Hi, to be blunt: You read the mind of the original article author: > They probably thought it smart to use the same acronym pattern as SLAPP Nope. Read the or

Hi, to be blunt: You read the mind of the original article author: > They probably thought it smart to use the same acronym pattern as SLAPP Nope. Read the original article: FLICC comes from over a decade of research into the taxonomy of science denial. The author explicitly says that, in 2013, they coined FLICC as an attempt to categorize and simplify their presentation. I don't see why I should be "constructive" or engage in "sensible debate" with you. Your approach isn't "simpler". I am not allowed to say that you did not read the original article, but I do think that you skimmed and did not engage with the bulk of its content or conclusions. Do you have a position, other than the mind-reading dismissal that you started with?