Would you prefer just plain ridiculous "reporting" without the science part?Angua wrote:http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/09September/Pages/cuddling-a-kitten-almost-certainly-wont-kill-you.aspx
Can we please just stop with ridiculous science "reporting".
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 27356.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 19831.html
There you go.
Oh, yeah, some guy got shot in the hea at a protest in Charlotte, too, but that only concerns people in a tiny part of the world. The zodiac being wrong is, like, completely irrelevant everywhere, man ...
Fear, anger and confusion erupted this week when reports, apparently originating in Cosmopolitan, suggested that Nasa was going to be changing the star signs around.
The two announcements caused panic in people who are interested in astronomy, provoking personal crises as it suggested that people weren’t who they thought and might have the wrong signs tattooed on their body. But there is not really any need to worry.
But modern astrology is its own thing, and acts by its own rules. It doesn’t really matter whether the star signs change as long as everyone still reads their old one, and astrologers still write about them the same way.
A third of a page or so dedicated to an article that could have been just:
... plus a full stop.It doesn’t really matter
If they'd settled for that, they wouldn't have put "astronomy" where they meant "astrology."