Vorl Bek <vorl....@antichef.com> wrote:
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. > As far as I know, this has never been done with the intention of disguising the subject matter, or fooling people. These words are no sense euphemisms. People make up a variety of different names for the phenomenon because they want a more technically accurate description. Also there is tons of evidence for global warming. Rejecting it is irrational and unscientific, like rejecting the evidence for cold fusion. > 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. > That is incorrect. They invented the term "unsolicited commercial e-mail" for legal purposes, so that a crime could be defined carefully by legislation. When someone sends vacation photos to a long list of people, you might call that "spam." That term is informal and was never defined in law. Laws relating to unsolicited commercial email would not apply to unsolicited vacation photos. - Jed
