On being ripped off

I claim to have originated the label "septic" for the malodourous end of the skeptic range, and I have the evidence (in fact I can go back further) for the context-less jonny-come-latelies.

I also claim "going emeritus" [1], but admit I got that from Jack Vance (the Languages of Pao, possibly the only (sci-fi?) book about societal control by choice of language, err, except for 1984 of course).


More like this

As I said before, I lay claim to introducing the use of the term "going emeritus" to the climate change wars. And you're not allowed to use it without attribution.
Pat Michaels says that Kyoto would destroy the US economy: In a nutshell, that's why the European governments are so exercised about Bush's "no" to Kyoto. They see it as an international instrument that would destroy the economy of their major competitor, even as they know it doesn't do a thing…
[This is a copy of http://mustelid.blogspot.co.uk/2004/12/septics-and-skeptics-denialists-…, put here for my convenience. I'll give it an old post date. I don't know if it will show up as "new" on the feed.] An astute reader might well ask why I write "septic" where you might expect me to write "…
Ben Aaronovitch = Benjamin Aaronson wrote The Rivers of London. I wonder if it's a pen name for my grandpa's grandpa Aaron Benjaminson, who was a farmer in Tanum. Two students are trying to play verbal chess while digging. The board is in their heads. "Well, I'm not the world's most physical guy /…

No questioning the 2004-12-07 usage, but it is not clear that the Oct 22 2004 is intentional ;-)

Very well then ... I shall play Leibnitz to your Newton, Wallace to your Darwin; the text is amended as follows:

"Stoat has taken umbrage (a fine purgative, good for gout, shingles, and high in vitamin D) at perceived plagarism of his coining of "septic" to refer to Deniers.

He offers the indisputable evidence of "The septics are cr*p (part XVII...)" and "Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians", although his "REALITIES OF GLOBAL WARMING" reference is a bit dubious, it may be a typo ;-)"

[That will do nicely. Though I can assure you it was never a typo! -W]

I generally don't like the way people like to label others in debates. I think people should get to label themselves.

This echoes abortion where each side wants to frame the language. Ideas should be debated on their merits, not on coming up with clever names for people we don't agree with.

By Nicolas Nierenberg (not verified) on 13 Mar 2009 #permalink

What about the book Babel-17 for use of language to shape people?

[Could be, but I have a vague memory of finding that book too irritating to finish -W]

By who cares (not verified) on 14 Mar 2009 #permalink

#2, that's a nice thought but you sometimes end up with both sides giving themselves very generous labels.

For instance, I could say that everyone on my side of any debate is on the "Correct" side. :)