Overly affectionate giant octopus
jeanannd
FRIENDLY OCTOPUS HAS GOT A HOLD OVER KEEPERS
09:00 - 19 August 2003
A giant octopus has become so attached to his keepers at Newquay's Blue
Reef Aquarium that he has taken to climbing out of his underwater display to
grab hold of them. The huge Pacific octopus - Titan - has a four-metre
tentacle span and is so powerful that aquarist Jodie King has taken to
feeding him with a second member of staff holding on to her legs.
But despite his awesome dimensions - his tentacles could stretch the length
of a family car - Jodie said the octopus was "a real softy at heart" and was
"just seeking attention". She added: "Titan's a very clever animal and loves
to interact with the keepers."
"He's hugely popular with visitors and staff alike but sometimes his
enthusiasm does get the better of him. The trouble is that, as soon as you
manage to peel off one tentacle he wraps another one around you."
It can take Jodie up to 10 minutes to extricate herself from Titan's
clutches. Because each of Titan's tentacles is covered with suckers, which
measure anything up to the size of a two pound coin, his embraces leave
potentially embarrassing red welts which look alarmingly like love bites.
"It's difficult to go home and try to explain to my friends and family that
they're actually the result of an overly friendly octopus," Jodie added.
In addition to the hands-on approach Titan's underwater lair is filled with
a variety of objects aimed at keeping him entertained.
"We put in various toys attached to floats and hide his food inside jars,
containers and even valves which he has to learn to open," explained Jodie.
The giant Pacific is the world's largest species of octopus and is found
from Japan to Southern California. The biggest recorded specimen had a span
of 10 metres (33ft) and weighed 270kgs (600lbs).
As well as being the largest, the Pacific is also among the cleverest
members of the cephalopod family.
Individuals living in aquariums in other parts of the world have been filmed
sneaking out at night to raid nearby fish-filled displays.
--
^ ^
>"< jeanannd
/ I \ /
\ / I \/
PC
creatures.
"jeanannd" <jean...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ztfXb.306832$xy6.1497646@attbi_s02...
james ambuehl
> This is really adorable. They should film it. They are, imo,
beautiful
creatures. <
Me: It would make an interesting little film, wouldn't it? How about
it, Aaron: Ready to give the mainstream a try? A GIRL AND HER OCTOPUS?
MY LITTLE CTHULHOID FRIEND? TENTACLE RIDER? (Er, no, scratch that last
one . . . we don't want to get Jean Ann all hot and bothered now, do
we?) ;-)
-- Jim
"Currently she was standing in the middle of what appeared to be his
TARDIS library. But it was a library of the evil and the arcane, where
the godless 'Necronomicon' was sandwiched between those terrible works
'Liber Inducens in Evangelium Aeternum' and 'The Black Scrolls of
Rassilon'. Where the infamous 'Book of Vile' and its Black Appendix sat
next to 'The Ambuehl Lores' and the wretched 'Insidium of Astrolabus'
.."
-- THE QUANTUM ARCHANGEL by Craig Hinton
Aaron Vanek
>Me: It would make an interesting little film, wouldn't it? How about
>it, Aaron: Ready to give the mainstream a try? A GIRL AND HER OCTOPUS?
>MY LITTLE CTHULHOID FRIEND? TENTACLE RIDER? (Er, no, scratch that last
>one . . . we don't want to get Jean Ann all hot and bothered now, do
>we?) ;-)
>
I've seen some footage of octopi (octopii? Which is it? Who's the
authority on plurals here?) before, and they are pretty cool.
Two octopi tales:
My father and I used to fish off the Santa Cruz pier, back when you
could conceivably eat fish that weren't contaminated. We'd sometimes
throw down a crab cage loaded with raw bacon to attract the crustaceans.
One time, we pulled the cage up and found a half dozen small octopi
stuck inside; each about four-five inches in length. They were gray and
slimy, but had tiny bright suckers along each of their legs, which I
delighted in counting, as I remembered from school that octopuses had
eight legs. My dad explained that's why they have the prefix "octo,"
meaning eight. I was also a little creeped by the fact that they had no
backbones. I didn't want to touch them too much, fearing that they were
extremely fragile, like a long stub of cigarette ash.
We ended up with only one crab (but a big un'!) that we stuck in a
bucket. Dad decided to keep the soft little creatures, for although he
didn't yet know how, he knew he'd find a way to eat them.
I had a boyhood friend with me this day, Travis, son of my dad's
girlfriend. Travis was only a year older than I; thin, athletic, and
cursed for high school glory that would probably fade without such
beacons as ambition, intelligence, or creativity. Travis didn't like the
octopuses. He didn't want to be near them, he didn't touch them, eight
legs was far too many, and the fact that they lived without bones was
nigh demonic.
Travis and I rode home in the back of my dad's '67 Mustang. Dad may have
been drinking that day, which although I don't recall for certain, seems
likely since dad always had a beer in hand until the accident.
The fishing tackle and fish were in the front seat, and the bucket, the
green container of both crab and invertebrate freaks, was on the floor
in the back, secured between my chubby white pre-adolescent legs. It had
no lid. The sea water, a few inches from the top, reflected the street
lamps going by in the night.
At some point, we took a turn too fast, or a stop too sharp, and
although my dad probably said something like "hold on!", pre-warning of
the inevitable effects of inertia is not quite enough to suddenly give
fatty Aaron Hulk-like strength with which to hold five gallons of ocean
and ocean life from tipping to the left and creating a car sized tsunami
of salt water, scuttling claws, and tiny suckers exploding over Travis's
bare legs (he was wearing shorts, as all kids who could get away with
it, did).
Travis's screaming and crying simply exacerbated the disaster.
My dad tried to calm him down, saying that it was just water (you know,
before sea water became toxic). But I think Travis would have preferred
toxic water, because then there would be no living things in it, no
crabs to suddenly fight for freedom out of the Mustang gulag, no octopi
to grab hold of the first warm flesh they find.
With a girlie shriek, then, Travis abandoned ship. He fled to the high
ground, that is, the back shelf of the car, under the rear windshield.
It amazes me how you can stuff a yelping seven year old boy into the
back space of a midsize car, completely blocking the rear window, and
still drive, but I guess dads develop that talent somehow.
For myself, I gloated in the fact that although I was as weak as a
dandelion, I had the courage (or stupidity) to keep my feet on the
floor, soaking in sea life, where it was too dark to locate anything,
and just waiting for either the brush of a cold soggy sentient noodle or
the ripping pain of barbed pincers.
I got neither, and dad didn't stop to fix the situation, he just pulled
into the parking space and fixed it all when were home, as is the
purview of fathers.
Octopus tale #2:
The crab tasted delish, but dad still didn't know what to do with the
octopuses.
So he chopped up their legs and threw the pieces in with some Top Ramen
soup (the frequent dish at dad's).
Boiled octopus bits taste like rubber sewage.
He said he later baked them with barbecue sauce in the oven and they
were scrumptious, but weekend visitation rights were over, and I wasn't
privy to that delicacy.
*****
James, if you write me a script, I'll think about filming it.
--
Aaron Vanek
My latest movie reviews:
http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472
Also Check out: http://www.webnoir.com/yellowsign
My last movie, "Return to Innsmouth" available at:
http://www.beyond-books.com/catalog/
"The only time those S.U.V.s are going to be off-road
is when they miss the driveway at 3 A.M."
- Senior Marketing Executive, Ford Motors
Shiflet
news:402FFCBF...@NOSPAMsomecompanyfilms.com...
> james ambuehl wrote:
>
> >
> I've seen some footage of octopi (octopii? Which is it? Who's the
> authority on plurals here?) before, and they are pretty cool.
>
on the group, that question could open up a whole 'nother can of worms.
james ambuehl
> james ambuehl wrote:
I've seen some footage of octopi (octopii? Which is it? Who's the
authority on plurals here?) before, and they are pretty cool.
Oh Gawd Jim! Are you trying to start a flame war? The way things have
been on the group, that question could open up a whole 'nother can of
worms. <
Me: Er, that 'twasn't me! It was Aaron, in the midst of his delightful
little octopus tales. ;-)
Incidentally, Aaron, I'd have no idea how to go about writing an octopus
script -- sorry! I actually meant (maybe) tryng to get a Documentary
film with that girl and her tentacled not-so-little friend. Of course,
it depends on geographical location, I suppose, and connections and al
that . . . still it would be neat.
And, incidentally, I don't live anywhere near the sea . . .
However, Stan Sargent sent me some video a few years back, made from
taped TV, on an octopus called VAMPIRIS DE TUETHIS or something like
that, a wicked, evil-looking thing! It's all spikes and horns and
fangs. Man, that was some cool vid! Ah, and then I saw, somewhere on
TV, a largish octopus move from a large tank into another area . . .
THROUGH A GLASS TUBE PROBABLY ABOUT THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF HIS LITTLEST
TENTACLE END! He just rolled himself flat and stretched into this tiny
little tube, and kind of PULSED through it. Now that was F-ing cool!
Shiflet
"james ambuehl" <jamesa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29460-40...@storefull-3315.bay.webtv.net...
Matthew T. Carpenter
> "Aaron Vanek" <aa...@NOSPAMsomecompanyfilms.com> wrote in message
> news:402FFCBF...@NOSPAMsomecompanyfilms.com...
> > authority on plurals here?) before, and they are pretty cool.
From www.dictionary.com:
oc·to·pus n. pl. oc·to·pus·es or oc·to·pi
Kevin L. O'Brien
> on the group, that question could open up a whole 'nother can of worms.
>
Don't laugh; it's already happened, in a thread over what the plural
of "Cthulhu" would be. The dictionary lists both "octopuses" and
"octopi".
In that thread I had said that biologists, especially virologists, use
"virii" as the plural form of "virus". Dan Norder has lately been
crowing about how this is one of a long list of things I've supposedly
been wrong about. I find it interesting how his list keeps growing,
mentioning things that I never even said. For example, he claims I've
said that there can never be a percent increase greater than 100%, but
in fact I never said anything so asinine. On the off chance that
someone else said it, or that Norder is misremembering something I
really did say, I did a Google search for my supposed remark. I used
every permutation of search string I could think of, I even searched
other discussion groups, but I couldn't find a single instance where I
or anyone said anything about increasing beyond 100%. So I have no
idea where Norder is getting this, though I suspect its from his own
delusions. And if Norder is so delusional as to attack me for things
I didn't say, what does that say about his attacks on the things I did
say?
Anywho, I especially "love" his claim that I won't admit to being
wrong when people who are "experts" tell me I'm wrong. The only
problem with that statement is that the only true expert who knows
what biologists do is of course another biologist, like me. During
that discussion I was "corrected" by English teachers and people who
claimed to be experts in Latin and people --- who had never even known
about science literature databases before then --- doing searches on
MedLine they did not know how to interpret correctly, but I was not
contradicted by any other biologists. So much for Norder and his
"expert" claim.
What this is leading up to is that I was in the Dennison Memorial
Library at the Health Sciences Center here in Denver on Saturday doing
some research when I decided to stop in the reading room and peruse
the latest issues of *Science* and *Nature*. Each had articles on
viruses in them, and I noticed that each article used "virii" as the
plural of virus. So on a lark I decided to check out the virology
journals that were there. What I discovered was (no surprise) that
every article used "virii", and the only time "viruses" was used was
in editorials, news articals, and letters. I was sorely tempted to
make photocopies of the entire contents of all the journals and send
them to every "expert" who claimed I was wrong, but aside from the
fact that I don't know their addresses, or that I didn't want to waste
the time or the money, in the end I knewthat they would just ignore
me.
The reason is because some people cannot feel good about themselves
unless they have someone else to tear down, and it is particularly
ego-boosting to them if they can tear down a real expert by using
their own field of knowledge (which is totally unrelated) to "prove"
him wrong. Since they are not interested in the truth, when finally
confronted by it they slink away in silence and hope nobody remembers.
Sorry, but I remember.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Martin Welsh
I agree with you that only (micro-)biologists are true experts in the field
of (micro-)biology.
However, they are not experts in Latin and the use of "virii" as the plural
of virus is simply wrong.
Please read http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
Oh, and the article mentions "octupus".
MAW
On 16-02-2004 15:16, in article
ed6ccb78.04021...@posting.google.com, "Kevin L. O'Brien"
<kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote:
[SNIP]
Martin Edwards
>I've seen some footage of octopi (octopii? Which is it? Who's the
>authority on plurals here?) before, and they are pretty cool.
>
acceptable, a lot of Greek words were routinely Latinized.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.
Eddy Valiant.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/
Martin Edwards
>"virii" as the plural form of "virus".
It is not impossible that virologists use it, if so they are wrong.
Al Smith
>
> So he chopped up their legs and threw the pieces in with some Top Ramen soup (the frequent dish at dad's).
>
> Boiled octopus bits taste like rubber sewage.
>
> He said he later baked them with barbecue sauce in the oven and they were scrumptious, but weekend visitation rights were over, and I wasn't privy to that delicacy.
You ate the little babies? Cthulhu must have been pissed.
C.S.Strowbridge
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I agree with you that only (micro-)biologists are true experts in the field
> of (micro-)biology.
> However, they are not experts in Latin and the use of "virii" as the plural
> of virus is simply wrong.
>
> Please read http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
>
> Oh, and the article mentions "octupus".
According to the Straight Dope:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mplurals.html
Plural of Octopus is octopodes, octopuses or octopus.
The plural of virus is viruses.
Although I hear the plural of mouse, when referring to the computer
component, is mouses.
