Changes

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative.  Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative.  Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for.  He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend.  The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend.  Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.)  

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for.  He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend.  The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend.  Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

 

:::::As to the new possible terms, I'd lean towards "substantiate."  It conveys an important concept (one which still escapes many liberals) and it has, I think, more widespread use than "Hobson's Choice."  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:12, 14 June 2009 (EDT)