15 November 2010 UTC I am going to point out that by your own logic this article should be moved either to Volksetymologie since that logocentric originary story is your key justification for the exclusivity of the term to linguistics or to False etymology since linguists unlike folklorists insist that the etymology be factually incorrect However I suggest doing neither of these things because the simple empirical situation before us is that the term is used and has long been used and is authoritatively defined in two distinct but related senses in two distinct buyt related disciplines and this is where users would ordinarily look up either sense It is hgih time you all dealt with the evidence you yourselves demanded of me and put me to the work of gathering before moving the goalposts 18 19