A person who lives, breathes, eats, and sleeps with an abnormal amount of dedication for a topic.

Alright then so we can all agree it is a word with no actual meaning that gets overused by ApplePS360 loyalists during a lost flamewar crusade against the mighty trolls

not me.

It's has an actual meaning, which was stated on Page One and two. And everyone who is actually taking this seriously seems to be holding to that meaning, just reworded.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. One claims that a fanboy actually doesn't like Nintendo. Another simply claims that fanboys only follow Nintendo without defining it any further. Others say that fanboys are loyal to Nintendo to the point that they dismiss other companies. They don't sound like they are sticking to one specific meaning.

Judging people not on the content of their character but the brand label of their console.

Um, you quoted WhiteKnight, who was apparently banned for his accusations. And the other was the thread maker asking the question, giving his opinion before he actually read what others had said. I'm talking about everyone else, who you pretty much said are all basically saying the same thing.

Well I think we can agree that it does in fact have a meeting. Now it may not be very distinct or may be subjective as you suggested but it does have a common vein to it. The argument was whether fan and fanboy are somewhat exclusive terms or as I think some may have suggested in it being a more extreme version of a fan.

Fan, Fanboy, Casual, & Hardcore are all terms that have a variable degree of meanings, generally depending on the context of the person who uses said terms. For example, I consider myself a Nintendo fan, or even possibly a fanboy. But I do @ times, feel the need to call out Nintendo, when they do something dumb, just as they deserve credit for other things, @ times. Would I own a non-Nintendo console/handheld? Yes, if I felt another console/handheld had something I wanted, that Nintendo devices lack. The competition between the co.s makes the consumer the winner, for the most part.

OP is a fanboy

Someone who has sexual feelings for things they shoudln't

I was using Nintendo as an example. I think that there can be fanboys for just about anything. As for the varying definitions, that was part of the point of the thread, to help clear that up.

Also, I don't want to see comments saying "such-and-such is a fanboy". This thread was made for decent discussion, so please use it for its intended purpose.

@CanisWolfred I see that the common givien attributes of a fanboy is their refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of other companies, but what matters to me is that the two users I brought up believed in their coneption of the word. If there are still a few people who concieve the word differently from the majority, then it sounds subjective. Therefore, I'm not compelled to construct a specific definition of the word.

@jkshaz Perhaps I'm misinterpreting CanisWolfred's reply. Yes, fanboy does have a meaning. However, it is the "actual" meaning that didn't pass my guard. The adjective gives me the implication that it has a very formal definition, when it is likely a socially constructed one. I thought this was important to bring up so that users can better understand what I think the word means. And honestly, I don't like to differentiate "fanboy" from "fan."

@FOREST_RANGER
Actually it is likely it was myself that was misinterpreting you and in an attempt not to do that I would like to ask/state the following. You mention formal definition vs one that is socially constructed. However, wouldn't you agree that all words and in fact language are socially constructed? They only work when there is some general agreement behind their meaning and subsequently why some words eventually change meaning in a society over time.
And just so you are aware differentiating between fanboy and fan is actually one of the primary reasons this thread was started which is why I brought it up again just to give you the context of some of the statements. I like all your points actually. I just thought I would throw mine your direction.

Yes. This is the crux of the issue. Waltz had said that a fanboy isn't a real fan. I wanted to know what he meant by that. However, I also wanted the terms defined, so I asked for everyone's definition. That way, we can decide if a fanboy is a real fan or not. I think we've hung up on the definition, though. We've got a pretty good idea of what both are at this point, so now the question is whether or not a fanboy counts as a real fan.
@everyone - What do you think?

Well now you'll never know, because Waltz went byebye.

Um, I take it every word is subjective in your mind? Because that's the logical end if what you said were true. Textbook definitions are usually formed by what the majority of experts can agree on. Key word being majority. Yes, some people can think differently. And they're free to think that, too. But the rest are also free to tell them they're wrong, and provide what the majority has already agreed on. That does not make them subjective, however. A few decenters do not make the whole wrong, or even up for questioning. Besides, there's more to subjectivity than whether or not everyone agrees on what it means. Subjective terms usually have to do with feelings and opinions.

Now "fanboy" may very well be a subjective term, since it is often used to express one's opinion. I don't think that's the correct usage of the term, however, but this may be where my low-level knowledge of english is failing me - See, last I checked, nouns aren't exactly something that can be subjective. You either are, or you aren't. There's nothing in between. You can say "in my opinion, you're acting like a fanboy," and that would be a subjective phrase, but that doesn't determine whether or not the word itself is subjective. I could be missing something, though, especially since by the time I got to this sentence my brain burnt out from overuse.

TL;DR, I think you're using the word subjective incorrectly, and that your statement negates the ability for anyone to be incorrect, just because of what the word means to them, which may go against the majority. In fact, I think you need to refresh yourself on the phrase: "Majority rules".

IDK since I would consider myself a fan because I like Nintendo and only want them to succeed, but waltz calls me a fanboy for not wanting them to make apps or work for apple, it not that I don't want them to do so, its just I think they can still be successful without apple

I still think that a fanboy is just a gradation of a fan. A very poor excuse for one to be sure and perhaps not a "real" fan but one nonetheless. I think being a fanboy it is necessary that you are a fan but being a fan isn't sufficient to make you a fanboy. And I'm sure that probably makes no sense what so ever. Good luck.

It is indeed unfortunate that the person I wanted to discuss this topic with has, for whatever reason, been rendered unable to discuss it with me.

I don't think so, because as I stated before, in my opinion, a fanboy is a fan who has taken things beyond a reasonable level. To me, a fan should still be reasonable about what they like, expecting only what it is realistically capable of, someone who can understand and accept the faults of what it has, and not letting what they like cloud their better judgement.

It's like talking about the difference between infatuation and true love, with Fanboys being infatuated, and fans being in love. (Believe it or not, infatuation tends to be more intense and passionate, but like a hot fire, it uses its fuel rather quickly and burns out)