Talk:Fnord

An Acronym?

For No Other Reason Dischord

I can't see it myself. 58.168.91.115 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fnord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.118.242 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect?

Should this really be a redirect to Illuminatus? "Fnord" pre-dates Illuminatus by some fifteen years!

Now there's a claim that cries out for substantiation.

None forthcoming, it seems.

Principia Discordia, page 10, at the bottom. Consider it substantiated.

I dispute that this word needs an article of its own. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the subject canbe (and is) covered in the article on the Illuminati Trilogy. If someone writes 10K+ on the subject then by all means we can think about splitting them up, but until that time I believe we should avoid the creation of stubs... Martin

Well, I dispute that. Fnord is not a word with a definition. It is a concept from a science fiction book. OTOH, do we really want a wikipedia page for every fictional construct? Pmurray bigpond.com 00:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(1) Can everybody please remember to sign your talk entries? (2) Discordianism, and specifically the Principia Discordia, predates Illuminatus! by 10-15 years (depending in part on whether you count publication date or date of writing). Fnord does not appear in the Principia, however. Vicki Rosenzweig

What do you mean? Fnord appears in the Principia, what thinkest thou, Fnord, that it dost not? Moo. -J.P Marshall III

Keeping fnords

Can we keep at least some fnords in the article, please? Even if only to keep the Alligator Control folks happy? -- The Anome 22:43, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can see some fnords in the article. Can't you? :-) -- Infrogmation 22:46, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's nice to see people taking this wiki seriously. --Onias 21:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) fnord

It's nice to see people taking life seriously.146.201.129.27 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Drop the Pink Elephant

62.49.130.172 added what would eventually become this book reference, originally under "Related":

• Drop the Pink Elephant by Bill McFarlan, ISBN 1841124796

With edit summary:

Pink Elephants are communication traps that a speaker unwittingly produces. Fnords seem to be when they have a conspirational undertone.

But failed to update the article itself to reflect this. Then the book was moved to "References", giving the misleading impression that the book mentions fnords or was used in any way to form the article content, which it doesn't and wasn't. Looking at a summary of the book[1], it's a self-help book promoting effective communication, a topic that seems only very strenuously related to fnords. On these grounds, I've removed it. JRM 20:36, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Oh. Fnord. (Almost forgot.) JRM 20:36, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I originally added the Drop the Pink Elephant to the related part of the page. I thought it was related because they seem to be fnords without the discordianism spin. For example, in some professional fields, certain methods or practices become really faddish and people begin to follow them verbatim. Instead of adding to the vocabulary of the field and helping people discuss and act -they begin to harm through distraction from the original purpose. People start having to say they are 'Blah qualified' or 'using XYZ methodologies' instead of saying 'I did it.'

I thought that the book was about this. I didn't read it and the Amazon page seems to say that it is not about this at all so thanks for removing it. AnonymousCoward

Say What?

How do you say 'fnord'?*Kat* 00:07, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are two answers.

1. Just by common extrapolation of English pronunciation rules, whatever they are for you. For me, it rhymes with "hoard".
2. You don't. You can't see the fnords. You can't pronounce the fnords. You can't hear the fnords. Even if you said "fnord", people wouldn't hear you.

One of these is the conventional answer, and so is the other. It depends on what convention you use, though.

JRM 01:24, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Wait...would it be pronounced like "fin-ord" or just "ford"? Will

Written as X-SAMPA, [fnOrd] or [fnord], depending on how you chew your English vowels. That, in turn, might get transition sounds between the "f" and "n". No, the n isn't silent. It's just that "hnoard" wasn't a word. :-) JRM 08:24, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't 'F' Nord?... 63.162.14.253 16:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)RPM

It's pronounced similar to /f.nɔrd/, the 'f' being a seperate syllable. Probably. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I belive fnord is pronounced in a similar way as with the word "Fpoon" coined by Wendy's in their new commercials. If you can say fpoon, you can say fnord.

The Bored Dude 6:49, 20 June 2006

Maybe the 'F' is silent, like the K in knock, knife, etc, or the T in tsunami. Then it'd be pronounced |norde|. Anyone know a language where the F and N combination make a distinct sound? Maybe it's just not meant to be said at all.....Oh, and hi, Ghelæ. Remember me? --Wikiwow (a.k.a. DiZ) Yes, I have sold out.

