Sam Korn wrote:
In 12/16/05, David Gerard
<fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>I'm still not at all convinced this is a
problem, except in the view of
>those who don't like a label that accurately and concisely describes
>what they're doing.
>(and, per the A is part of B therefore B is part of A fallacy, I now
>expect someone to follow up with a marvellous strawman example of some
>unrelated grossly POV description)
I'm still not certain why "concepts described
as pseudoscience"
wouldn't do.
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
It is NPOV and still conveys the same message. It is
a
little unwieldy, but it would work fine in prose and probably also as
a category title.
I disagree. It's horribly clunky.
- d.