C.S.Strowbridge
Mike Minnis
ancient shipwrecks and an octopus that lived among one such wreck, in
an urn. The octopus was very proprietary about its particular wreck,
and would dispute attempts by divers to remove anything shiny from it,
wrestling with them until they either got away or the octopus
retrieved said item and raced home.
MIKE
>"jeanannd" <jean...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ztfXb.306832$xy6.1497646@attbi_s02>...
> Ummm, Makes Cthulhu seem more real somehow:
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> I agree with you that only (micro-)biologists are true experts in the field
> of (micro-)biology.
> However, they are not experts in Latin and the use of "virii" as the plural
> of virus is simply wrong.
>
The point was not whether virii is a proper plural of virus, but
whether virologists use virii as the plural of virus. Non-biologists,
who are not experts in biology and so do not know what biologists or
virologists do, said they do not. The articles I saw in the virology
journals demonstrate that they do.
Hence, virologists use virii as the plural of virus. End of debate.
Kevin L. O'Brien
L.P. Hovercraft
> You ate the little babies? Cthulhu must have been pissed.
I eat calimari every chance I get - I think of it as getting my revenge
in advance.
p.s.: When in doubt, if it lives in water, deep-fry it.
L.P. Hovercraft
> The point was not whether virii is a proper plural of virus, but
> whether virologists use virii as the plural of virus. Non-biologists,
> who are not experts in biology and so do not know what biologists or
> virologists do, said they do not. The articles I saw in the virology
> journals demonstrate that they do.
>
> Hence, virologists use virii as the plural of virus. End of debate.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
Missed the previous debate on this, but...
Was the question what biologists use as the plural, or what is the
correct plural? Not necessarily the same thing...
Considering that linguistic experts authoritatively state different
"truths" that may be one of the debates that HAVE no end.
C.S.Strowbridge
I love calamari.
C.S.Strowbridge
Al Smith
> Was the question what biologists use as the plural, or what is the correct plural? Not necessarily the same thing...
> Considering that linguistic experts authoritatively state different "truths" that may be one of the debates that HAVE no end.
While we're on the subject of nit picking, what about the word
"lyric"? Are the words of a song it lyric, or its lyrics? You can
say the "lyrics of a song", but you can also refer to a "song
lyric". Shouldn't the words to several songs be lyrics? (plural)
Which would make the words to one song a lyric. (singular) Off
topic, I know, but then, so is life.
C.S.Strowbridge
Maybe lyric refers to a single word in a song.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> While we're on the subject of nit picking, what about the word
> "lyric"? Are the words of a song it lyric, or its lyrics? You can
> say the "lyrics of a song", but you can also refer to a "song
> lyric". Shouldn't the words to several songs be lyrics? (plural)
> Which would make the words to one song a lyric. (singular) Off
> topic, I know, but then, so is life.
>
I am neither a musician nor a poet, so this comes from my encyclopedic
dictionary.
As an adjective, "lyric" refers to "a category of poetry or verse that
is distinguished from the narrative and dramatic; is typically lucid
and simple or direct, with smooth, regular rhythms, and is often
considered representational of music in its sound patterns."
As a nouns, "lyric" refers to a "lyric poem", while in the form
"lyrics" it refers to the "words of a song, especially a popular
song."
Kevin L. O'Brien
Dan Norder
>Missed the previous debate on this, but...
>Was the question what biologists use as the
>plural, or what is the correct plural? Not
>necessarily the same thing...
It started because Franklin reported having a *computer* virus, and someone
else reported about what some of the "recent virii" (computer term) do. I said
"viruses" in a reply.
Kevin jumped in and claimed:
"The proper English plural of "virus" is "viruses", whereas the proper Latin
plural (virus is a Latin word) is "viri" or "virii". "
So total botch on the Latin plural claim. He then said:
"among scientists and medical professionals "virii" is used much more often
than "viruses"."
He has not been able to substantiate this in in any way, he just declares it to
be true.
Mike Tice did searches both on Google and in dedicated medical databases and
found something in the order of 99% of the professional citations use
"viruses."
Kevin claimed that only he knew how to research things properly and declared
everyone else dead wrong.
Of course the original discussion was specifically about computer viruses and
then the term in general, which he is 100% wrong on. He now tries to only argue
the medical terminology, for which all evidence also shows he is wrong on.
I won't dispute that *some* biologist use the word "virii," but that seems to
me limited to a small fraction of people who have totally botched the word and
eotistically don't care.
If you are interested in seeing the original (or if you don't trust my
summary), see:
If tinyurl.com ever goes bust, this can also be found at the long URL of:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=o0iR/8MBA7kY092
yn%40america.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl372050663d%26dq%3D%26hl%3D
en%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Do0iR/8MBA7kY092yn%2540america.net
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Missed the previous debate on this, but...
> Was the question what biologists use as the plural, or what is the
> correct plural? Not necessarily the same thing...
> Considering that linguistic experts authoritatively state different
> "truths" that may be one of the debates that HAVE no end.
>
Someone had posted an announcement about a new computer virus.
Someone else made a comment about "viri"; ie, computer viruses in
general. Another person corrected him by saying the plural of "virus"
was "viruses". There followed a debate on what was the correct plural
form of virus. Most of the people commenting declared it was
"viruses", but two people stated that according to Latin dictionaries
they had the correct form was "viri" or "virii".
I took the opportunity to make a point about about something I had
said earlier, that popular usage tends to determine proper usage.
That is, the way people use language tends to establish the rules of
language use, and when popular usage changes, the rules change as
well. We can see this historically in the way spelling, punctuation,
grammar, etc., have changed over time as the English language has
itself changed and evolved.
Anywho, my point was that among biologists, especially virologists,
the terms "viri" or "verii" are used more often in the scientific
literature than "viruses"; in other words, "virii" was use
preferentially over "viruses". As such, because of popular usage
among biologists, "virii" was the proper plural of "virus". The
implication of this statement was that this was true only for
biologists, not that it was generally true for everyone, but a number
of people assumed I meant that because biologists used "virii" then
the proper plural of "virus" was "virii" and not "viruses", even
though I had admitted that in general English the proper form was
"viruses" and that biologists are not experts in Latin. As such, many
of the people who disputed that "virii" was the proper plural form
disagreed with my claim. Most of them maintained, correctly, that the
use of "virii" among biologists did not establish that it was the
correct technical form (which I agreed with, since my claim was that
it was considered the correct traditional form only among biologists).
However, a few tried to argue that biologists did not use "virii"
preferentially. One person tried to "prove" it using databases. He
tried Google first, then when I pointed out that Google wasn't a
database of the scientific literature he found MedLine, which is the
largest biological database in existence.
He did a search using "viri", "virii", and "viruses"; he received only
about two dozen hits with "viri" and "virii", but thousands with
"viruses", and so concluded that "viruses" was used far more often
than "viri" or "virii". When I tried to explain that he had
misinterpreted the results based on a misconception of how the
database was designed and how it worked, he dismissed my explanation
as mere rationalization. I didn't bother to respond since it was
obvious he had no interest in hearing the truth.
So, the dispute had begun over whether "virii" could be considered a
proper plural form among biologists because they traditionally
prefered to use it, but then degenerated into a dispute over whether
biologists used it at all.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Mike Tice
> During
> that discussion I was "corrected" by ... people --- who had never even known
> about science literature databases before then --- doing searches on
> MedLine they did not know how to interpret correctly,
I can only imagine that this is directed at me. Kevin, for someone
who claimed that I was hasty in making judgments about you (because I
did not know all about you), don't you think you are guilty of the
same charge? How did you arrive at the erroneous conclusion that I
was (at the time) ignorant of science literature databases?
>but I was not contradicted by any other biologists.
No doubt several biologists privately emailed you with their support.
> What this is leading up to is that I was in the Dennison Memorial
> Library at the Health Sciences Center here in Denver on Saturday doing
> some research when I decided to stop in the reading room and peruse
> the latest issues of *Science* and *Nature*. Each had articles on
> viruses in them, and I noticed that each article used "virii" as the
> plural of virus. So on a lark I decided to check out the virology
> journals that were there. What I discovered was (no surprise) that
> every article used "virii", and the only time "viruses" was used was
> in editorials, news articals, and letters. I was sorely tempted to
> make photocopies of the entire contents of all the journals and send
> them to every "expert" who claimed I was wrong, but aside from the
> fact that I don't know their addresses, or that I didn't want to waste
> the time or the money, in the end I knewthat they would just ignore
> me.
Perhaps you could provide a reference? After all, by the time the
last discussion ended, I was only asking you to present one single
reference that used 'virii', which you were unwilling or unable to
provide. My workplace has a couple years' worth of recent issues of
both Science and Nature, so issue and page number would be quite
sufficient. I have, *at this very moment*, the 22 January 2004 issue
of Nature open in front of me to page 313. On it appears an article
by Modis, Ogata, Clements and Harrison entitled "Structure of the
dengue virus envelope protein after membrane fusion". Its very first
sentence reads, "Membrane fusion is the central molecular event during
the entry of enveloped viruses into cells."
Pubmed still lists 0 hits for 'virii' and more than 400,000 for
'viruses'.
I beg you to look over the old thread, so that I don't have to correct
your inaccurate statements about Pubmed all over again. Like me, you
know about science literature databases, but the posts in the last
thread showed that you did not know how they work. Or, rather, that
you made assumptions about how they worked in order to support your
case. Assumptions that were, in fact, wrong.
>Since they are not interested in the truth, when finally
>confronted by it they slink away in silence and hope nobody
remembers.
>
>Sorry, but I remember.
The only person who slunk away was you. Your memory of the last
thread appears to redound to your credit, but I find it somewhat
deficient as an accurate representation. Far from proving that
virologists prefer 'virii' to 'viruses', you have never provided one
piece of evidence that 'virii' has ever been used at all in a
scientific publication. Although I find it plausible that a few
papers have used 'virii', the idea that virii is preferred is
laughable. No evidence has come to light that even one article uses
'virii'. You have steadfastly refused to meet any of the simple
challenges I offered you. They would not have proved your point, but
they would have kept you from appearing completely foolish. Now that
you've come out again with this nonsense (accompanied by insults) it
is my duty to spank you with the truth once more. When you slunk away
last time, I was prefectly satisfied. I did not need to hound you
into an admission of error. Anyone following the discussion could see
what the truth of the matter was. But since you have persisted in
pressing the point, so shall I.
Either
A) Provide references to the articles in Science and Nature you saw.
or
B) Admit that your description of your trip to the library was a lie.
--Mike
C.S.Strowbridge
> If you are interested in seeing the original (or if you don't trust my
> summary), see:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2cqdn
>
> If tinyurl.com ever goes bust, this can also be found at the long URL of:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=o0iR/8MBA7kY092
> yn%40america.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl372050663d%26dq%3D%26hl%3D
> en%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Do0iR/8MBA7kY092yn%2540america.net
Got to love Google Groups. I find it invaluable when debating certain
individuals.
C.S.Strowbridge
Al Smith
>>> "lyric"? Are the words of a song it lyric, or its lyrics? You can
>>> say the "lyrics of a song", but you can also refer to a "song
>>> lyric". Shouldn't the words to several songs be lyrics? (plural)
>>> Which would make the words to one song a lyric. (singular) Off
>>> topic, I know, but then, so is life.
>>>
>
> "lyrics" it refers to the "words of a song, especially a popular
> song."
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
I don't think I buy this. Sure, it's in your dictionary, but it
doesn't feel right. If you use "lyrics" for the words of a single
song, you've got no separate word for the words of several songs
-- a job that "lyrics" could fill to perfection. On the other
hand, we can't fight vernacular usage, can we?
C.S.Strowbridge
>>> While we're on the subject of nit picking, what about the word
>>>
>>>> "lyric"? Are the words of a song it lyric, or its lyrics? You can
>>>> say the "lyrics of a song", but you can also refer to a "song
>>>> lyric". Shouldn't the words to several songs be lyrics? (plural)
>>>> Which would make the words to one song a lyric. (singular) Off
>>>> topic, I know, but then, so is life.
>>>>
>>
>> As a nouns, "lyric" refers to a "lyric poem", while in the form
>> "lyrics" it refers to the "words of a song, especially a popular
>> song."
>
> I don't think I buy this. Sure, it's in your dictionary, but it doesn't
> feel right. If you use "lyrics" for the words of a single song, you've
> got no separate word for the words of several songs -- a job that
> "lyrics" could fill to perfection. On the other hand, we can't fight
> vernacular usage, can we?
Lyricses.
C.S.Strowbridge
Dan Norder
LOL.
As another poster might put it: 'Lyricii, of coarse, is the proper Latin
ending, and while the public uses "lyrics", proffesional musicians almost all
use "lyricii", and if you can't find a referince to such usage you are an idiot
whose soully out to attack me for no reason because you have no lives.'
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Either
>
> A) Provide references to the articles in Science and Nature you saw.
>
> or
>
> B) Admit that your description of your trip to the library was a lie.
>
I thank you for your gracious invitation, but I'm afraid I must
decline; I have my own research to do.
However, please feel free to go to your nearest university or medical
center library and look up the articles themselves.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> It started because Franklin reported having a *computer* virus, and someone
> else reported about what some of the "recent virii" (computer term) do. I said
> "viruses" in a reply.
>
> Kevin jumped in and claimed:
>
> "The proper English plural of "virus" is "viruses", whereas the proper Latin
> plural (virus is a Latin word) is "viri" or "virii". "
>
> So total botch on the Latin plural claim.
>
Dan Clore indicated that his two Latin dictionaries stated that the
plural of "virus" was "viri". See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1395075441d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3F4C2739.CADD6CE%40columbia-center.org
Did he botch it as well? Or is Dan Clore one of my "imaginary
friends"?
