Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (Last changed: 24 January 1986)
Message-ID: <1785@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Mar-86 23:51:56 EST
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1785
Posted: Sat Mar  8 23:51:56 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Mar-86 00:31:32 EST
References: <2868@gatech.CSNET> <2865@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: mmar@sphinx.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Organization: U Chicago
Lines: 42
Summary: 

In article <2865@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes:
>[ from net.announce.newusers ]
>
>In article <2868@gatech.CSNET> usenet@gatech.UUCP writes:
>
>> Original-from: jerry@eagle.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
>> [Most recent change: 24 January 1986 by spaf]
>> 
>> 		Frequently Submitted Items
>> ... 
>>  2.  What is the derivation of "foo" as a filler word?
>> 
>>      The favorite story is that it comes from "fubar" which is an
>>      acronym for "fouled up beyond all recognition", which is supposed
>>      to be a military term.  (Various forms of this exist, "fouled"
>>      usually being replaced by a stronger word.) "Foo" and "Bar" have
>>      the same derivation.
>
>I am tired of this sanitized (and vague) explanation of the origin
>of "fubar": it really is a military term (that is, popular among
>enlisted men) created during World War II, and it stands for
>"fucked up beyond all recognition" (yes, really).  "Snafu"
>has a similar (and probably related) history.

What's your beef, Gordon.  Here in net.nlang we write any words we
need to discuss, since we're being "clinical" about it (also a
matter of use vs mention), and in net.jokes it's open house, etc.,
but in net.announce.newusers he was using a little discretion.  And
after all, he _did_ say that "fouled" is usually replaced by a stronger
word, so nobody is being kept from figuring out what's going on.
    I do agree with you that he puts it somewhat backwards, and the
parenthetical remark might better read something like this: "(Here "fouled"
stands in for the stronger word that is usually understood.)"  But
I can't agree if you mean that there's something dishonest or otherwise
wrong with his not actually writing "fucked up".
    There's no question on your secondary point: you're right, the
origin of "fubar" and "snafu" are well documented, and he doesn
really need to hedge his assertion.
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar