fundamentalism shouldn't be a bad thing

Late last night in the haze of exhaustion I had a thought that went something along the lines of "fundamentalism shouldn't be a bad thing...it should be about getting to the fundamentals of an issue or ideal, distilling the essence of it.  Why is that bad?"  An example would be that (in my opinion) there are three Christian fundamentals: that individuals should come to know and love God, that individuals should love others in a God-like manner, and that Christ helps individuals achieve these through his teachings and his atonement.  Others may desire to include more things, but I think that all Christians would agree that these things are at least three of the fundamentals.  (If not, I'm sure a list of fundamentals which all Christians accept could be created with enough discussion.)

So, I asked myself, where does the negative perception of fundamentalism come from?  It makes sense that some people could declare a set of beliefs or ideals like I just did and that others would disagree, but who started calling them fundamentalists?  Shouldn't saying "right-wing fundamentalists" refer to people that have distilled a more moderate, all-encompassing set of ideals rather than people who have declared a more specific and less inclusive set of ideals?  Doesn't that make their beliefs irreducible (or maybe even radical) but not fundamental?

Wikipedia helped me out here, teaching me that the origin of its use as we know it today had roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the 1920/30s within the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  Very curious.  Regardless, I dont like the contemporary use of "fundamentalist" as a pejorative term.  Aside from disliking name-calling in general, I think it's simply inaccurate.

awesome conversation blip

N: You ever notice how geeks tuck t-shirts into their pants?  It's a stereotypically geeky thing to do, but they do it anyway.  It's like a one-to-one correlation.

Both N and I at the same time: No wait...it's onto.

into vs. in to

This morning, I overheard two coworkers debating whether to use into or in to in the phrase "You are logged [into/in to] Flickr/Facebook/Picasa as ...".  They ended up liking into in originally partially because it was shorter and they were trying to cut down on characters for that line.

I felt as though that in cases such as these, one choice is usually significantly more correct.  A simple Google search yielded a Grammar Blog with an entry on into vs. in to.  To steal from the blog: into is a preposition used often to indicate movement toward the inside of a place, in to is the adverb in followed by the preposition to.

I decided that in general I prefer in to when paired with the verb log in this context.  So as the discussion continued, my other coworker and I butted in, both of us defending in to.  But after a bit of debate, in end, into was used.  I'm mildly disgruntled, but it's not my feature.

Logged in to means that you are logged in the manner in (as opposed to out) to a website, etc..  Logged into means that you are logged to a point of contact with a website, etc..  Both obviously work.  I like in to because it has the parallel out of, which gives it greater specificity, and parallelism is nice in itself.

Here are some stats on the number of Google hits for various permutations of the phrases, since I thought they were interesting:
"logged into" 23M hits
"logged in to" 535M hits
"are logged into" 2M hits
"are logged in to" 46M hits
"log in to" 769M hits
"log into" 6M hits

Also thrown out there in the debate were login, log-in, and logged-in, just as points of consideration.

I'd be interested if anyone had thoughts on this.

which word?

We got a Polish Translation for Shotwell this week, which lead to Jim realizing that the word Polish changed meaning completely when it lost its capital: polish.  As in to make things shiny.  Are there any other English words with such a huge change when capitalized?