I reject your reality and substitute my own... NEGATIVE BUOYANCY does exist and is a commonly accepted term.
I don't know you, Keelhaulin. I've never met you and don't know your background. I suspect you are an AIG executive or worked as a financial manager for G.M. If I'm wrong, with your logic, you should consider applying for such positions. I think you'd do well! Heck, you might even be delusional enough to think the taxpayers love giving you bonus money!
Here is a very basic example. You have two apples. You promise to give a friend three apples. How many apples do you really have? ... (Basic example of a NEGATIVE number!) You keep saying you have a positive number of apples, and the rest of us believe the correct answer to be "-1."
I'm pretty sure you've never taken a SCUBA diving class, or even been below the surface of water where you were less than neutrally buoyant. For anyone considering passing a SCUBA class; you have to believe there is a term for when you sink...that term would be "Negative buoyancy." If you don't understand the term or don't believe it exists, you simply will not be able to pass the class and obtain certification.
Now, if you are arguing semantics and think the term "Negative Buoyancy" doesn't exist...please do an internet search. When I Googled to define the term, there were 995,000 results...including a very good WIKIPEDIA result.
However, I believe the term "Zero Buoyancy" is not correct and "Neutral Buoyancy" is the term that should be used.
Sorry I had to attack you so badly Keelhaulin, but when you posted we should teach out children something that is incorrect I had to come back to correct things.
Skipper, J/36 "Zero Tolerance"