User talk:Jc37/Sandbox/Good Thing and Bad Thing

Not yet merged

in relation to the above merge; note that Good Thing has not been merged.

Is this really an idiom? I mean it just does not match the definition of one. The component words do not add up to the meaning. In this situation, the component words DO add up to the meaning. -- Raymer

I think there may be a distinction between a Bad Thing and a mere bad thing. The article currently states:-

A "Bad Thing" is something that can't possibly result in improvement of the subject.

This sounds a bit unclear to me - for one thing, it could apply to something that has no effect. But it's clear that it is talking in terms of consequences. I think in the book the term was applied to historical events with bad consequences, and the people responsible for them; that is, to things which changed history for the worse. I've never heard the hacker usage, but judging from the example provided, it also seems to refer to things that would have bad consequences. Things that are just bad in themselves wouldn't be covered. So, a rotten apple would be a bad thing, but not a Bad Thing. Does that sound right? Or am I talking rubbish? :) -- Oliver P. 19:26 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

I still cannot see how this is an idiom. Even if we draw this as a distinct kind of "bad thing," Bad Thing still is just a sub-set of all "bad things" and has the same basic meaning. We are just amplifying it to have some really specific meaning. Ironically, you use a perfect example of an idiom in your discussion above: "bad apple." Now, THAT'S an idiom! -- Raymer

What else would you call it? I think the current version of the article makes it clear that it's a distinct phrase that has different conotactions than the mere words used together. JesseW 05:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But is it mainstream? I removed it. --KJ 07:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Merely emphasis?

Aren't there a number of canonical/stereotypical phrases that can be capitalized like this, to indicate particular emphasis within a particular sentence?

"In The Beginning, there were no rules, and it was good."

"I'm the stereotypical Guy On The Internet who apparently has nothing better to do". [1]

I don't know if all phrases could be used in this fashion, but isn't it more of a class of phrases, or something akin to italicization or other emphasis, rather than something limited to this particular phrase? --Interiot 19:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's more than just emphasis - it's a sort of explicit statement that you're using a cliched phrase. It doesn't work for just Any Old Phrase, because Any Old Phrase doesn't have any historical context, whereas phrases like Bad Thing and Good Thing do - the meaning of Good Thing is slightly distinct from plain old good thing. But we definitely need a general term to describe this technique. — sjorford (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Citing actual sources, beyond the jargon file, would definitely be a Good Thing. --Interiot 03:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Right Thing

I have a notion that "Do the Right Thing"

• originated in some kind of Christian religious circle (which I think is the Spike Lee context);
• personally used by Ken Olsen at Digital Equipment Corporation, who I think may have belonged to such a circle...
• ...from whence the phrase "Right Thing" spread to the hacker community. Anyone know? I never worked at DEC, but I personally recall people who worked there using the phrase circa 1965. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's vandalism on the bottom of the page, but I didn't see it in the source code. --Jickyincognito 11:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And now it's gone... Dunno how, though.--Jickyincognito 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tongue-in-cheek aspect of a Bad Thing/Good Thing

It seems to me that the key aspect about Bad Thing/Good Thing is that it is mildly playful. It's not just emphasis. I don't think that you ever see it used in formal documents, and if I use it, it is with gentle humorous intent. Whether I use it depends upon who I am writing for.

Does anyone else see it this way? Macboff 15:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it immediately brings 1066 and All That to my mind. PJTraill (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Even without 1066, I usually capitalize "Good Thing" or "Bad Thing" when I write about them anywhere, and in fact have linked to the wikipedia article in the past because "this is a Good Thing" is more than just the sum of good plus thing, and was surprised to discover that good thing was deleted and that Good Thing (disambiguation) lists only titles of songs. There are SO many more good thing things in wikipedia... sigh... guess i'll spend some time cleaning up the dab (and pointing it to here). Elf | Talk 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

Since the articles have all been merged, this article needs a complete rewrite, from the title downwards. We need:

• A good title (I've temporarily moved it from Bad Thing to Good Thing and Bad Thing)
• References to the terms and their use (The Jargon File might be a good resource -- http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/B/Bad-Thing.html)
• A rewritten introduction

This is what I can think of at the moment. Any other things? --Wafulz 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

At this time the article also lacks coherence, it's order is a genuine mess. Furthermore there's doubled information on some parts because of the merge that was done (quite some time ago). Are you in the process of currently rewriting this? If not, I will start work on this within 3 days. --Noira 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of school, I won't be able to contribute significantly for around two weeks. You can go ahead and start it if you'd like. --Wafulz 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've completed a copy/edit of this article now, improving it's coherence, removing double info etc. The main thing I feel it needs now is sourcing and possibly expansion. Especially on sourcing this article any help is welcome.

Furthermore I think this article should be renamed back to Bad Thing, the current title is confusing, especially with Bad Thing being the (seemingly) most used of these four terms. --Noira 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Compound noun

Aren't "good thing" and "bad thing" just compound nouns? Compound nouns 1) are stressed differently when you pronounce them, and 2) they have a particular meaning that's more than you can infer from the underlying words. For instance, a "word processor" is more than just some person or thing that "processes" "words", and you say it differently than "ink processor" or "metal processor". A "darkroom" isn't just a "room" that's "dark", it has a much more particular meaning.

If "good thing" and "bad thing" aren't compound nouns, what are they classified as? Certainly not proper nouns. Are they some totally new type of noun that nobody has heard of before?

We don't capitalize "Word Processor" or "Round Table" to indicate that we're using the idiomatic meaning. So is it really correct (from a prescriptive standpoint, clearly they've been used in published works) to capitalize these? --Underpants (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sellars and Yeatman certainly capitalized it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a euphemism

They are certainly not euphemisms, "The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive."

There's nothing "mild, indirect, or vague" about the expressions. They are perfectly straightforward and have plain meanings.

Their usage is often jocular or ironic, but that's something completely different. Typically they are poking fun at the idea of oversimplified classification; if someone calls something a Good Thing, they probably think that it really is, on the whole, a good thing--but are deliberately overdramatizing, as when someone says something like "Kernighan and Ritchie are holy writ," or "Polls are evil."Dpbsmith (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable statements

Subject to correction to those with a better knowledge of the book and movie, I'm moving these unreferenced statements here:

The phrase also reached a popular audience through the 1981 Harold Kushner book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, and the 1998 film Very Bad Things which was loosely based on it.

First, the movie. It does not appear to be based on the Kushner book, even "loosely." The imdb listing indicates Peter Berg as sole writer, with no acknowledgement of any connection to Kushner or his book. So, that's just wrong. Whether it is an example of a use of the phrase "Bad Thing" in the jocular sense, I can't tell, but based on the description and Ebert's review I'm inclined to doubt it.

Second, Kushner's book. Subject to correction, as I haven't read the book, my understanding is that it is a perfectly serious book about the problem of evil, and the bad things are simply bad things in the plain, non-joking sense--such as Kushner's son being stricken with a terrible disease. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)