The t in Tsunami isn't silent, you're just not pronouncing it properly.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's similar to fjord (where you say "fee - yourd"). So, "fuh-nord," except more like "f'nord," so "finord." Yeah, that's it, "finord." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.73.116 (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'fnord' is silent. McGehee (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Theories on Creation of Word

Um, is it just me or is this section a bunch of vandalist junk? --*ralian*

It's not just you. Reverted. Pat Berry 17:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is just you.
Fnord is the lint inside your bellybutton,
Fnord is green tea without the tea
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.40.187 (talk)
The key, creation and meaning of Fnord is poodle-school simple when implied in the following context;
$20 (same as in town)
added by maabof and "the teacher told us Wikipedia isn't a trusted source dad" sons : 9.3.2010

Etymology

It might be useful if someone could provide a pronunciation and cite some reference to an actual origin/etymology for this created word. Judging by its supposed meaning, I would suggest it might be a portmanteau of "fjord" (a narrow sea islet between steep slopes) and "canard" (a deliberately false story); however, I'm not knowledgeable about Illuminati fandom, so I wouldn't pursue such Original Research. Someone might check Wilson or Shea's writings/interviews to see if they provide any illumination. —Leflyman^Talk 02:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Or you could check, too. — Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon, aka    ¥    Jacky Tar  21:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC) fnord

Fnord miscellany

I remember reading this Fnord definition back in the days of BBSs Fnord by Binky, April 19, 1989, would it be worth linking? Steve Jackson Games also used the word fnord to refer to angle brackets:"< >" in one of their publications. And then if you've ever wanted to see the fnords in the New York Times: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/results.html?st=advanced&datetype=0&sortby=RELEVANCE&restrict=articles&QryTxt=fnord Schizombie 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking English

Let's examine the grammar of this sentence: "The Illuminati program children, while still in grade school, are taught to be unable to consciously see the word 'fnord'." To break it down, the subject is "The Illuminati", the verb is "program", and the direct object is "children". The verb "are taught" is a mistake. Instead, "to be unable to conciously see the word 'fnord'" describes what is programmed into children. The verb "are taught" does not work in the sentence structure. If someone is hung on the words "are taught", then this is a viable sentence: "Under the Illuminati program, children are taught, while still in grade school, to be unable to consciously see the word 'fnord'."

You're right, of course. The sentence is confusing because the subject is unclear; I assumed it was "The Illuminati program children" (as one big noun). I changed the sentence to "Under the Illuminati program, children, while still in grade school, are taught to be unable to consciously see the word 'fnord'." for clarity. Λυδαcιτγ 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice improvement, Audacity. Placing the dependent clause immediately after children does produce better clarity than my sample.

I must agree. Nice to see another grammar cop. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 23:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New User Category: Fnording Wikipedians

I'm considering implementing a template/user category: Category:Fnording Wikipedians for Wikipedians who have fnorded their userpage. Thoughts? samwaltz 23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun idea, but it will get killed if you try. Make a userbox, sure, but I would not bother with the category. It will not last long enough to be worth the effort. On that subject, though, make sure that you have all of your user categories on your watch list. That makes it easier for people to use the category talk page for collaboration, and as a bonus, you know when somebody puts the category up for discussion. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Blank spaces?

Why is the entire history of this article riddled with gaps of whitespace? Such shocking typography and/or repeated, localised blanking vandalism is making me feel uneasy. --LionsPhil 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually... what exactly is the title of this article?--84.57.90.212 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Beetle Bailey's eyes

Fnords are like Beetle Bailey's eyes: you are probably not aware that you have never seen them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.251.194.18 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Anarchy Bridge

Ave Discordia! I was idly Googling for things related to my misspent youth, and what should turn up but this! I don't know whether I was the first person to adorn Anarchy Bridge with Discordian ejaculations, but... ah well. Fame, of a kind. Kay Dekker (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hail Eris! Kudos to you :D --Alf ^melmac 06:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All hail Discordia! Adamantios (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Derp.

The deletionists can get rid of good articles but not this. Yeah, no, wikipedia isn't a failed project. Clearly this page would be more fnordified if it didn't exist. --66.188.84.217 (talk)fnord~ —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

Wikifail

I do not see how Wikipedia is even a plausible source in terms of being reliable, you homos only take the media's perception of everything and ignore the strong evidence behind anything. Wikipedia=controlling and manipulated.