I get annoyed enough at anti-vaccination people, but good god, she's confusing her anti-vaccine propaganda!

And there IS a thimerisol-free version of the H1N1 vaccine available for the truly paranoid.

"Plus, you know that vaccine hasn't been tested, and I don't want to be a guinea pig for vaccine companies."

I got this from my very intelligent friend last weekend during her baby shower. I didn't want to yell at her at her own shower in front of a million people, but I looked at her sternly.

Then she mentioned that a friend of hers (also at the shower, so supplied many gruesome details) got seriously, seriously messed up by a regular seasonal flu shot- like, couldn't move, feel her hands or legs, and other horrible things. So, I felt quite stymied.

You know, when you answer someone else's phone, you should really answer it "[name]'s phone" I just spent a very confusing few minutes on the phone with my friend's mother because she picked up the phone with "hello" I said "hey, it's Steph!" She said "Steph?" I said "yes, stephanie Johnson. Oh, I'm calling from my work phone, probably why you don't recognize the number" (and I'm thinking "damn, can't believe she doesn't recognize my voice") She said "your work phone?" and I said "yes, I'm calling to tell you that I can't make it to the wedding cause I suck" She FINALLY said "this is Kelly's mom" @@

I’m not ignorant (of theword’s meaning, anyway) and it still gives a knee jerk reaction. Yes, it’s a perfectly good word, but why use a word that is (or seems to be) loaded with negative connotation when there are plenty of others to suffice?

I agree with that. I don't think you have to be ignorant to have a reaction, and it's not exactly a common word either. I would say it's not a perfectly good word anymore--through no fault of its own--because it's distracting even if the context is correct.

Yes, it’s a perfectly good word, but why use a word that is (or seems to be) loaded with negative connotation when there are plenty of others to suffice?

It doesn't have a negative connotation. It has a homonymic association. I'm not going to stop using "country" because it's got the rude "cunt" in it.

Le sigh. However, truth be told I probably self-edit and use stingy instead even though the meaning is not exactly the same.

It doesn't have a negative connotation. It has a homonymic association.

I agree. That said, I think I'd use "niggardly" in written communication rather than verbal. Basically because of the homonymic thingie -- people hear it and their brain makes the immediate connection; I know *I* do.

Addendum: To me the word "niggardly" has the connotation of a moral failing whereas "stingy" skews a bit more towards mean and petty. More of a compulsion. And that's a useful distinction worth maintaining. I don't insist on it, however, and if I were in a social situation where there was even a chance of it being misheard or misconstrued I wouldn't use it.

What about "parsimonious"?

Disappointed at the stigma on the word "niggardly." But not that big a disappointment in the grand scheme of things, and certainly not an issue to raise out of the blue. Can't remember if I've ever had occasion to use it.

It doesn't have a negative connotation. It has a homonymic association. I'm not going to stop using "country" because it's got the rude "cunt" in it.

You're splitting hairs and comparing apples to oranges here both. Country's used a hell of a lot more in everyday language than niggardly, and you're not going to think about the cunt part until you're about 12 when it's suddenly hilarious.

Is viscerally negative homonymic association precise enough for you?