>>72
Look, stop referring to posts as
``content''.
If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all means say you are ``content'', but using it as a noun to describe written and other works of authorship is worth avoiding. That usage adopts a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect.
Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors (``creators'', as they say) of the works. The term ``content'' reveals what they really feel. (See Courtney Love's open letter to Steve Case (search for ``content provider'' in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term ``intellectual property'' is also misleading.)
However, as long as other people use the term ``content provider'', political dissidents can well call themselves ``malcontent providers''.
The term ``content management'' takes the prize for vacuity. Neither word has any specific meaning; ``content'' means ``some sort of information'', and ``management'' in this context means ``doing something with it''. So a ``content management system'' is a system for doing something to some sort of information. In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating a website. For that, we recommend the term ``website revision system'' (WRS).