>
> He then said:
>
> "among scientists and medical professionals "virii" is used much more often
> than "viruses"."
>
> He has not been able to substantiate this in in any way, he just declares
> it to be true.
>
Yes, just as I would assert any fact to be true; facts do not need to
be substantiated. If you are ignorant of this fact, I cannot help
that, but it doesn't mean the fact is a lie.
>
> Mike Tice did searches both on Google and in dedicated medical databases and
> found something in the order of 99% of the professional citations use
> "viruses."
>
Mike Tice assumes that the MedLine database works like Google; it does
not. Hence Mike's conclusion is based on a misconception. Do your
own search using "viruses" and read the papers; you'll find they use
"virii" far more often than "viruses".
>
> Kevin claimed that only he knew how to research things properly and declared
> everyone else dead wrong.
>
Liar. Mike is not a scientist, nor does he know how MedLine was
designed. As a scientist who has helped add papers to the MedLine
database, I do know how it works. I tried to explain that to Mike,
but he arrogantly declared that I was merely "rationalizing". At no
time did I claim that "only [I] knew how to research things properly"
and I never declared that "everyone else dead wrong". A search of
Google would have revealed this, had you bothered to make one.
But then this is just another one of your delusions, like your claim
that I stated that there can never be an increase greater than 100%.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Chris Stuart-Bennett
news:ed6ccb78.04021...@posting.google.com:
'Course there is the further complication that the a single isolated
viral entity is called a virion (note 'viri' ) which could be a source of
much of the confusion. Before you all query my credentials my degree was
in Pathology and Microbiology and whilst I may have only got a 2:2 I
remember this much at least - viri/virii/viruses were used pretty much
interchangably over the course of my degree although it tended to be the
older professors who used viri/virii. Im not gonna speculate why, but it
was a noticable trend.
Oh, and hi guys - long time lurker and all that.
Cheers
Chris
C.S.Strowbridge
>>Either
>>
>>A) Provide references to the articles in Science and Nature you saw.
>>
>>or
>>
>>B) Admit that your description of your trip to the library was a lie.
>
> I thank you for your gracious invitation, but I'm afraid I must
> decline; I have my own research to do.
Then I graciously invite you to shut the fuck up.
You can't make claims and then expect others to do your research for
you. So either do the research yourself, or stop making claims.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> > As a nouns, "lyric" refers to a "lyric poem", while in the form
> > "lyrics" it refers to the "words of a song, especially a popular
> > song."
> >
> > Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> I don't think I buy this. Sure, it's in your dictionary, but it
> doesn't feel right. If you use "lyrics" for the words of a single
> song, you've got no separate word for the words of several songs
> -- a job that "lyrics" could fill to perfection. On the other
> hand, we can't fight vernacular usage, can we?
>
I believe the idea is that, if "lyric" refers to a whole poem (and
that's pretty much what the words to a song are, a poem), then
"lyrics" refer to the words themselves. And so, since an individual
song tends to have more than one word, it doesn't matter whether we
are referring to one song or multiple songs, we are referring to
multiple words, so "lyrics" is appropriate.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> 'Course there is the further complication that the a single isolated
> viral entity is called a virion (note 'viri' ) which could be a source of
> much of the confusion. Before you all query my credentials my degree was
> in Pathology and Microbiology and whilst I may have only got a 2:2 I
> remember this much at least - viri/virii/viruses were used pretty much
> interchangably over the course of my degree although it tended to be the
> older professors who used viri/virii. Im not gonna speculate why, but it
> was a noticable trend.
>
> Oh, and hi guys - long time lurker and all that.
>
Hi, Chris, "welcome" to the group (I use quotation marks to indicate
that you are not a new member, just a new contributor to the
discussions).
One thing I will admit is that "viruses" is becoming more common in
scientific papers, especially as you pointed out among younger
researchers. It is conceivable that within another generation
"viruses" will become predominant.
Are you still active in research?
Kevin L. O'Brien
Mike Tice
I can't look them up if I don't know what they are. The recent issue
of Nature lying on top of the stack next to my desk had three articles
about viruses, all of which used 'viruses' (and/or flaviviruses,
retroviruses, etc.). I had no need to go to a library, since I could
reach my arm out and disprove your contention to my own satisfaction.
Since you yourself have contended that journal editors edit research
articles to conform to their standard spellings, no recent issues of
Nature contain the word 'virii' (unless a style change has recently
occurred).
So once again, we are at the 'put up or shut up' point. Six months
ago, you shut up. Apart from admitting your error, this was the best
thing you could have done. But you couldn't leave well enough alone,
could you? You had the audacity to declare yourself the victor,
insult those who opposed you, and manufacture a blatant lie.
--Mike
"An honest whore is less of an insult to humanity than a sanctimonious
prig who ignores the truth and fosters error and illusion."
--HP Lovecraft, letter to Maurice Moe 1/4/30
Martin Edwards
<Sigh>It's Greek you fool.
Martin Edwards
>viral entity is called a virion (note 'viri' ) which could be a source of
>much of the confusion.
I'll take your word for it, but the ending is Greek. A Greek coining
from a Latin term would be very unusual indeed, though not impossible.
Perhaps the ever greater specialization of education is producing
scientists with little linguistic knowlege.
Martin Edwards
how many scientists use it. "Viruses" is now acceptable and likely to
become the norm, based on the previous history of any number of
Latinisms. No need to look up my sources, I didn't use any. That is
the right answer.
Martin Edwards, BA, PGCE, RT.
Kevin L. O'Brien
> of Nature lying on top of the stack next to my desk had three articles
> about viruses, all of which used 'viruses' (and/or flaviviruses,
> retroviruses, etc.). I had no need to go to a library, since I could
> reach my arm out and disprove your contention to my own satisfaction.
> Since you yourself have contended that journal editors edit research
> articles to conform to their standard spellings, no recent issues of
> Nature contain the word 'virii' (unless a style change has recently
> occurred).
>
The fact that you need to lie to win this argument simply confirms my
belief that this has become a personal issue for you; that for reasons
I cannot fathom, you have a vendetta against me and you will do
anything to try to discredit me. But then I should have anticipated
that, considering that you lied about my story containing many
anachronisms.
If indeed you are familiar with the scientific literature, then it
should be an easy matter for you to search the back issues of
*Science* and *Nature* for the articles I spoke of. If you don't have
them, go to your nearest university library and find them; the reading
room generally keeps about the last month's worth of weekly issues
before sending them to the binder. But I will not waste any more time
on a person who pretends to know what he is talking about when in fact
any biologist could tell from his remarks he is quite ignorant.
Do your own work.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Dan Norder
>Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
>>Mike Tice wrote:
>>>A) Provide references to the articles in Science and
>>>Nature you saw.
>>>
>>>or
>>>
>>>B) Admit that your description of your trip to the
>>>library was a lie.
>>I thank you for your gracious invitation, but I'm
>>afraid I must decline; I have my own research to do.
>You can't make claims and then expect others to
>do your research for you.
It's worse than that. People have done the research and found him completely
wrong. He ignores that research and refuses to do anything to show any evidence
to support his side, and STILL claims he's right and that everyone saying he's
wrong are idiots.
But then that's been his strategy from the very beginning so should come as no
surprise.
Dan Norder
>>the proper Latin ending, and while the public uses "lyrics",
>>proffesional musicians almost all use "lyricii", and if you
>>can't find a referince to such usage you are an idiot whose
>>soully out to attack me for no reason because you have no
>>lives.'
><Sigh>It's Greek you fool.
Hey, it's imitation Kevinspeak, of course it's going to be littered with
errors. Just going directly from his false claim that virii was the proper
Latin plural for virus, which it isn't either.
C.S.Strowbridge
> Mike Tice wrote:
> Do your own work.
It's YOUR work. You made the claim, you supply the evidence. Until you
do we can just assume you're wrong and the evidence doesn't exist.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
I would like to say on a side note, Lyricii would be an excellent name
for a rock band.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
Delusions of Grandeur. Hell, delusions of adequacy.
C.S.Strowbridge
Aaron Vanek
tice...@hotmail.com (Mike Tice) wrote in message news:<2eb1f685.04021...@posting.google.com>...
You are a piece of work, KLOB.The fact that you need to lie to win this argument simply confirms my belief that this has become a personal issue for you; that for reasons I cannot fathom, you have a vendetta against me and you will do anything to try to discredit me. But then I should have anticipated that, considering that you lied about my story containing many anachronisms.
Mike Tice does not lie.
You can accuse him of being wrong, but don't accuse him of being a liar. That's a rude personal attack. No matter what people say or do to you, aren't you supposed to be above such things? Anyway, he didn't launch a personal attack on you, he asked you to prove your point.
Which you refuse to do.
You argue like an evangelical Christian:
1. you make a declarative statement like the Metatron
2. when challenged on your statement, you do not provide adequate proof (private emails don't count)
3. when further pressed for answers, you retreat into the typical Christian martyrdom syndrome and claim "You're unjustly attacking me!"
I've found some interesting threads on other newsgroups with your name on them, KLOB. Why is it that so many people argue with you, why so many people distrust you, why so many people constantly question you? (such as in some of your posts on talk.origins) Why do you retreat when things look bad for you instead of simply admitting you're wrong, you're sorry, and you'll try to avoid such mistakes in the future? Why are you going to be asking me questions about my vindictive attacks instead of answering me?
Have you ever wondered why you are frequently the target of attacks? The only other person I've seen who has caused such heat here is Tani Jantsang, a self-proclaimed Satanist with signs of mental disorder.
If indeed you are familiar with the scientific literature, then it should be an easy matter for you to search the back issues of *Science* and *Nature* for the articles I spoke of. If you don't have them, go to your nearest university library and find them; the reading room generally keeps about the last month's worth of weekly issues before sending them to the binder. But I will not waste any more time on a person who pretends to know what he is talking about when in fact any biologist could tell from his remarks he is quite ignorant.
Your remarks, on the other hand, prove that although you have no problem wasting hours typing in a forum, you cannot find an hour in a week to go to the library and find ONE instance of the word "virii" in an article.
How can I get you to do this? If you do this, I'll buy one of your books, how's that? Do you not want me to have one of your books? Am I forbidden from giving you money?
You could have one sale with just a little bit of legwork. So how 'bout it?
The response I expect from KLOB:
"Your childish, vindictive attacks prove how sad you really are."
(that is, he will discount this post like a coward)
TO THE GROUP:
I am sorry for lighting this match (I did it intentionally when I asked "What is the plural of 'octopus'? Who is the authority on plurals around here?")
I realize now that I erred in paying any attention to KLOB. I will try to ignore everything he has to say, which I recommend everyone else does.
I am sorry that, for some of you, you have to deal with him as an editor (for which I'm sure he's supportive, because he likes everything). I just hope you writers are able to find better, kinder, more rational publishers (with tastes and standards) in the future.
TO MY FRIENDS AND MYSELF:
I know, I know. Stop paying attention to the thing that feels alive when people are yelling at him. Like the cat, who claws the furniture when he wants attention, KLOB posts when he wants the spotlight on his bad behavior. Like a dumb sucker, I get drawn to his ugliness every time.
-- Aaron Vanek My latest movie reviews: http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472 Also Check out: http://www.webnoir.com/yellowsign My last movie, "Return to Innsmouth" available at: http://www.beyond-books.com/catalog/ "The only time those S.U.V.s are going to be off-road is when they miss the driveway at 3 A.M." - Senior Marketing Executive, Ford Motors
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> You can't make claims and then expect others to do your research for
> you. So either do the research yourself, or stop making claims.
>
Good advice for Mike Tice as well. He claimed that my story was full
of anachronisms. I asked him to list them and he told me to do my own
research.
So Mike Tice should also do the research himself or stop making
claims. Of course he cannot, make a list that is, because aside from
the reference to electroshock there are no other anachronisms.
By the way, I already did the research; that's how I was able to state
that the journals I saw used "virii". If you or Mike don't believe
me, you are free to look them up yourself. All it will take is a trip
to the library. But it is a fact that they used "virii", and facts do
not need to be substantiated.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> <Sigh>It's Greek you fool.
>
Funny Norder not knowing that.
According to my dictionary the Latin was (is?) "lyricus", but that was
derived from the Greek "lurikos". If "lyricus" follows the same
pattern as "virus" then I guess it could be "lyrici" after all. But I
a, only speculating, so I'm probably wrong.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> "Viri" is acceptable but archaic. "Virii" is incorrect regardless of
> how many scientists use it. "Viruses" is now acceptable and likely to
> become the norm, based on the previous history of any number of
> Latinisms. No need to look up my sources, I didn't use any. That is
> the right answer.
>
I don't doubt it, and as I've already admitted biologists are not
experts in Latin. However, again the dispute has degenerated from
what is the proper plural form to do biologists preferentially use
"viri" or "virii". The answer to the latter question is yes, though
again as I pointed out that is beginning to change.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Mike Tice
> > I can't look them up if I don't know what they are. The recent issue
> > of Nature lying on top of the stack next to my desk had three articles
> > about viruses, all of which used 'viruses' (and/or flaviviruses,
> > retroviruses, etc.). I had no need to go to a library, since I could
> > reach my arm out and disprove your contention to my own satisfaction.
> > Since you yourself have contended that journal editors edit research
> > articles to conform to their standard spellings, no recent issues of
> > Nature contain the word 'virii' (unless a style change has recently
> > occurred).
To which, Kevin replied:
> The fact that you need to lie to win this argument simply confirms my
> belief that this has become a personal issue for you;
To what lie do you refer, sir? I demand an explanation and/or an
apology.
> that for reasons
> I cannot fathom, you have a vendetta against me and you will do
> anything to try to discredit me.
I let this particular matter drop 6 months ago, until you brought it
up, insulted me, and lied about being vindicated. You have
discredited yourself; it was merely I who called you out on your lie.
You have since compounded the matter by sticking to your lies and
accusing me of being as mendacious as you are yourself.
> If indeed you are familiar with the scientific literature, then it
> should be an easy matter for you to search the back issues of
> *Science* and *Nature* for the articles I spoke of.
You barely alluded to them. You offered neither issue, authors, nor
titles.
> But I will not waste any more time
> on a person who pretends to know what he is talking about when in fact
> any biologist could tell from his remarks he is quite ignorant.
I *am* going to waste more of my time on a person who pretends to know
what he is talking about. Because I am more interested in revealing
the truth than in insulting people in a fit of dudgeon.
Kevin and any other interested parties are invited to go to Nature's
search engine:
http://www.nature.com/DynaSearch/App/dynasearch.taf
Click the checkbox for Nature.
Type 'virii' into the full search, and voila:
"Your search yielded no results."
Type 'viruses' into the full search, and voila:
"Documents 1 to 10 of 564 matching the query"
Restricting the search to Jan/2004-Feb/2004 yields 16 hits on viruses,
including the one I adequately cited before:
10. Structure of the dengue virus envelope protein after membrane
fusion
Yorgo Modis, Steven Ogata, David Clements, Stephen C. Harrison
SUMMARY: Dengue virus enters a host cell when the viral envelope
glycoprotein, E, binds to a receptor and responds by conformational
rearrangement to the reduced...
Nature427, 313 - 319 (22 Jan 2004)
You may also go to Science's search site:
http://www.sciencemag.org/search.dtl
You can search 'words anywhere in article'
virii yields:
"Your search retrieved zero articles.
Check your spelling."
viruses yields:
Results 1 to 10
(of 927 found)
Restricting this to 2004 yields 18 results.
Thus, there appear to be ZERO occurences of 'virii' in recent issues
of Nature and Science, while there are many substantiated occurences
of 'viruses'. I shall post a scan of the first page of the article
above later.
For your own sake, Kevin... please
1) apologize to me for accusing me of lying.
and
2) admit you were 'in error' about what you claimed to have seen in
recent issues of Science and Nature.
--Mike
Mike Tice
> taped TV, on an octopus called VAMPIRIS DE TUETHIS or something like
> that, a wicked, evil-looking thing! It's all spikes and horns and
> fangs.
I bet it was this guy -- Vampyroteuthis infernalis:
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues96/may96/vampire_jpg.html
http://www.seasky.org/monsters/sea7a1i.html
One of my favorites.
--Mike
L.P. Hovercraft
> of anachronisms. I asked him to list them and he told me to do my own
> research.
You were told of a couple - and proceeded to stick your fingers in your
ears and chant "nah nah I can't hear you." No reason for any more of
YOUR work to be dome by others.
> By the way, I already did the research; that's how I was able to state
> that the journals I saw used "virii".
Please state the name of one single such.
> If you or Mike don't believe
> me, you are free to look them up yourself. All it will take is a trip
> to the library. But it is a fact that they used "virii", and facts do
> not need to be substantiated.
So, claiming something as a fact releives the claimant of any obligation
of proof? I'll have to remember that!
Facts like 90% of everything being crap?
Anyway... I suppose all the following are meaningless? (Go ahead - say
Merck is meaningless...)
http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/garryfavweb.html
[...]It is our hope that this site will provide both the professional
virologist and the general public with access to information about
viruses.[...]
http://www.virology.net/ATVHIVGlossary.html#v
VIRUS:[...]viruses do not carry out the usual functions of living cells[...]
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6000
Viruses: Small living particles that can infect cells and change how the
cells function. Infection with a virus can cause a person to develop
symptoms. The disease and symptoms that are caused depend on the type of
virus and the type of cells that are infected.
(No entry for virii)
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5997
Virus: [...]Viruses cause many common human infections,[...]
http://www.mblab.gla.ac.uk/~julian/Dict.html
VIRUS: Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites of living but
non-cellular nature, [...]
http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section13/chapter162/162a.jsp
Viruses are the smallest of parasites[...]
etc...
C.S.Strowbridge
>>You can't make claims and then expect others to do your research for
>>you. So either do the research yourself, or stop making claims.
>
> Good advice for Mike Tice as well. He claimed that my story was full
> of anachronisms. I asked him to list them and he told me to do my own
> research.
He gave one example, which is 1 more than you have given.
> By the way, I already did the research; that's how I was able to state
> that the journals I saw used "virii". If you or Mike don't believe
> me, you are free to look them up yourself. All it will take is a trip
> to the library. But it is a fact that they used "virii", and facts do
> not need to be substantiated.
We don't believe you. We've done some research. It shows you are wrong.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
They don't look like they belong on this planet.
C.S.Strowbridge
Mike Tice
here:
http://m.tice.home.comcast.net/images/raw.gif
Several examples of 'viruses' and related words appear, including one
in the first sentence of the article.
--Mike
Cricket
I love, in the second link, "other names: none". I mean, with a name like
"vampire squid", any other names would be superfluous...
>
> C.S.Strowbridge
>
Robert Stoll
news:ed6ccb78.04021...@posting.google.com...
You don't need to go to the library to do research. After all, if you can
read this, you're already connected to the internet. Duh. A quick search for
"viruses" on the Nature magazine website turns up 6215 hits. A search for
virii turns up exactly zero hits. As you have said, I've done it, try it
yourself:
A similar experiment on the Science magazine website yields similar results.
Virii 0, viruses 927. Again, don't take my word for it:
These were the two journals you claimed used "virii," right?
Anyhow, a similar experiment run on Google turned up something interesting.
Almost all the hits (at least among the first 50) for a Google search on
"virii" appear to be computer science related. The only single case (among
those sampled) where the term "virii" is used as plural for "virus" in a
biological sense is on an Amazon.com page where some user lists his favorite
virus and bacteria books ("Listmania! Virii and bacteria"). The profession
of the Amazon user? "Lab robotics programmer." Well, it seems the computer
scientists (who brought the world "LOL," don't forget) seem to be the
primary abusers of classical inflection in this case, not biologists. Let's
check out the alternative: A Google search on "viruses" turns up more than
15 times the number of hits for "virii" (4,770,000 compared to 275,000).
This is also where you see all the biology references (as well as plenty
more computer science references).
The following article explains the whole virus/virii thing better than
anyone in this group has to date. The short answer: the word "virii" doesn't
exist. In fact, there is no classical plural inflection for the word "virus"
at all. Forget viri, virii, vira, or virora. None of them exist. So it's
most properly pluralized as "viruses." Good article, lots and lots of links,
footnotes (including at least one on "octopi"), sources, etc.
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
As already stated, the OED doesn't contain the word at all. Here's another
(public access) dictionary that doesn't have it either:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virii
Getting back to what you said, I felt free to look up the facts myself (as
you so generously invited us all to do), and found that you are in error. I
won't call you a liar, as I cannot gauge your intention (and have no wish to
get drawn into the kind of pissing contest you seem to relish), but I will
point out that your claims are wrong, as far as the data (plural!) I've seen
indicate. It was kind of fun (albeit a guilty pleasure) watching you and CS
Strowbridge go at it for a while, but you're starting to get really pathetic
in your dramatic late-stage meltdown phase (as well as getting nasty with
good people like Mike Tice and Aaron Vanek, who haven't really been
antagonizing you ... OK, well, maybe Mr. Vanek is getting drawn in a little
bit at this point, but it didn't have to be this way). Disproving your claim
was trivial, as your "proof" relies on evidence that is extremely simple to
check.
Oh, and as a teacher (plural: teacheria) of physics (pl: physicseses) and
astronomy (pl: astronomii), I got a special kick out of your "facts do not
need to be substantiated" line. "Facts," at least in the context of science,
are never considered factual unless they are verifiable and until verified.
Hence the scientific peer-review process. Even so, a "known fact" could turn
out to be incorrect (like how Newtonian physics breaks down under quantum
mechanics or relativity), so a good scientist rarely makes absolute
statements about veracity as you did. And a good scientist should NEVER
claim that something need not be substantiated - any and all "facts" held
dear by the scientific community are understood to be part of the best
working model we have, and are subject to change as our understanding of the
universe changes.
Well, whatever. We aren't talking about scientific truth or fact-finding in
a scientific context, we're talking about whether the use of the word
"virii" is common in microbiology or not (regardless of the fact that it
isn't proper classical inflection of the word). You claim it is, I (and
others) claim it is not. You claim to have seen citations in the literature,
I (and others) find no evidence to support this claim (indeed, we find
evidence of the contrary). Lacking any proof to verify your claim, I (and
others) on this forum have no choice but to find you wrong on this one. Let
it go, man, or provide some shred of evidence on your side. You're really
starting to look foolish, and will only continue to do so the longer you
drag this out without backing up your claims.
Robert
--
"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Tattulhu Fantasy Island wagh'nagl fhtagn."
"In his house at Fantasy Island dead Tattoo waits dreaming." (trans.)
Ia! Ia! Tattulhu fhtagn! The guest stars are right!
Aaron Vanek
Robert Stoll wrote:
>it go, man, or provide some shred of evidence on your side. You're really
>starting to look foolish, and will only continue to do so the longer you
>drag this out without backing up your claims.
>
Thanks, Robert. And to Mike, for I was going to go to the LA public
library on Monday with Cthulhu plush and take a photo montage story of
he and I trying to find the evidence that KLOB claims exists abundantly
like his pearls of wisdom amongst us swine.
You saved me the trip (and maybe the fun) of getting the homeless guys
to stop looking at internet porn to take my picture with a squidman doll.
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> He gave one example, which is 1 more than you have given.
>
He claimed there were many; "one" is not many. He refuses to
substantiate his claim. Therefore by your reasoning he shouldn't be
making claims he cannot or will not substantiate.
And I mentioned three sources of articles that use "virii": recent
(within the past two months) issues of *Nature*, *Science*, and at
least a half-dozen virology journals, all of which you could easily
find at a university library, if only you would get off your butt and
go there yourself.
Fair is fair, Strowbridge. If you expect me to substantiate an
obvious fact known to any biologist, then I expect Tice to
substantiate his "obvious" anachronisms that are known to him. If he
can supply me a list of the "many" anachronisms in my story that
contains at least six true anachronisms, I will post at least six
references (one for each true anachronism he lists) to recent articles
that use "virii".
But I'm not holding my breath.
>
> We don't believe you. We've done some research. It shows you are wrong.
>
Your research consists of 1) misusing scientific databases and 2)
finding isolated (ie, taken out of context) instances of scientists
who used "viruses" instead of "virii". Neither constitutes a
demonstration that I am wrong. Meanwhile I've found research articles
in scientific journals which use "virii" over "viruses", articles you
can easily find yourself if you would only expend the effort to look
for them.
But you won't.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> You were told of a couple - and proceeded to stick your fingers in your
> ears and chant "nah nah I can't hear you." No reason for any more of
> YOUR work to be dome by others.
>
The two I was told of were 1) electroshock in 1924, which I admitted
to being an anachronism (so already your claim is bogus), and 2) women
doctors in positions of authority in mental institutes named Tiffaney.
The latter is not an anachronism. To be an anachronism something has
to be representated as happening or existing outside of its proper
time. Electroshock did not come into use until the mid-1930s, so
portraying it in 1924 is a representation of it happening outside its
proper time. In contrast, there were women doctors in 1924; there
were women doctors who held positions of low level authority in mental
institutions during the 1920s; and there were women named Tiffaney in
the 1920s. As such, while a woman doctor named Tiffaney who held a
position of authority in a mental institution may be unusual, it is
not a representation of something existing outside its proper tiem.
So your claim is completely bogus.
>
> Please state the name of one single such.
>
I named two: *Science* and *Nature*.
>
> So, claiming something as a fact releives the claimant of any obligation
> of proof? I'll have to remember that!
>
Facts are by definition already proven to be true; they would not be
facts otherwise. What you want me to do is convince you my statement
is a fact; that's different from proving it's a fact. Since you
already are certain that it is not a fact, I cannot convince you
otherwise, so there is no point in trying. But this is no different
from a young-earth creationist certain that the universe is only
10,000 years old who refuses to be convinced that it is in fact much
older.
>
> Facts like 90% of everything being crap?
>
If a fact is "crap" then it would not be a fact, would it? But the
only reasons why you think it's "crap" are 1) you are ignorant of it
and 2) you will not allow yourself to admit that I am right.
>
> Anyway... I suppose all the following are meaningless? (Go ahead - say
> Merck is meaningless...)
>
All those websites are geared towards laypeople and non-biologists;
hence, terms like "viruses" that such people are more familiar with
will be used rather than terms like "virii". I've already stated,
repeatedly, that outside of research articles "viruses" is used
instead of "virii". It is in research articles where "virii" is used
preferentially over "viruses". And again note that I said
"preferentially", not "exclusively". You will find instances where
research articles use "viruses", especially in the last five years,
and the use of "viruses" is growing, so in time "viruses" will replace
"virii" as the preference.
But that does not contradict the fact that in the past "virii" has
been used preferentially and in the present it still is used to a
large extent.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
As I have repeatedly stated, use of "virii" is preferential, not
exclusive, so you will find examples of research articles that use
"viruses". One example, however, does not contradict my claim. To
claim or even imply that it does is a lie. It's like a creationist
finding one example of an evolutionary biologist criticizing
Neo-Darwinism and saying that it proves Neo-Darwinsim is false.
