Television programme is on – title “The Assassinators”.
Brother: “(Ulterior motive of getting to watch his preferred kiddies channel) This is definitely not suitable for children, it is a bad example of a television programme… It has assassinations in it! ASSASSINATIONS! People get assassinated in it! … What does assassination mean?”
Right. There are excuses for the absence, but who cares now that I am back? (Permission to use smiley in text: .) Thank you dearly for being so understanding. Part of the excuse is that something very exciting and science-communication-related may be happening in my quarters very soon, and if everything goes to plan, I will be more than happy to share the bounty. In the meantime, please consider this:
Blood cancer. Nice and succinct.
The poster does feature the words leukaemia and lymphoma in the corner, but the BIG LETTERS say blood cancer. Of course, that is what leukaemia is (lymphoma tumours target the immune system too, but not through the blood stream **disclaimer** this is not my field, so if I am wrong, please correct me), so it makes perfect sense. If the reader however does not know what leukaemia is, might the fact that it says “blood cancer” help them understand what the fund-raising is for? Is this wording helpful or patronising?
I rather like it the way it is, hence the caption on the image.
On an almost completely tangential note, this reminded me of another discussion revolving around fancy names. A friend was once asked his favourite artist. He said Rachmaninov, and got called a posh git. I once made a comment about Lapsang Souchong, and got teased for it. I will endlessly defend the favourite-artist-Rachmaninov, because ‘why not’? And on the Lapsang Souchong, I suppose I went asking for the mickey taken out of me, so I accept that. However, sometimes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to use a simpler descriptor if it helps reach a wider audience.
That said, maybe I am a posh git. You don’t know my life. (Although I will try to get the update rate back up again.)