Well, unless you're going to start using the word "egoism" to mean "acting primarily in genuine self-interest" rather than "acting primarily in ways to make other people miserable;" and the word "hacker" to mean someone who's deeply involved in the inner workings of programs, rather than someone who is a computer criminal, I suppose I'm going to continue using 'surrealism' as I do.
More seriously, I've never been much of a fan of forcing some historic epoch on concepts. If I'm going to use a concept - be it futurism, cubism, surrealism, or any (possibly more generic, even) -ism - then I'm going to refer to the concept by the name it can be recognised at. Do you object to
Renaissance Fairs being called as they are, too, because they're not taking place in the Renaissance?
Or, to be a touch less confrontative: Let's just say that while "egoism" as colloquially used is better substituted with "egotism," and "hacker" better substituted with "cracker" - and I would thus probably argue in favour of both 'more correct' versions - there's not really any descriptive word (that I know) that would carry the information "surrealism" does.
And no, actually, "strange" is not it, I assure you. I like to think everything I write is somehow "strange." I would think that's the point of art, even. Or at least of most art.
...that aside, I think I'm responding far more to Kingz' original points than to your far more general ones, Spiwak. I'm not sure to which extent you're agree with Kingz. For the sake of this post, I kind of assumed you were all-out agreeing. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
(Also, thank you for the disclaimer - even if it hasn't stopped me from getting involved in the debate in a mouthfrothing way anyway.
*hug*)