Kevin L. O'Brien
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>He gave one example, which is 1 more than you have given.
>
> He claimed there were many; "one" is not many. He refuses to
> substantiate his claim. Therefore by your reasoning he shouldn't be
> making claims he cannot or will not substantiate.
Well, he gave a couple more that you disputed as being anachronistic,
but I didn't want to get into hair splitting.
> And I mentioned three sources of articles that use "virii": recent
> (within the past two months) issues of *Nature*, *Science*, and at
> least a half-dozen virology journals, all of which you could easily
> find at a university library, if only you would get off your butt and
> go there yourself.
Two points.
1.) You've given the names of /magazines/ without giving issue numbers
or article names. That's like giving http://www.cnn.com/ as your source.
We still have to do the research for you.
2.) But we've done the searches online, *none* of which has offered any
evidence that you are correct.
> Fair is fair, Strowbridge. If you expect me to substantiate an
> obvious fact known to any biologist, then I expect Tice to
> substantiate his "obvious" anachronisms that are known to him. If he
> can supply me a list of the "many" anachronisms in my story that
> contains at least six true anachronisms, I will post at least six
> references (one for each true anachronism he lists) to recent articles
> that use "virii".
>
> But I'm not holding my breath.
So because Mike Tice did something you object to, I will not be getting
the evidence you claim to have?
>>We don't believe you. We've done some research. It shows you are wrong.
>
> Your research consists of 1) misusing scientific databases and 2)
> finding isolated (ie, taken out of context) instances of scientists
> who used "viruses" instead of "virii".
Proof it. Proof we've been misusing scientific databases. Tell us how to
do it correctly.
> Neither constitutes a
> demonstration that I am wrong. Meanwhile I've found research articles
> in scientific journals which use "virii" over "viruses", articles you
> can easily find yourself if you would only expend the effort to look
> for them.
>
> But you won't.
We /are/ looking for them. We just aren't finding them. There is a
difference.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>>Anyway... I suppose all the following are meaningless? (Go ahead - say
>>Merck is meaningless...)
>
> All those websites are geared towards laypeople and non-biologists;
> hence, terms like "viruses" that such people are more familiar with
> will be used rather than terms like "virii".
Ad hoc hypothesis
> I've already stated,
> repeatedly, that outside of research articles "viruses" is used
> instead of "virii". It is in research articles where "virii" is used
> preferentially over "viruses". And again note that I said
> "preferentially", not "exclusively". You will find instances where
> research articles use "viruses", especially in the last five years,
> and the use of "viruses" is growing, so in time "viruses" will replace
> "virii" as the preference.
>
> But that does not contradict the fact that in the past "virii" has
> been used preferentially and in the present it still is used to a
> large extent.
And you have given no evidence to back that up. Not one research paper
has been mentioned.
C.S.Strowbridge
L.P. Hovercraft
> And I mentioned three sources of articles that use "virii": recent
> (within the past two months) issues of *Nature*, *Science*, and at
> least a half-dozen virology journals, all of which you could easily
> find at a university library, if only you would get off your butt and
> go there yourself.
"Journal of Virology" search:
http://jvi.asm.org/search.dtl
searching all articles 1992 to present, for occurrences anywhere in articles
"Journal of Genersl Virology"
http://vir.sgmjournals.org/
searching 1967 to present
"virii" = 0
"viruses"=3128
"Journal of Clinical Virology"
"virii" = 0
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=(issn:13866532)%20AND%20virii#results
"viruses"=371
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=(issn:13866532)%20AND%20viruses#results
L.P. Hovercraft
> All those websites are geared towards laypeople and non-biologists;
Wrong.
You need to give this up.
C.S.Strowbridge
>>The first page of the Nature article referenced by me can be viewed
>>here:
>>
>>http://m.tice.home.comcast.net/images/raw.gif
>>
>>Several examples of 'viruses' and related words appear, including one
>>in the first sentence of the article.
>
> As I have repeatedly stated, use of "virii" is preferential, not
> exclusive, so you will find examples of research articles that use
> "viruses". One example, however, does not contradict my claim. To
> claim or even imply that it does is a lie. It's like a creationist
> finding one example of an evolutionary biologist criticizing
> Neo-Darwinism and saying that it proves Neo-Darwinsim is false.
It's not one example, and to say it's only one example is a lie. We've
giving plenty of examples. L.P. Hovercraft gave six more. Robert Stoll
showed the two magazines you claim support your position have viruses
outnumbering virii 7142 to *ZERO*! (Side note: viri comes up 23 times.)
You claim to have evidence that contradicts this, but you refuse to give
it.
C.S.Strowbridge
L.P. Hovercraft
> I named two: *Science* and *Nature*.
Nature, 1987 to present, all (57) journals:
"viruses:" 6228
"virii": 0
http://www.nature.com/dynasearch/app/dynasearch.taf?
Science Magazine:
"viruses:" 927
"virii": 0
http://www.sciencemag.org/search.dtl
> You will find instances where
> research articles use "viruses", especially in the last five years,
> and the use of "viruses" is growing, so in time "viruses" will replace
> "virii" as the preference.
This would imply that "virii" would occur some number of times greater
than zero.
Searching the journals you specifically name for any occurence anywhere
in article returns ZERO.
Just admit that you are wrong.
> But that does not contradict the fact that in the past "virii" has
> been used preferentially and in the present it still is used to a
> large extent.
You are correct only if "preferentially" and "to a large extent" mean
"Not At All."
Strange usage, though. Must be a scientific technical usage with which
I'm not familiar.
C.S.Strowbridge
>>You were told of a couple - and proceeded to stick your fingers in your
>>ears and chant "nah nah I can't hear you." No reason for any more of
>>YOUR work to be dome by others.
>
> The two I was told of were 1) electroshock in 1924, which I admitted
> to being an anachronism (so already your claim is bogus), and 2) women
> doctors in positions of authority in mental institutes named Tiffaney.
> The latter is not an anachronism. To be an anachronism something has
> to be representated as happening or existing outside of its proper
> time. Electroshock did not come into use until the mid-1930s, so
> portraying it in 1924 is a representation of it happening outside its
> proper time. In contrast, there were women doctors in 1924; there
> were women doctors who held positions of low level authority in mental
> institutions during the 1920s; and there were women named Tiffaney in
> the 1920s. As such, while a woman doctor named Tiffaney who held a
> position of authority in a mental institution may be unusual, it is
> not a representation of something existing outside its proper tiem.
> So your claim is completely bogus.
See, this is why nobody bothered to give you more information.
The odds of a female doctor in charge of a night shift in a 1924 mental
institution are incredibly low. So low as to affect suspension of
disbelief. (Especially without any explanation as to why you made those
choices, which is something you gave us, but not the reader.)
And instead of saying, 'Maybe I should make my intent clearer.' you
attacked the person you pointed it out.
That really gives us zero incentive to help you with your story.
>>So, claiming something as a fact releives the claimant of any obligation
>>of proof? I'll have to remember that!
>
> Facts are by definition already proven to be true; they would not be
> facts otherwise. What you want me to do is convince you my statement
> is a fact; that's different from proving it's a fact. Since you
> already are certain that it is not a fact, I cannot convince you
> otherwise, so there is no point in trying.
We are convinced it is not a fact, because all the evidence points to
that conclusion. If you have any specific evidence that contradicts that
conclusion, feel free to give it.
> But this is no different
> from a young-earth creationist certain that the universe is only
> 10,000 years old who refuses to be convinced that it is in fact much
> older.
You're right. And you are the Young Earther.
We give evidence. You claim we don't know how to research properly.
We give evidence. You claim our evidence is irrelevant.
We ask for your evidence. You tell us if we read the bible (Science and
Nature) we'd find all the evidence we are looking for.
>>Facts like 90% of everything being crap?
>
> If a fact is "crap" then it would not be a fact, would it? But the
> only reasons why you think it's "crap" are 1) you are ignorant of it
> and 2) you will not allow yourself to admit that I am right.
My god you're dumb. He's saying that, '90% of everything is crap' is a
fact.
You know what? I'm starting to think you have serious reading
comprehension issues. Have you been tested?
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
You know, with all this evidence, I'm starting to think Kevin L. O'Brien
may not be right on this point.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kevin L. O'Brien
> >
>
> You don't need to go to the library to do research. After all, if you can
> read this, you're already connected to the internet. Duh. A quick search for
> "viruses" on the Nature magazine website turns up 6215 hits. A search for
> virii turns up exactly zero hits. As you have said, I've done it, try it
> yourself:
>
> http://www.nature.com/
>
> A similar experiment on the Science magazine website yields similar results.
> Virii 0, viruses 927. Again, don't take my word for it:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/
>
> These were the two journals you claimed used "virii," right?
>
Since you are not a scientist, you have made the same error that the
others made. You assume that scientific databases are set up to count
words; they are not. So your conclusion that your results have
anything meaningful to say about which plural form is used
preferentially is incorrect.
>
> Anyhow, a similar experiment run on Google turned up something interesting.
> Almost all the hits (at least among the first 50) for a Google search on
> "virii" appear to be computer science related. The only single case (among
> those sampled) where the term "virii" is used as plural for "virus" in a
> biological sense is on an Amazon.com page where some user lists his favorite
> virus and bacteria books ("Listmania! Virii and bacteria"). The profession
> of the Amazon user? "Lab robotics programmer." Well, it seems the computer
> scientists (who brought the world "LOL," don't forget) seem to be the
> primary abusers of classical inflection in this case, not biologists. Let's
> check out the alternative: A Google search on "viruses" turns up more than
> 15 times the number of hits for "virii" (4,770,000 compared to 275,000).
> This is also where you see all the biology references (as well as plenty
> more computer science references).
>
Google is not a scientific database, so again the results are
meaningless.
>
> The following article explains the whole virus/virii thing better than
> anyone in this group has to date. The short answer: the word "virii" doesn't
> exist. In fact, there is no classical plural inflection for the word "virus"
> at all. Forget viri, virii, vira, or virora. None of them exist. So it's
> most properly pluralized as "viruses." Good article, lots and lots of links,
> footnotes (including at least one on "octopi"), sources, etc.
>
> http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
>
And as Dan Clore pointed out in a post from last year, this is
contradicted by Latin dictionaries that state that "viri" is an
accepted plural form of "virus". But as I have repeatedly stated, the
dispute is not over whether "virii" is a proper plural form of
"virus", but whether biologists use it preferentially over "viruses".
The answer to that question is yes.
>
> As already stated, the OED doesn't contain the word at all. Here's another
> (public access) dictionary that doesn't have it either:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virii
>
And as Dan Clore also pointed out last year the OED misses a fair
number of words, so this is not conclusive.
Note: I am not saying Dan Clore supports my statement about "virii"
being preferentially used by biologists; I am only pointing out that
your claims above have been contradicted by statements from at least
one other person in this group.
>
> Getting back to what you said, I felt free to look up the facts myself (as
> you so generously invited us all to do), and found that you are in error. I
> won't call you a liar, as I cannot gauge your intention (and have no wish to
> get drawn into the kind of pissing contest you seem to relish), but I will
> point out that your claims are wrong, as far as the data (plural!) I've seen
> indicate. It was kind of fun (albeit a guilty pleasure) watching you and CS
> Strowbridge go at it for a while, but you're starting to get really pathetic
> in your dramatic late-stage meltdown phase (as well as getting nasty with
> good people like Mike Tice and Aaron Vanek, who haven't really been
> antagonizing you ... OK, well, maybe Mr. Vanek is getting drawn in a little
> bit at this point, but it didn't have to be this way). Disproving your claim
> was trivial, as your "proof" relies on evidence that is extremely simple to
> check.
>
Accept that the procedure you used to "check" it was based on
misconceptions and ignorance, so naturally you came to the wrong
conclusion. This matter can be easily settled: go to a university
library and actually look at the scientific journals themselves.
>
> Oh, and as a teacher (plural: teacheria) of physics (pl: physicseses) and
> astronomy (pl: astronomii), I got a special kick out of your "facts do not
> need to be substantiated" line. "Facts," at least in the context of science,
> are never considered factual unless they are verifiable and until verified.
>
Exactly; and once they are they are accepted as true without the need
for continual verification or substantiation. As a teacher you know
that students are told that certain facts are true; teachers do not
waste time reproving them.
There is however a difference between substantiating a fact and
convincing doubters the fact is true. Facts do not need to be
substantiated, but people often have to be convinced that they are
true. In this case, however, you can easily convince yourself that my
statement is true: go to a university library and look at articles in
biology and virology journals.
>
> Hence the scientific peer-review process. Even so, a "known fact" could turn
> out to be incorrect (like how Newtonian physics breaks down under quantum
> mechanics or relativity) . . .
>
The facts of Newtonian mechanics (the laws of motion and of gravity)
were not shown to be incorrect. What was shown to be incorrect was
Newton's assumptions of absolute time, absolute space, and
simultanality. Inertia and mass are still considered to be real
concepts; acceleration of a body is still considered to be directly
portional to the force acting on the body and indirectly portional to
the mass of the body; every action is still considered to be
counterbalanced by a reaction equal in force and opposite in
direction; and the gravitational force between two bodies being
attracted to each other is still considered to be directly
proportional to the product of the masses of the two bodies and
inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two
bodies. These are still known facts, having been verified by Newton
and being demonstrable by simple experiments; even you teach them as
true, at least you should be. What was modified were the laws based
on these facts, specifically the mathematical descriptions of these
laws. Even then, the modifications did not show them to be incorrect,
just overly simplified.
