Weird must be defined by the viewer. Something is weird when it is outside the normal scope of the veiwer. The term weird in my thinking should be reserved for things that are not harmful to opening mindsets to different points of veiw and should almost always bring amusement perhaps laughter to the veiwer. What do you think? A wise person told me To be "weird" is to deviate from any one person's description of what is "normal" and "normal" is thankfully subjective. Weird is what mavericks almost always ae labeled when they first began to "get under people's collars". "Weird" people are on a path, and they are almost always verbally, visual or mentally gifted in some way. It goes like this...first you are considered "weird." Soon others see the new road that you are offering or showing them. They accept you as "cool", maybe "a bit different" They see a bit of value or cleverness in your way of doing things (or at least find you humorous), But when others start benefiting from your quote "strange ideas" or "different" way of doing things, you are considered a "maverick"! Voila! a "rebel" You have stayed steady in your support or conviction about this new idea or path for a period of time... When your new "thing" starts helping others and they finally start using that too, well then finally you are a "trailblazer" because you were the first to do it. Though I do not think of myself as a trailblazer I do believe that steping out of the norm is refreshing and good for the soul, if for no other reason than the fact that someone might find a little less tension in their day.