I'm a word guy. I would be a thought guy, but that's an insane amount of work. In my (faceless) book, style beats substance every time, because substance necessarily leads to responsibility, which necessarily leads to me putting in earplugs and pantomiming that I can't hear anything being said.
Hey, it's a lifestyle. Don't judge.
Anyway, what's with the word, "Facebook"? I wonder why he/they/it settled on that "word"?
Surely, in their meetings, at first it was just, "Face Book."
But what was the thinking there?
Were they, like: "People have faces. People like books. I know! Face Book!"
Or was it:
"When you think of people, what do you think of? Faces! And what do we want people to do? Come to our site! And what will they do once they get to our site? Read! And what else do people read? Books! So Face and Book! Face Book! Facebook!"
Or maybe it was: "Okay, we know people have faces. 'People' equals 'faces'---we got that. But what need are we filling? Okay, what's the one thing people want most in the world? To feel they're important, right? And when you're an important person, what's always happening to you? You're getting booked all the time! For interviews, talk shows, public appearances, Regis! So if we combine 'face," with 'book,' it'll be like we're combining the personal with the famous! Facebook! People will love that!!"
Because, see, we all want to be famous.
And why shouldn't we? Is there really all that much difference between fame and love?
Visit me online at JohnShore.com