>
> . . . so a good scientist rarely makes absolute statements about veracity
> as you did.
>
I see. So when you tell your students that the sun is powered by
nuclear fusion, you also tell them that they must not assume that this
is true? Somehow I doubt it. As you should know, there is just too
much evidence (all of which are facts by the way) that demonstrates
this as a fact. The exact nature of the fusion reactions is still
open to question, but the claim that the sun is powered by nuclear
fusion has been verified and is now a fact accepted as true with no
further need for substantiation.
And any fact is "absolutely" true; it would not be a fact otherwise.
It is absolutely true that the Denver Broncos have won two Superbowls;
it is absolutely true that Theodore Roosevelt was president of the
United States for two terms; it is absolutely true that the sun is at
the center of the solar system; it is absolutely true that the entropy
of a system is equal to the ratio of its temperature to its heat
content; and it is absolutely true that biologists have preferentially
used "virii" in the past and still use it more often than "viruses" in
the present.
Whether you are convinced of these facts is another matter.
>
> And a good scientist should NEVER
> claim that something need not be substantiated - any and all "facts" held
> dear by the scientific community are understood to be part of the best
> working model we have, and are subject to change as our understanding of the
> universe changes.
>
A good scientist, as well as a good teacher, also knows the difference
between a fact and claim, theory, or speculation. A claim is a
statement that needs to be verified; once it is it becomes a fact.
Provided the verification cannot be shown to be erroneous in some
fashion, facts are considered true with no further need to
substantiate them. No fact has ever been shown to be incorrect except
when the verification process can be shown to be in error. Certainly
no fact has ever been refuted by a later fact. What have been refuted
are the theories created to explain facts, and the speculations that
are based on facts, but disproving a theory or speculation does not
disprove the underlying facts themselves.
Again, people often have to be convinced that facts are true, but this
is not the same thing as substantiating a fact.
>
> Well, whatever. We aren't talking about scientific truth or fact-finding in
> a scientific context, we're talking about whether the use of the word
> "virii" is common in microbiology or not (regardless of the fact that it
> isn't proper classical inflection of the word).
>
It is still a fact.
>
> You claim it is, I (and others) claim it is not.
>
Actually, the situation is that I am stating that it is fact, which
you (and others) are ignorant of. You then demand that I convince you
my statement is true. I have explained how you can convince yourself
that it is true. You won't do it. Stalemate.
>
> You claim to have seen citations in the literature,
> I (and others) find no evidence to support this claim (indeed, we find
> evidence of the contrary).
>
The difference is I went to the literature and looked for myself. You
(and others) refuse to do this; instead you (and others) rely on
improperly performed database searches and isolated usages of the term
"viruses" from unscientific sources like websites.
>
> Lacking any proof to verify your claim, I (and
> others) on this forum have no choice but to find you wrong on this one.
>
My fact has already been verified and so needs no proof; you (and
others) refuse to do what is necessary to be convinced. But that does
not refute the fact I am relating. It only shows that you (and
others) would rather be ignorant than learn the truth. So be it.
>
> Let it go, man, or provide some shred of evidence on your side. You're really
> starting to look foolish, and will only continue to do so the longer you
> drag this out without backing up your claims.
>
I've already backed up my claims: I reported that journals I found in
the reading room of a university library contain articles that use
"virii". If you (and others) choose not to believe me, then I fail to
see how quoting references will convince you. If you won't go to the
library to look for the journals I mentioned, then I doubt you would
go to look up a reference. And it is the person who refuses to allow
himself to be convinced who looks foolish.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Gregory L. Hansen
L.P. Hovercraft <fun...@yuggoth.nospam.net> wrote:
>Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
>
>> I named two: *Science* and *Nature*.
>
>Nature, 1987 to present, all (57) journals:
>"viruses:" 6228
>"virii": 0
>http://www.nature.com/dynasearch/app/dynasearch.taf?
>
>Science Magazine:
>"viruses:" 927
>"virii": 0
>http://www.sciencemag.org/search.dtl
"Web of Science":
viruses: 43,348
virii: 1
And that one hit was the article "Hand-held virii on the way" in
_Computers & Security_.
--
"Very well, he replied, I allow you cow's dung in place of human
excrement; bake your bread on that." -- Ezekiel 4:15
Mike Tice
things:
> And a good scientist should NEVER
> claim that something need not be substantiated - any and all "facts" held
> dear by the scientific community are understood to be part of the best
> working model we have, and are subject to change as our understanding of the
> universe changes.
Bravo for your well-thought out response to Kevin. I appreciate your
sentiments as well as the time you took in composing it.
--Mike
"We know nothing except through logical analysis, and if we reject
that sole connexion with reality, we might as well stop trying to
be adults and retreat into the capricious dream-world of infantility."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 8/16/32
Dan Norder
Not only has he given no evidence, but he keeps changing his mind about what it
is he is arguing. Every time he is proven wrong he narrows and narrows what it
is he claims to have been arguing from the beginning.
First it was: How dare you correct someone for using virii as a computer term?
Then it was: Virii is the proper Latin plural. (Very wrong.)
Then it was: Professionals vastly prefer to use viri/virii. (No evidence to
support this, lots of counter-evidence found by others.)
That it was: Biology professionals use this as the correct term in journals and
will change use of word "viruses" to the more correct "viri" or "virii". (No
evidence presented, counter-evidence found by others but dismissed claiming
that they don't know how to use those databases or that now the journals are
aimed at laypersons so don't use it, even though he had been arguing that they
would change "viruses" to it.)
Now he is claiming: "Virii" is used prefentially in the past but it's changing
(still no evidence given, but in order to have counter-evidence we'd have to
track down OLD references).
He keeps lowering the bar on what he was claiming to have meant so he can try
to squeak by as being right in something, somewhere, in these two long threads
of erros on his part. And he insists upon hurling insults out at everyone
(C.S., Aaron, Mike, Robert, me, etc.) who dares to point out that he's wrong.
Of course he has to throw in lies to try to support himself. The doozy being
the nonsensical explanation that searching for virii in medical databases don't
return the proper use of the word because it only looks for author names that
match (when the search results very clearly shows that's not the case) whereas
a search for viruses somehow would look for the real word in a nonprofessional
context and not author names, by some insane Kevin-logic.
By next week he'll probably be claiming that all biology professionals 20 years
ago used it and that's when he picked it up which proves his superiority and
that modern ones are more stupid and caving to this conspiracy to change the
word and that we are all still lying idiots because everyone should have known
he was right all along.
It must be very lonely in Kevin's world.
Martin Edwards
O'Brien) wrote:
>Big...@netscape.net (Martin Edwards) wrote in message news:<403503d8...@news.btinternet.com>...
>>
>> <Sigh>It's Greek you fool.
>>
>
>Funny Norder not knowing that.
>
>According to my dictionary the Latin was (is?) "lyricus", but that was
>derived from the Greek "lurikos". If "lyricus" follows the same
>pattern as "virus" then I guess it could be "lyrici" after all. But I
>a, only speculating, so I'm probably wrong.
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
You are right.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.
Eddy Valiant.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/
Martin Edwards
>
>Since you are not a scientist, you have made the same error that the
>others made. You assume that scientific databases are set up to count
>words; they are not. So your conclusion that your results have
>anything meaningful to say about which plural form is used
>preferentially is incorrect.
>
>>
times it is wrong.
Martin Edwards
>I don't doubt it, and as I've already admitted biologists are not
>experts in Latin. However, again the dispute has degenerated from
>what is the proper plural form to do biologists preferentially use
>"viri" or "virii". The answer to the latter question is yes, though
>again as I pointed out that is beginning to change.
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
Let's hope they get the message, though contacting all of them would
be a long job.
Martin Edwards
What is the matter with you guys? If the figures were the other way
round "virii" would still be wrong.
Dan Norder
>Big...@netscape.net (Martin Edwards) wrote in message
news:<403503d8...@news.btinternet.com>...
>>
>> <Sigh>It's Greek you fool.
>>
>
>Funny Norder not knowing that.
It's even more funny that it was specifically written to be wrong to imitate
Kevin's errors (that Virii was the proper Latin plural for virus) and now he's
trying to present it as if I actually believed it. He must be really desperate
if he has to jump on intentional errors to try to score a point.
Dan Norder
>What is the matter with you guys? If the figures
>were the other way round "virii" would still be wrong.
Between calling me a fool for supposedly believing something that was satire of
Kevin's posts to this statement, it's pretty clear that you haven't been
following the conversation very clearly. Not that I blame you, these threads
spiral out of control and can be no fun. But Kevin has drawn the line against
Aaron, Mike, Robert, C.S., L.P., myself (and probably others lost in the
shuffle) claiming that we are all wrong and liars who are out to twist the
truth to get him, so we are just clearly pointing out the overwhelming evidence
showing that he is incredibly wrong on pretty much every level.
Everyone knows virii is wrong even if people used it a lot (reminds me of
Kevin's similar argument that the incorrect spelling "alot" is pefectly fine
because a lot of people supposedly use it), we're just proving Kevin wrong on
the things he is most forcefully claiming lately.
So he's wrong when he claims virii is the proper Latin plural, he's wrong when
he says it's the proper English plural, and he's ALSO wrong when he claims it
is used more often than not by biology professionals in magazines and journals.
The point here is that Kevin is so completely and utterly wrong in such obvious
ways that if he had any honesty at all he'd have to admit it. Instead he is
just showing off how low he will go with ridiculous rationalizations and nasty
insults to try to save his ego.
C.S.Strowbridge
>>You don't need to go to the library to do research. After all, if you can
>>read this, you're already connected to the internet. Duh. A quick search for
>>"viruses" on the Nature magazine website turns up 6215 hits. A search for
>>virii turns up exactly zero hits. As you have said, I've done it, try it
>>yourself:
>>
>>http://www.nature.com/
>>
>>A similar experiment on the Science magazine website yields similar results.
>>Virii 0, viruses 927. Again, don't take my word for it:
>>
>>http://www.sciencemag.org/
>>
>>These were the two journals you claimed used "virii," right?
>
> Since you are not a scientist, you have made the same error that the
> others made. You assume that scientific databases are set up to count
> words; they are not. So your conclusion that your results have
> anything meaningful to say about which plural form is used
> preferentially is incorrect.
Then do a correct search and post the results here. Anything less is
just an ad hoc excuse.
> But as I have repeatedly stated, the
> dispute is not over whether "virii" is a proper plural form of
> "virus", but whether biologists use it preferentially over "viruses".
> The answer to that question is yes.
You have _never_ posted any evidence to back that claim up. Never.
> There is however a difference between substantiating a fact and
> convincing doubters the fact is true.
Since you've never substantiated you claims as fact, this is just a red
herring.
C.S.Strowbridge
Mike Tice
>>> The fact that you need to lie to win this argument simply confirms
my
>>> belief that this has become a personal issue for you;
Me:
>>To what lie do you refer, sir? I demand an explanation and/or an
>>apology.
I infer from your unresponsive reply, sir, that no apology will be
forthcoming from you.
Is this correct?
--Mike
C.S.Strowbridge
>>Since you are not a scientist, you have made the same error that the
>>others made. You assume that scientific databases are set up to count
>>words; they are not. So your conclusion that your results have
>>anything meaningful to say about which plural form is used
>>preferentially is incorrect.
>
> Neither side seems to get it. No matter who uses "virii" and how many
> times it is wrong.
I understand it's wrong, which is probably why so few people use it.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>You know, with all this evidence, I'm starting to think Kevin L. O'Brien
>>may not be right on this point.
>
> What is the matter with you guys? If the figures were the other way
> round "virii" would still be wrong.
We understand that. The debate isn't over which is the correct plural,
but which plural of virus is used more among biologists.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> Dan Norder wrote:
>>>Lyricses.
>>
>>LOL.
>>
>>As another poster might put it: 'Lyricii, of coarse, is the proper Latin
>>ending, and while the public uses "lyrics", proffesional musicians almost all
>>use "lyricii", and if you can't find a referince to such usage you are an idiot
>>whose soully out to attack me for no reason because you have no lives.'
>
> <Sigh>It's Greek you fool.
We're just joking at this point. Come on, Lyricses? Who's going take
that seriously. And, 'soully' instead of, 'solely.'
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> Robert Stoll wrote:
>> it go, man, or provide some shred of evidence on your side. You're really
>> starting to look foolish, and will only continue to do so the longer you
>> drag this out without backing up your claims.
>
> Thanks, Robert. And to Mike, for I was going to go to the LA public
> library on Monday with Cthulhu plush and take a photo montage story of
> he and I trying to find the evidence that KLOB claims exists abundantly
> like his pearls of wisdom amongst us swine.
>
> You saved me the trip (and maybe the fun) of getting the homeless guys
> to stop looking at internet porn to take my picture with a squidman doll.
Do it anyways. It will be fun.
C.S.Strowbridge
Robert Stoll
news:ed6ccb78.04022...@posting.google.com...
> "Robert Stoll" <robs...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<h7hZb.62568$Lp.6...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> > >
> >
> > You don't need to go to the library to do research. After all, if you
can
> > read this, you're already connected to the internet. Duh. A quick search
for
> > "viruses" on the Nature magazine website turns up 6215 hits. A search
for
> > virii turns up exactly zero hits. As you have said, I've done it, try it
> > yourself:
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/
> >
> > A similar experiment on the Science magazine website yields similar
results.
> > Virii 0, viruses 927. Again, don't take my word for it:
> >
> > http://www.sciencemag.org/
> >
> > These were the two journals you claimed used "virii," right?
