to make sure everything is right and correct, both thechnically and contractually. On the other hand when we do bring up problems, the company’s upper management goes to NASA (an end run) and accuses us of “causing delays”. Guess who NASA sides with. Then after the item (whatever it is) turns out to be crap, NASA tries to beat on us for it. It happened again just this year. On the Space Station, there are what we call beta Gimbals. They are sort of like oversized and overpriced rotors for turning the solar arrays towards the sun. They are crap. They always have been crap. QA on them stinks. We flagged the problems - they don’t work, the documentation stinks out loud, and the company doesn’t even follow their own procedures or wiring diagrams. A NASA big wig told us to close out the books (Buy it off). Then later, he tried to deny telling us to do this. Our boss, a Navy Commander, went batshit just like the rest of us. But, the damage had been done. What saved us was, we had a voice recording and verbatim transcription of what this snake had told us to do. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/37 "2005-08-02T15:51:56Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > The ignition of the fuel from the ruptured external tank was a secondary result of the accident. It was not the primary cause of the accident, and the fuel deflagrated (burned rapidly), it didn’t detonate. “Explode” doesn’t always mean “detonate”, you know. It can also mean “to shatter with a loud noise” or “to change state or appearance suddenly”. While there was no detonation, Challenger certainly did shatter with a loud nose and took on a sudden change of state and appearance. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/38 "2005-08-02T20:49:21Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > You asked me why I thought I’d be able to get things done if I was there as opposed to the folks who are currently mismanaging the show, and I’ve explained it to you. Whistle blowers are important, and I’m glad to see that you have taken up that mantle, but being someone who’s “not afraid to step on toes” does not automatically make one immune from making mistakes. The guys from South Park are also not afraid to step on toes. That doesn’t mean they’d be better at launching the Shuttle than the people in NASA. > [@](#): > > You don’t know any engineers, do you? An engineer’s _ **first** _ instinct is to speak in _ **jargon** _ and _ **not** _ layman’s terms like “goof.” Yes, I have known engineers, and they have actually been known to use words that aren’t jargon. Like “King Nerd” for example. > [@](#): > > For him to say “goof” means one of two things: Either he’s _not_ taking things seriously, or someone (namely a high paid marketing and PR firm) “fed” the term to him, in order to _downplay_ the matter. False dilemma. Can you really not think of a third possibility? Try hard. > [@](#): > > IOW, NASA’s covering shit up again. **Not** good. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t follow. Using the word “goof” = covering shit up? You are in tin foil hat territory. > [@](#): > > Lest you think that I’m expecting too much of Griffin to think like an engineer when his current position is that of head of NASA, you need to take a [look at his record.](http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive04/griffinarch_111504.html) And [here](http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/index.html) you can find a [speech](http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/116056main_Mike_Griffin_Town_Meeting.pdf) (warning PDF file!) where he describes himself as “King Nerd” and says the following: See above. The very fact that he says “King Nerd” undermines your point. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/39 "2005-08-02T22:30:21Z")
> [@Tyrrell McAllister](#): > > Yes, I have known engineers, and they have actually been known to use words that aren’t jargon. Like “King Nerd” for example. “King Nerd” isn’t [jargon](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/N/nerd.html)? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110/40 "2005-08-03T06:19:48Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > “King Nerd” isn’t [jargon](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/N/nerd.html)? ‘Jargon’ as JARGON.TXT defines it and ‘jargon’ as the OED defines it are two different things. The Jargon File defines jargon as the terms and meanings specific to the hacker culture, which only partly includes the ‘techspeak’ that the OED (and other mainstream dictionaries) defines as jargon. (This odd definition goes back to the 1960s, when the file JARGON.TXT was created on an ITS machine to document the hacker culture that had sprung up in the various networked PDP-10 shops and, later, the various networked Unix shops.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-goofed-you-fuckin-goofed/315110.md?page=3)