I actually agree with you that it was deliberate to some extent which is why I used the wording "too strong a negative connotation". I think anytime you are acc

I actually agree with you that it was deliberate to some extent which is why I used the wording "too strong a negative connotation". I think anytime you are accusing someone of being less than entirely honest, which is the definition of disingenuous[1], that it's going to carry at least a semblance of negativity. This is also why I added the caveat "too critically" to my original comment because although I felt the poster was aware of his word choice he was just writing what he thought was catchy marketing copy. And no, I actually meant to use the word foster. While you're probably right that the larger issue is how many people hold the opinion, for me personally its about how many people vocally defend the opinion (i.e. promote). For instance, if you and Shawn didn't feel the need to defend your position on disingenuous it would be a non-issue because people would at worst understand what I meant by context. This method of understanding by context is the exact mechanism by which our wonderful language evolves over time so while those who hold an opinion of a definition will eventually go away those that foster an opinion on a definition can have a long lasting impact on our language. [1] "not truly honest or sincere" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous "slightly dishonest; not speaking the complete truth" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/disingenuous?q=disingenuous http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/dising... "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." - http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/disingenuous?q=disingenuous http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english...