P.E.P.? VIGOR?

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Aug 10, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Ron Butters wrote:

> Arnold notes that "Pep clubs" still exist on campuses--again, this
> seems
> something of an archaic form, frozen in a compound that exists by
> tradition but is
> not very much alive, in my opinion.

i didn't mention "pep clubs" -- only "pep squads" and "pep bands" --
though they're still around too.   but my only point here is that
people these days have access to a word "pep" 'vigor, enthusiasm',
even if they don't use it themselves.

> I'm not sure that I agree with Arnold that the use of "PEP" is
> going to
> convince many Boomers to buy the product and associate it with
> 'vigor'--even though
> I know what PEP means, I also associate it with old guys, and who
> wants a
> product that seems aimed at people even older than I am?

here you really mistake my meaning.  i'm not claiming that the
spammers use "pep" as a selling point, as a way of attracting
customers.  i'm only saying that they use the word as a way of
describing the nature of the product they're selling, and that they
do this as part of a complex (and constantly evolving) scheme of
avoiding spam filters,

this is very much not ordinary advertising.  look at the spam
messages i cited in my Language Log piece.

> I suppose one could test Arnold's hypothesis that VIGOR is looked
> askance by
> spam filters, but it seems rather dubious to me.

it was only a suggestion.  and it's hard to test, because each
bayesian filter evolves on its own, and there is absolutely no way to
find out exactly what it does, or how it came to be that way.  but i
was going on some experience with other instances of spam, and on
reading some material on how spam and spam filters work.  you seem to
be coming at the matter totally fresh, thinking of spam as just more
advertising copy and applying your judgments to it accordingly, not
realizing that it's a genre of its own, subject to constraints very
different from everyday advertising.

in the examples i cited on LLog, the words "women" and "girls" were
avoided (in favor of the much less straightforward "dames" and
"cuties"), almost surely not because "women" or "girls" on their own
would trigger a filter, but because *in combination with* some other
expressions they would.  (compare "pep" vs. "vigor", or, more
directly, "potency".)  that way, the messages could use the word
"dick" 'penis' exactly once, embedded in a text with no other high-
trigger words (and in combination with purloined quotations from
other sources, supplying bland content to dilute the filter-
attractive material).

my LLog piece is just a squib, but if you want to quarrel with it you
should read it first.

i suppose i should have reproduced my little posting here, rather
than merely pointing you to it.  if that's what's required to make my
points, i'll be happy to do that in a future ADS-L message.

arnold

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org