out of whack

Several times in the last couple of weeks at work, I’ve heard people say that something was “out of whack.” In each instance, I was reasonably certain what they meant, but in each case I couldn’t help but think about the parameters of “whack.”

Unless you work under different circumstances than I do, you’ve probably never heard anyone say something was in whack. Is there a metric we can use to determine the dimensions and the boundaries of whack? Is it time in our society for us to define what whack is?

Now, don’t get me wrong. When someone says something is out of whack, I usually know what they mean, even if I can’t define the exact guidelines of whack or find the exact terms to describe it.

Perhaps whack is supposed to be nebulous and is one of those words that can be used to describe anything that is not good, when proceeded by the words “out of.” Having been around during the 1960s, I remember another phrase that was used back then. The phrase was “out of sight,” usually shortened to “outta sight.” It simply meant that something was good, rather than indicating its being hidden from view, although the phrase could also mean that it was hidden from view. There were a couple of expressions in common usage back then that had multiple meanings. I would cite, for example, the word “bad.” Although, in context, the word could mean something was not good, it could also mean something was good.

For example, when someone showed up driving a really nice car, sometimes observers would say it was a “bad” car, meaning it was a very good car. While many of you would conjecture that in modern times such imprecision of language is not seen, I would argue that I remember seeing and hearing Dr. Dre refer to something as “dope,” meaning it was good. Back in my day when you hollered, “dope” at anyone without an interrogative inflection it was considered not to be an act of friendship. If you heard the word used with the interrogative inflection, it was considered a solicitation to buy or sell and those people who said it should be avoided to all extremes.

So if something is out of whack, then that is bad, but if something is out of sight, then that is good. If something is bad, it can either be bad or good. But, I’ve gotten off track again. Let’s get back on the subject of whack.

I’m wondering if we ought to create a six-sigma-type code for the measurement of whack—whether something is not within tolerance and therefore out of whack or something is within acceptable boundaries and therefore in whack. Or, perhaps I have complicated this too much and made too much of a big deal of it. Maybe I should be quiet now, before someone says this weblog has gotten out of whack.

Because the last thing we want to do is be out of whack here in Jimbo’s world.