> >
>
> Since you are not a scientist, you have made the same error that the
> others made. You assume that scientific databases are set up to count
> words; they are not. So your conclusion that your results have
> anything meaningful to say about which plural form is used
> preferentially is incorrect.
>
I *am* a science teacher with degrees in science and education. I know my
way around scientific databases. Quite frankly, you have no basis to claim
the contrary. The only assumption I made about the databases is that they
might turn up any article with the word "virii" in it. They didn't. The word
isn't used in articles from Science or Nature magazine, at least not from
any in the database. Which issue did you see it in?
> >
> > Anyhow, a similar experiment run on Google turned up something
interesting.
> > Almost all the hits (at least among the first 50) for a Google search on
> > "virii" appear to be computer science related. The only single case
(among
> > those sampled) where the term "virii" is used as plural for "virus" in a
> > biological sense is on an Amazon.com page where some user lists his
favorite
> > virus and bacteria books ("Listmania! Virii and bacteria"). The
profession
> > of the Amazon user? "Lab robotics programmer." Well, it seems the
computer
> > scientists (who brought the world "LOL," don't forget) seem to be the
> > primary abusers of classical inflection in this case, not biologists.
Let's
> > check out the alternative: A Google search on "viruses" turns up more
than
> > 15 times the number of hits for "virii" (4,770,000 compared to 275,000).
> > This is also where you see all the biology references (as well as plenty
> > more computer science references).
> >
>
> Google is not a scientific database, so again the results are
> meaningless.
>
You're right in that Google is not a scientific database. The results
indicate, however, that very few, if any, biologists use "virii" on their
websites.
> >
> > The following article explains the whole virus/virii thing better than
> > anyone in this group has to date. The short answer: the word "virii"
doesn't
> > exist. In fact, there is no classical plural inflection for the word
"virus"
> > at all. Forget viri, virii, vira, or virora. None of them exist. So it's
> > most properly pluralized as "viruses." Good article, lots and lots of
links,
> > footnotes (including at least one on "octopi"), sources, etc.
> >
> > http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
> >
>
> And as Dan Clore pointed out in a post from last year, this is
> contradicted by Latin dictionaries that state that "viri" is an
> accepted plural form of "virus". But as I have repeatedly stated, the
> dispute is not over whether "virii" is a proper plural form of
> "virus", but whether biologists use it preferentially over "viruses".
> The answer to that question is yes.
>
Tell me one journal (volume and issue numbers, please) that substantiates
your claim, then. Or at least tell me how I messed up my search to miss all
these articles you "cite."
> >
> > As already stated, the OED doesn't contain the word at all. Here's
another
> > (public access) dictionary that doesn't have it either:
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virii
> >
>
> And as Dan Clore also pointed out last year the OED misses a fair
> number of words, so this is not conclusive.
>
> Note: I am not saying Dan Clore supports my statement about "virii"
> being preferentially used by biologists; I am only pointing out that
> your claims above have been contradicted by statements from at least
> one other person in this group.
>
The words the OED tends to miss are the ones that don't really exist. You
won't find "virii" in the OED for the same reasons you won't find "byakhee"
or "flurgh" in the OED. But, again I'll concede that you're right on one
minor point: the fact that "virii" isn't a real word wouldn't stop people
from using it. Except that I (and others besides you) find much evidence to
show that biologists use "viruses" almost exclusively.
You edit and publish stories, right? The "accept" at the beginning of the
paragraph would get missed by any spell-checker (but I doubt you use one,
since a spell checker would probably choke on "virii"), but it should
properly read "except." If you meant to make an imperative statement, you
should have left off the second part of that sentence ("Accept that the
procedure you used was wrong"). If this is the level of care you take with
personal statements intended to show others your point of view, then I
shudder to think how you must mangle the written work of other people. Go to
a university library, and actually look at the grammar and usage guides
themselves.
Despite your unsubstantiated and easily disproved claims to the contrary, I
am a scientist. You aren't. I don't publish or edit stories, and wouldn't
normally stoop to correcting the language usage of someone who does. It
isn't nice to be told how to do your job by someone with far less experience
than you. You, however, asked for it. Alot.
> >
> > Oh, and as a teacher (plural: teacheria) of physics (pl: physicseses)
and
> > astronomy (pl: astronomii), I got a special kick out of your "facts do
not
> > need to be substantiated" line. "Facts," at least in the context of
science,
> > are never considered factual unless they are verifiable and until
verified.
> >
>
> Exactly; and once they are they are accepted as true without the need
> for continual verification or substantiation. As a teacher you know
> that students are told that certain facts are true; teachers do not
> waste time reproving them.
>
As a science teacher, I absolutely NEVER just tell students a fact. We
develop ideas in the classroom, and verify those ideas experimentally in the
lab. Sure, Newton's Second Law is an accepted "fact," but a good science
teacher would never just write "F=ma" on the board and say "trust me on this
one." You derive it with theory and experiment, apply forces to different
masses and measure the resultant accelerated motion. I just finished a whole
semester where I didn't allow any student to state that the earth goes
around the sun unless they could come up with at least three good reasons
why they believe this to be true. If they gave "it's obvious" or "teachers
have told me so in the past" as reasons (and they did, repeatedly), I
rejected them. It took a few minutes of work to convince myself that you
were wrong on the usage of "virii," but I'm rather amazed at how obviously
wrong you are in trying to show me you know more about how I do my job than
I do. Actually, the part that amazes me is that I think that you think
you're actually correct. Sad, really. Trust me on this one, I know more
about my job than you do. You can believe what I say, I'm a teacher and a
scientist.
> There is however a difference between substantiating a fact and
> convincing doubters the fact is true. Facts do not need to be
> substantiated, but people often have to be convinced that they are
> true. In this case, however, you can easily convince yourself that my
> statement is true: go to a university library and look at articles in
> biology and virology journals.
>
I already convinced myself you were wrong, and your statements incorrect.
The burden is on you to show me what I may have missed. Columbia University
is just up the road from me, I've got access to the library there, tell me
what journal (specific volume and number) to look for. You've been unwilling
to provide this information to anyone on this thread. I think it's because
you cannot provide something that doesn't exist, and I won't go on any
library snipe hunts without more information from you than "look at articles
in biology and virology journals." I've got an open mind on this one, but I
don't trust you not to send me out on a wild goose chase. If you want me to
believe you're right, show me where the proof is (specifically). I'd even
admit to the whole newsgroup that I was wrong to doubt you if you can do
that.
> >
> > Hence the scientific peer-review process. Even so, a "known fact" could
turn
> > out to be incorrect (like how Newtonian physics breaks down under
quantum
> > mechanics or relativity) . . .
> >
>
> The facts of Newtonian mechanics (the laws of motion and of gravity)
> were not shown to be incorrect. What was shown to be incorrect was
> Newton's assumptions of absolute time, absolute space, and
> simultanality. Inertia and mass are still considered to be real
> concepts; acceleration of a body is still considered to be directly
> portional to the force acting on the body and indirectly portional to
> the mass of the body; every action is still considered to be
> counterbalanced by a reaction equal in force and opposite in
> direction; and the gravitational force between two bodies being
> attracted to each other is still considered to be directly
> proportional to the product of the masses of the two bodies and
> inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two
> bodies. These are still known facts, having been verified by Newton
> and being demonstrable by simple experiments; even you teach them as
> true, at least you should be. What was modified were the laws based
> on these facts, specifically the mathematical descriptions of these
> laws. Even then, the modifications did not show them to be incorrect,
> just overly simplified.
>
Which is what I meant by "Newtonian physics breaks down under quantum
mechanics or relativity." Newton's "assumptions" (as you put it) about time
and space were regarded as "fact" for about 220 years. The notion that the
sun, stars, and planets all orbit the earth was regarded as "fact" by the
scientific community for more than ten times longer than that. A good
scientist has to keep his or her mind open at all times, and always be
prepared to question even fundamental principles. Things like "mass" may
turn out to not be obvious, self-evident concepts. String theory, for
instance, may require us to redefine our most basic notions of matter and
energy. Something else will probably come along to replace that sometime
down the line. I never teach "truth" in my classes, I teach the best current
models that explain the universe as we know it. As our understanding of the
universe changes, so do our models.
Tell you what. Stop lecturing me on education and physics, and I won't
correct your grammar and spelling. I especially don't enjoy how you presume
to tell me what *actually* happens in my classroom! I think I would have
noticed if I suddenly got a new student, not on my attendance sheets, who
time and again proves himself far more ignorant and far less mature than the
average teenager. Unless you actually attend my classes, you have nothing to
say about what goes on in them, just as I have nothing to say about the
editorial process at Lindisfarne Books.
> >
> > . . . so a good scientist rarely makes absolute statements about
veracity
> > as you did.
> >
>
> I see. So when you tell your students that the sun is powered by
> nuclear fusion, you also tell them that they must not assume that this
> is true? Somehow I doubt it. As you should know, there is just too
> much evidence (all of which are facts by the way) that demonstrates
> this as a fact. The exact nature of the fusion reactions is still
> open to question, but the claim that the sun is powered by nuclear
> fusion has been verified and is now a fact accepted as true with no
> further need for substantiation.
>
Again, I never just tell my students something like, "the sun is powered by
nuclear fusion." We go over the evidence, and I let the students conclude
what the evidence points to. As real scientists do. Saying that the nuclear
process in the core of the sun has been "verified" with "no further need for
substantiation" is grade-A bullshit. Our model of the precise process is
incomplete. New data may require us to modify that model, or even reject it.
A scientist, being more skeptical than you, would say that the most likely
model to explain our observations of the sun (and other stars) would include
the presence of fusion in stellar cores. New observations are checked
against our current model. This particular example is probably the correct
model, but no theory (or even law) is considered unchangable. If scientists
thought the way you say they should, we'd still believe in the geocentric
model of the universe. After all, that was a "fact accepted as true with no
further need for substantiation" for well over two thousand years, with
plenty of actual observations made to verify it, and lots of other
(scientific and non-scientific) reasons not to dig further. Galileo, for
instance, died under house arrest in 1642 for refusing to recant his belief
in the Copernican model, despite the fact that he actually had emperical
evidence that strongly supported his claims (the fact that he remained
imprisoned was probably due largely to his abrasive personality, and the
fact that he had no interest in "playing politics" or appeasing the
politicians who controlled his fate in any way). Galileo was finally
vindicated by Pope John Paul II, on October 31, 1992.
But none of this speaks to the use of "virii" in scientific literature. It
does, however, speak to your ignorance of science and science education,
further casting your unverified and apparently unverifiable assertions in
doubt. You can vindicate yourself, but it'll take more than telling the
growing number of people with evidence against you that we're all screwing
up our research somehow.
> And any fact is "absolutely" true; it would not be a fact otherwise.
> It is absolutely true that the Denver Broncos have won two Superbowls;
> it is absolutely true that Theodore Roosevelt was president of the
> United States for two terms; it is absolutely true that the sun is at
> the center of the solar system;
Ask any scientist between Ptolomy and Copernicus, and they'd tell you that
the earth was the center of the universe. (I'd be willing to bet that there
are probably still pockets of geocentrists around the globe ... it's trivial
to demonstrate how unreliable astrology is, but lots of people still hold to
it strongly.) And they'd have lots of empirical evidence to back up that
claim.
it is absolutely true that the entropy
> of a system is equal to the ratio of its temperature to its heat
> content; and it is absolutely true that biologists have preferentially
> used "virii" in the past and still use it more often than "viruses" in
> the present.
>
> Whether you are convinced of these facts is another matter.
>
I would be convinced of that last statement if you could prove it. Or if my
own research didn't indicate that your claims are incorrect. I've already
seen evidence supporting all the other claims you made above, but not one
single issue of Science or Nature that uses "virii" as the plural form of
"virus." Name a specific issue of a journal you claim to have seen, because
none on this group who have looked for it can find it but you. I can provide
thousands of examples supporting my claim, on request. Can you provide just
one?
> >
> > And a good scientist should NEVER
> > claim that something need not be substantiated - any and all "facts"
held
> > dear by the scientific community are understood to be part of the best
> > working model we have, and are subject to change as our understanding of
the
> > universe changes.
> >
>
> A good scientist, as well as a good teacher, also knows the difference
> between a fact and claim, theory, or speculation. A claim is a
> statement that needs to be verified; once it is it becomes a fact.
> Provided the verification cannot be shown to be erroneous in some
> fashion, facts are considered true with no further need to
> substantiate them. No fact has ever been shown to be incorrect except
> when the verification process can be shown to be in error. Certainly
> no fact has ever been refuted by a later fact.
Like the "fact" of geocentrism?
What have been refuted
> are the theories created to explain facts, and the speculations that
> are based on facts, but disproving a theory or speculation does not
> disprove the underlying facts themselves.
>
> Again, people often have to be convinced that facts are true, but this
> is not the same thing as substantiating a fact.
>
Convince me that your "fact" is true. The only way you can do that is by
substantiating it with evidence. Since the evidence from my own research,
and that of everyone else in this thread, contradicts your claim, I think I
can safely write you off as a loudmouth with nothing to say. You can easily
and unambiguously prove me and everyone else wrong, of course, by providing
one shred of actual verifiable evidence (and just stating "I saw it" isn't
good enough), but you refuse to do so. I wonder why.
> >
> > Well, whatever. We aren't talking about scientific truth or fact-finding
in
> > a scientific context, we're talking about whether the use of the word
> > "virii" is common in microbiology or not (regardless of the fact that it
> > isn't proper classical inflection of the word).
> >
>
> It is still a fact.
>
Prove it.
> >
> > You claim it is, I (and others) claim it is not.
