Ashersky gets the closest to my point, but still I have no clue what exactly acti-lurking means. If anybody can show me a legitimate dictionary with the word actilurking in it, I will not only eat my hat, but I will eat any hat that somebody mails to me. I have no idea what you mean by actilurking, and will need that to be defined. When it is properly defined, I will begin to call it by a more reasonable name. Interesting side note: "acti-lurking" has no results in Google, and "actilurking" has exactly 1. Also, Morgrim is correct, me not liking the dumb phrase "acti-lurking" is a scumtell. I can't believe I got caught just because I like the English language used with a modicum of accuracy...
"Actilurking" or "acti-lurking" is a blend (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend) of Active and Lurking, not quite a portmanteau as I don't think "acti" is a morpheme. In the same was that "smog" and "brunch" have entered our lexicon, so has "actilurking" on f.ds. I suppose I will continue to use quotation marks around it to ensure that you know it's a made-up word, though.
I'd note that in languages other than English (such as Japanese), the use of blends in actively encouraged. Take "karaoke" for example.
Wikipedia of course not being a "legitimate dictionary," I won't be sending you my hat. Feel free to have a
Vote: shraeye for now, though, based on:
Ashersky gets the closest to my point, but still I have no clue what exactly acti-lurking means. If anybody can show me a legitimate dictionary with the word actilurking in it, I will not only eat my hat, but I will eat any hat that somebody mails to me. I have no idea what you mean by actilurking, and will need that to be defined. When it is properly defined, I will begin to call it by a more reasonable name. Interesting side note: "acti-lurking" has no results in Google, and "actilurking" has exactly 1. Also, Morgrim is correct, me not liking the dumb phrase "acti-lurking" is a scumtell. I can't believe I got caught just because I like the English language used with a modicum of accuracy...
...really?