26th October 2008, 11:17 PM
Quote:quote:Kevin Wooldridge posted: Is it too weasel-ish to say that I agree with some of the things that both of you are saying....No, not at all weasel-ish. This is what I meant by 'weasel words':
Quote:quote:Wikipedia says: Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication. Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:So here (again) is BAJR Host on the subject of CPD...
vague generalizations
use of the passive voice
non sequitur statements
use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive mood
use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce")
Quote:quote:That said, does it make any difference to our employment prospect? So why do something that is of no seeming benefit?If, as I suggest, hardly any archaeologists utilise a formal CPD system at present, then any relationship between formal CPD and employment prospects in archaeology is only a matter of opinion. Therefore the question 'why do something of no seeming benefit?' is, I would suggest, a non sequitur - perhaps misleading forum readers into thinking that it has already been demonstrated that CPD is a waste of time. That sounded to me a bit like 'weasel words' in the Wikipedia sense, hence my original comment.
Hal Dalwood