> >
>
> Actually, the situation is that I am stating that it is fact, which
> you (and others) are ignorant of. You then demand that I convince you
> my statement is true. I have explained how you can convince yourself
> that it is true. You won't do it. Stalemate.
>
I did what you said, I looked it up. I found that you were wrong. You can
say you saw all the articles in the world, and that I did my research wrong,
but unless you can back up either of those claims with some hard evidence,
you'd do better to just shut your mouth. Checkmate.
> >
> > You claim to have seen citations in the literature,
> > I (and others) find no evidence to support this claim (indeed, we find
> > evidence of the contrary).
> >
>
> The difference is I went to the literature and looked for myself. You
> (and others) refuse to do this; instead you (and others) rely on
> improperly performed database searches and isolated usages of the term
> "viruses" from unscientific sources like websites.
>
How did I improperly perform my database search? How would you know? How are
the online databases from the Science or Nature websites any different from
the citation indexes in the library? Enlighten us, o wise master.
> >
> > Lacking any proof to verify your claim, I (and
> > others) on this forum have no choice but to find you wrong on this one.
> >
>
> My fact has already been verified and so needs no proof; you (and
> others) refuse to do what is necessary to be convinced. But that does
> not refute the fact I am relating. It only shows that you (and
> others) would rather be ignorant than learn the truth. So be it.
>
Enlighten us, o wise master. Lots of people have told you how, but you
refuse. I, for one, am not choosing to remain ignorant. But unless you find
some way of convincing me otherwise, I'll continue to believe that you are
an ignorant blowhard. Put up or shut up.
> >
> > Let it go, man, or provide some shred of evidence on your side. You're
really
> > starting to look foolish, and will only continue to do so the longer you
> > drag this out without backing up your claims.
> >
>
> I've already backed up my claims: I reported that journals I found in
> the reading room of a university library contain articles that use
> "virii". If you (and others) choose not to believe me, then I fail to
> see how quoting references will convince you. If you won't go to the
> library to look for the journals I mentioned, then I doubt you would
> go to look up a reference. And it is the person who refuses to allow
> himself to be convinced who looks foolish.
I'd love to see the evidence you claim is there, and would be willing to
admit you were right if the evidence was there. But, again, I don't trust
you enough to go to the library without something specific to look for
(especially since preliminary research indicates I wouldn't find anything).
Saying that you saw something isn't good enough. From what you said in this
and other posts, you are clearly ignorant of how scientists and teachers do
their jobs. Your research claims are therefore suspect. Please either show
me (empirically!) how everyone on this thread but you is wrong, or STFU. I'd
also strongly recommend that you stop lecturing people on science and
pedagogy, you're just embarassing yourself further. Then again, I suppose an
editor/publisher who makes as many grammatical and spelling mistakes as you,
then vociferously defends those fuckups as somehow intentional, neither
knows shame nor restraint.
Incidentally, professional periodicals and newspapers often have their own
style manuals that must be adhered to. Most newspapers, for instance, will
only use the word "toward" and never the perfectly acceptible form
"towards." I suspect that Science and Nature magazines adhere to a similar
editorial policy with respect to the whole virii/viruses thing. Scientists,
if anything, are even more careful with their use of language in writing
than most any other professionals. Scientists define and use words in very
clear and specific ways; it would surprise me if these journals took as
cavilier an attitude with respect to word usage as you suggest. Then again,
since you won't back up anything you say with tangible evidence, I guess the
point is moot.
Robert
--
"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Tattulhu Fantasy Island wagh'nagl fhtagn."
"In his house at Fantasy Island dead Tattoo waits dreaming." (trans.)
Ia! Ia! Tattulhu fhtagn! The guest stars are right!
Robert Stoll
news:20040220141155...@mb-m06.aol.com...
This thread reminds me of an article I read by a psychiatrist about dealing
with patients in a delusional state. No matter what evidence is shown to the
contrary, the patient will remain in the delusional state. The example went
something like this:
Patient: I haven't got any blood in my body.
Doctor: Of course you do. You couldn't possibly live otherwise.
Patient: No, I can feel it. I haven't got any blood in my body.
Doctor: Here, I'll show you. (pricks patient's finger, produces drop of
blood) See?
Patient: (long pause) You son of a bitch! You stole my very last drop of
blood!
Robert Stoll
news:2eb1f685.04022...@posting.google.com...
Don't hold your breath.
Robert Stoll
news:40365320...@news.btinternet.com...
>
> >
> >Since you are not a scientist, you have made the same error that the
> >others made. You assume that scientific databases are set up to count
> >words; they are not. So your conclusion that your results have
> >anything meaningful to say about which plural form is used
> >preferentially is incorrect.
> >
> >>
> Neither side seems to get it. No matter who uses "virii" and how many
> times it is wrong.
>
I agree, and have already pointed that out as well. However, the correctness
of the term (or lack thereof) doesn't necessarily dictate popular usage.
Fortunately, biologists don't use the term "virii" any more than a Latin
textbook author would.
(Incidentally, in Latin, it seems the proper plural form of "virus" would be
"virus" (similar to usage for the word for "fruit"). Apparently there just
aren't any examples of a plural form of virus being used in any known Latin
texts, so this issue is the archetypal academic debate.)
Robert Stoll
Robert
"Mike Tice" <tice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2eb1f685.04022...@posting.google.com...
John Flynn
> (Incidentally, in Latin, it seems the proper plural form of "virus"
> would be "virus" (similar to usage for the word for "fruit").
<Virus> is an anomalous Latin word, anyway. It's usually listed as 2nd
declension neuter, and yet its ending suggests it is masculine.
If it acted like most other 2nd-decl. masculine nouns, then its plural
would have been *<viri> (single <i> at the end).
If it acted like most other 2nd-decl. neuter nouns, then its plural would
have been *<vira>.
Or maybe it behaved like a 4th-declension noun, which would give the
identical plural *<virus> as you mention above.
However, we'll never know because...
> Apparently there just aren't any examples of a plural form of virus
> being used in any known Latin texts, so this issue is the archetypal
> academic debate.)
Exactly. We can't even delve into actual attested forms and see how the
plural was treated by native-speakers of Latin.
--
johnF
"No tribe, however primitive in its social arrangements, lacks a distinct
and distinguishable language of great complexity and subtlety."
-- _The English Language_, Robert Burchfield
Aaron Vanek
>> You saved me the trip (and maybe the fun) of getting the homeless
>> guys to stop looking at internet porn to take my picture with a
>> squidman doll.
>
> Do it anyways. It will be fun.
Yeah, I think I have to. After I told Kevin that I'd buy one of his
"books" (note quotes) if he could produce some evidence, and he ignored
it and continued to insult my friend's intelligence and credibility, it
looks like I'll have to.
I won't be able to this weekend (taping a promo for David Fincher's
company--not for my project, though, but it's good to get to know these
guys), but maybe next week I can go over on Monday or Tuesday. We'll see
how this debate flares or peters out. If it continues, and KLOB still
refuses to admit he was wrong, I'll try to get down to the UCLA library.
I'm already thinking of how KLOB will try to worm his way out of my
results with claims like:
1. UCLA is not a real university, despite the "U" in it's title
2. I didn't go to a real library, I went to a book depository (despite
the word "library" on the building)
3. I am not a scientist, therefore, I cannot do accurate research on a
word (despite an English degree)
or, the most likely response:
4. I am a vindictive sadistic brute who attacks KLOB for no reason,
therefore, anything I say is incorrect and a lie (hence, he will claim I
fabricated the whole thing as a smear campaign). For this reason, I'll
try to take pictures.
BTW, I am just speculating on these four responses to something I
haven't even done yet. So we'll see what happens. (I am still thinking
of writing a Mythos story, too, one of KLOB's earlier challenges to me.
One of the characters is named Bryan Levin).
have a good weekend everyone except one person!
--
Aaron Vanek
My latest movie reviews:
http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472
Also Check out: http://www.webnoir.com/yellowsign
My last movie, "Return to Innsmouth" available at:
http://www.beyond-books.com/catalog/
"The only time those S.U.V.s are going to be off-road
is when they miss the driveway at 3 A.M."
- Senior Marketing Executive, Ford Motors
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> See, this is why nobody bothered to give you more information.
>
Copout. In reality there were no other anachronisms.
>
> The odds of a female doctor in charge of a night shift in a 1924 mental
> institution are incredibly low. So low as to affect suspension of
> disbelief. (Especially without any explanation as to why you made those
> choices, which is something you gave us, but not the reader.)
>
That doesn't make it an anachronism. To be an anachronism it would
have to be impossible for there to be "a female doctor in charge of a
night shift in a 1924 mental institution", just as it was impossible
for there to be electroshock therapy in 1924. Since there were female
doctors in the 1920s and since some did work in mental hospitals, it
is clearly not impossible.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Dan Norder
>(I am still thinking of writing a Mythos story, too,
>one of KLOB's earlier challenges to me. One of
>the characters is named Bryan Levin).
Hrmm, I'm considering a weird tale featuring a maniacal modern day alchemist
character called Brian Loken.
C.S.Strowbridge
>>See, this is why nobody bothered to give you more information.
>
> Copout. In reality there were no other anachronisms.
No. I'm pretty sure the example I gave it what he meant.
>>The odds of a female doctor in charge of a night shift in a 1924 mental
>>institution are incredibly low. So low as to affect suspension of
>>disbelief. (Especially without any explanation as to why you made those
>>choices, which is something you gave us, but not the reader.)
>
> That doesn't make it an anachronism. To be an anachronism it would
> have to be impossible for there to be "a female doctor in charge of a
> night shift in a 1924 mental institution", just as it was impossible
> for there to be electroshock therapy in 1924. Since there were female
> doctors in the 1920s and since some did work in mental hospitals, it
> is clearly not impossible.
You're being awfully technical for someone who thinks it's ok to use,
'alot.'
The character as you described it would be such a rarity in that time
frame that is stretched suspension of disbelief to its breaking point.
You make no attempt in your story to explain why this character is the
way she is, or even make any note that she is unusual.
Granted, this isn't an anachronism in the strictest sense. But it is
anachronistic.
>>>> So, claiming something as a fact releives the claimant of any
>>>> obligation of proof? I'll have to remember that!
>>>
>>> Facts are by definition already proven to be true; they would not be
>>> facts otherwise. What you want me to do is convince you my
>>> statement is a fact; that's different from proving it's a fact.
>>> Since you already are certain that it is not a fact, I cannot
>>> convince you otherwise, so there is no point in trying.
>>
>> We are convinced it is not a fact, because all the evidence points to
>> that conclusion. If you have any specific evidence that contradicts
>> that conclusion, feel free to give it.
No comment?
>>> But this is no different from a young-earth creationist certain that
>>> the universe is only 10,000 years old who refuses to be convinced
>>> that it is in fact much older.
>>
>> You're right. And you are the Young Earther.
>>
>> We give evidence. You claim we don't know how to research properly.
>> We give evidence. You claim our evidence is irrelevant.
>> We ask for your evidence. You tell us if we read the bible (Science
>> and Nature) we'd find all the evidence we are looking for.
No comment?
>>>> Facts like 90% of everything being crap?
>>>
>>> If a fact is "crap" then it would not be a fact, would it? But the
>>> only reasons why you think it's "crap" are 1) you are ignorant of it
>>> and 2) you will not allow yourself to admit that I am right.
>>
>> My god you're dumb. He's saying that, '90% of everything is crap' is
>> a fact.
>>
>> You know what? I'm starting to think you have serious reading
>> comprehension issues. Have you been tested?
No comment?
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
> Aaron Vanek wrote:
>>(I am still thinking of writing a Mythos story, too,
>>one of KLOB's earlier challenges to me. One of
>>the characters is named Bryan Levin).
>
> Hrmm, I'm considering a weird tale featuring a maniacal modern day alchemist
> character called Brian Loken.
Call him Brain Loken. It's pronounced Brian, but his parents were
terrible spellers and misspelled it on the birth certificate. This
particular trait was something that Brain inherited and it would plague
him the rest of his life.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> I *am* a science teacher with degrees in science and education.
>
But you are not a working scientist, and it shows in your comments
about the nature of science, and your miscomprehension of how a
science database works.
Your views are typical of a person who is scientifically literate, but
only knows what has been synthesized in textbooks and science news
articles and such: simplistic, naive, and colloquial. Your
understanding of the philosphy of science is also fairly poor. You
are a perfect example of the adage that a little knowledge is
dangerous. And since you say what the others want to hear, it will
now be impossible to convince them otherwise (not that it was ever
likely in the first place).
Kevin L. O'Brien
Robert Stoll
I didn't think so.
Robert
PS: Go fuck yourself.
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.04022...@posting.google.com...
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> You edit and publish stories, right?.
>
> Despite your unsubstantiated and easily disproved claims to the contrary, I
> am a scientist. You aren't.
>
You are a science teacher, not a research scientist. I, on the other
hand, have been a research scientist for 25 years, in both academia
and industry. I have co-authored papers and have contributed to the
research reported in many more. I have worked as an editor and
reviewer on several journals, have helped to design and impliment
scientific databases, and have taught classes at high school and
college level. I have extensively studied the history and philosophy
of science. My publishing firm is a sideline, not my main profession.
You remind me of creationists who claim to be "scientists" simply
because they have a BS or MS (but no research experience), teach
science classes, or even just read popular science books. Sorry, but
it's not the same thing.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Granted, this isn't an anachronism in the strictest sense. But it is
> anachronistic.
>
It's not an anachronism in any sense, since women doctors did work in
mental institutions in the 1920s, in contrast to electroshock therapy
which wasn't used until the mid-1930s.
Kevin L. O'Brien