In article <jkiernan.221.2F9BBD46 at julian.uwo.ca> J. A. Kiernan, jkiernan at julian.uwo.ca writes:
>It is one of those words that should NEVER be used by scientists; almost
>as bad as the execrable "model" and the utterly abominable "paradigm" and
>many others. There is no shortage of real words with simple meanings, and
>
can you explain your argument against the common scientific usage
of the word "model"? It seems out of place in your list...
dmarshal at umich.edu
* this random blather at the bottom of the message is included solely
for the purpose of satisfying the Usenet server, which apparently rejects
all submissions in which there is "more included text than written text",
or something like that, regardless of the actual length of the message.
This seems rather short-sighted on the part of the person(s) setting
these parameters.UZ(I*€(J
