yes, I agree with that too.perhaps it's a change that ought to happen in scientific/academic writing, that people need to stop using hoity-toity exclusive language just for the sake of it, so that more people (or even people other than themselves) can understand what they're on about.
I saw a presentation from a youngish professor on the importance of this, and it was most enjoyable, although the old guys in the crowd ripped him a brand new arse. The point is really, that academia is pointless if only academics can understand what it's all about.
(I saw a presentation from a youngish professor on the importance of this, and it was most enjoyable, although the old guys in the crowd ripped him a brand new arse. The point is really, that academia is pointless if only academics can understand what it's all about.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:25,
archived)
I agree with all of this.*picks pint back up*
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:45,
archived)
*grunts*and if Dawkins should then turn arahnd to me, trying to tell me that what I fink has such a high probability to be wrong as would render the likelihood of it being correct as negligible I should say: "OI! DAWKINS! NOOOOOOOOOO! YOU ARE NOT THE MESSIAH OF ATHEISM AND RATIONAL THOUGHT! YOU CANNOT MAKE AN ORGANISED GROUP OF ATHEISTS, BUT I WOULD PERHAPS BE PERSUADED TO LET YOU TAKE MY MOTHER OUT FOR A DRINK IF SHE HAPPENED TO BE SINGLE!"
( drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:51,
archived)