The assumption that "logic" and "mathematics" can be used interchangeably is what suggests to me that the author is couching in an additional point. This is why

The assumption that "logic" and "mathematics" can be used interchangeably is what suggests to me that the author is couching in an additional point. This is why I attack the headline all together, and not just the use of quotation. This is why I used to term "scare quotes" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes)...twice. Did you read my post at all? I'm attacking the article for exactly the point you're trying to educate me about. I'm saying it is wrong to do this sort of writing under some circumstances. I'm saying trash the whole headline. I'm saying "should we use these quotation marks?" should have been noted as "bad form." I'm saying I'd take the OP's long-ass headline before I come off sounding insensitive. "Brilliant pupil's 'logical' suicide." It makes me wrench just reading it out loud. Read it. Read the "distance" the author strongarms into the headline. It's forced. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth just reading it out loud. You know that one point people often try to make that goes something like, "Couldn't you have said it a better way?" Or "Maybe we just shouldn't talk about that here and now?" Or the whole motivation behind PC-speech? I'm saying this article's headline comes off as crass because of the use of exactly that which you are now trying to describe to me.