Also, skip, I think you'd need a fair amount of space, perhaps like an indoor basketball court. I don't want to suggest some friends to help you place the optical tools (telescope, mirrors) in just the right place, but that may also prove necessary.
Ms. Greer is indeed awesome, but her attempt to reappropriate the word, along with Eve Ensler's, doesn't seem to have worked. It's still generally used in a way that means to hurt or offend, as it is in this case.
The problem is that if you pronounce it with a similar rhythm to malcontent, the cunt morpheme almost disappears. And if you pronounce it to accentuate cunt, which appears to the be the intent of the neologism, it sounds way awkward. It's interesting that Germaine Greer uses cunt freely in her writings without any qualms, perhaps in an attempt to re-appropriate the word. I think she felt it was a word that should belong to women to do with as they please.
Listen, everyone's welcome on this site. That much should be obvious. This word is provocative--I think you can agree, or you probably wouldn't have added it--and a few people didn't like it and said so. This happens. It shouldn't surprise anyone that people who hang out on a word site are very sensitive to shades of meaning and to emotions conveyed by certain words. You are certainly correct that words can raise people's hackles. Of course there's emotions behind words; that's partly what language was invented to communicate. But most Wordies (IMH experience) are careful to say "I don't like this word" rather than "I don't like you." If you post provocative words and provocative comments, you have to expect people to respond. Nobody is saying they dislike YOU. In fact it looked to me like a lot of people were reserving judgement (evidenced, to me, by their not saying anything), possibly for fear of scaring a new user away.
I don't like this word at all, but I didn't say anything because you're a new user and I was kind of waiting to see if it would be typical of the types of words you would introduce us to, or to the type of comments you would post, or if it was a sort of one-time fling. Either way, it's fine with me. I come here for fun, and when it stops being fun, I leave or ignore the people who make it less fun.
I disagree with you that there's any correlation between the number of words or lists a person has and their "status." I think there *is* a correlation between the numbers of words (or comments) a person adds and how much time they spend on the site. As a corollary, those who spend a lot of time here are typically a little more invested in making sure it's a fun environment for everyone.
I am trying to get a sense of what this community is about. From your comments, so far, I have the following impressions:
* The community appears to invest emotional connections to words, possibly to disguise their reactions to those who coin those words.
* Some words elicit strong reactions because they are descriptive of scenarios deemed offensive, though other such words do not.
* There is an implied correlation between speed of adding words and status in the community.
These initial impressions are somewhat surprising. I would have thought there would be less emphasis placed on word definition as opposed to coining words. And I don't get the strong interest in quantifying the mere addition of words to lists.