12 comments

[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 34.4 ms ] thread
Really? Must we use the 'gate' suffix? Could we possibly put an end to this practice?
I agree, it's a terrible suffix, completely overplayed, and... let's face it, most of the news-consuming audience is too young to remember Watergate anyway.
What suffix will we use then?
How about none. Just use words plainly and skip cuteness.
I'll rephrase my original question, since apparently you didn't understand it as evidenced by you not supplying any concise name.

What's the plain words for this?

Usually leak & scandal work.
I'll also rephrase and say I think the current trend of giving a concise name / label to everything is contributing to the soundbite mentality. This is the "Wikileaks of US State Dept cables". From there, you can keep referring to the "cables" for short.

I'll concede that labels makes it easier for search engines, but I am not convinced that that is a good thing.

"leak" is a pretty popular suffix for these kinds of things.
The only ways to stop a practice like that are to supplant it with a more popular word or suffix (which will someday annoy someone else), or to have the world go long enough without a scandal they use it to describe that it fades from use and memory.

Good luck.

How do you read them?

I've already found how to filter them: View -> Filter. (Althought it always times out, too much documents).

I don't see that cable contents here..
This was submitted by the Guardian. Could be that they will upload content later. Anyway, awfully slow now. Those servers are hogged ;-)

Edit: Here you can see them all including content: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1948360