On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:27:51 +0200 Moab Moab <moab2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> That article doesn't make sense to me. > > You are proposing that a "name change" will make non-listeners into > listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all. > > I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper > published with the new name will immediately figure out that "it's plain > old cold fusion **** again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet > another name". I kind of see what you mean: when 'global warming' became 'climate change' and didn't even stop there, and became 'climate disruption', I had the feeling they were pushing **** at us. And when 'spam' had its meaning changed from 'unsolicited commercial email' to 'any email you do not want to receive', I figured scoundrels were trying to pull the wool over our eyes to somehow make spam profitable for even more people that it already is.
