Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Not exclusively, but you are indeed correct, sir. A quick squizz at
Wikipedia shows that it's use to obfuscate or deceive is considered the
more common one, though my experience makes no such distinction.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 21:37:54 -0400
chainsawchihuahua <> wrote:

Actually, just to chime in here on this bike shed moment, I am under
the strong impression that "technobabble" does indeed refer
exclusively to the incorrect usage of actual terms in order to give
an appearance of technical proficiency. The difference between
technobabble and what you're describing is that in the case of
technobabble, there is no one who can validate the usage of the
terms, if they're even real. In the case that you're describing,
someone can validate what the person is saying, it's just that you in
particular don't understand it; the person isn't making anything up.
And just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is
objectively any kind of babble. :)


On 08/09/2014 05:58 PM, Paul wrote:
Completely as an aside...

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 17:49:03 -0400
Pikov Andropov <> wrote:

Tom Davies wrote on 8/9/2014 2:25 PM:
Italo's techno-babble was brilliant and i thought fairly easy to
understand.  It's good to have it laid out so clearly!

I don't think you mean "techno-babble", Tom. "Technobabble refers
to the use of terms from mathematics, science, or engineering
incorrectly, in order to create a false sense of technical solidity
around a field or concept."

Technobabble does *not* have to be terms used incorrectly.
Technobabble is any use of technical terms that, because they are
not really understood, are just babble to the listener.


To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.