Sayonara

Depends what the g-word is...?

I don't think it's a good idea to tell people that about E. coli in general, seeing as some strains live in our bodies but many are higly toxic to us.

Not descended from one species exactly - certain genetic patterns derived from that species were seeded across the galaxy. Intelligent non-humanoid species: Species 8472* (VOY: Scorpion, In the Flesh, Prey), the Bluegills (TNG: Conspiracy), the Melosians, the Crystalline Entity (TNG: Datalore, Silicon Avatar), Gomtuu (TNG: Tin Man), the Demons (VOY: Demon, Course: Oblivion), the "microbrains", the Companion, cystosporean life forms (VOY: Caretaker, Cold Fire), the Organians (TOS: Errand of Mercy, Day of the Dove), the Medusans, the Thasians, the Zetar (TOS: The Lights of Zetar), the Legarians (TNG: Sarek), the Beta XII-A entity, the Triskelion (TOS: The Gamesters of Triskelion), the Dou'ud, the Sheliak, the Farpoint entities, the Q, the Tholians, the Kelvans (TOS: By any other Name), the Founders... I could go on. *They actually aren't from our galaxy, but I don't think +- 1 species will change balance that much.

Some corrections for his bizarre lecturing: Myriad comes from the Ancient Greek murias, meaning "ten thousand". It lost its specificity during its transition through Latin. In modern English it means "inumerable", and there is no such word as "myriads". What Darwin admitted observed about the fossil record in 1859 has no bearing whatsoever on the current state of play as regards the current fossil record. Cladistics is a classification system based on the order of evolutionary branching rather than on present similarities and differences. It is not part of evolutionary theory - it is a part of the classification schema which makes use of evolutionary histories. Saying that cladistics had to "move on to other fossils because the archaeopteryx argument just doesn't work" sounds very impressive but essentially it makes no odds whatsoever because cladistics does not particularly aim to "solve" the great mysteries of evolution, and when you're talking about reptiles turning into birds no one species is that important. Nobody in their right mind would claim that it was literally "half bird half reptile", so it's hardly surprising he would give the response he did. This comes back to your opponent having no ****ing clue what a transitional species is - he's either setting you up to argue against a deliberately incorrect construct (which would be a fairly obvious strawman, and you could devastate his argument by calling him out on that), or he's really really ignorant. In the case of Archaeopteryx, if it were indeed a transitional, describing it as "half bird half reptile" is layman's shorthand. What it should be described as is a species that displays the significant attributes associated with avians, while also demonstrating evidence of a past connection to a non-avian lineage. Not relevant. "Species X went extinct before Class Y radiated" is not the same as "Species X would never have led to species in Class Y". All that shows is that du Nouy had a good grasp of scientific theory - it does not in any way falsify the concept of transitionals. You might want to point out that Pierre Lecomte du Nouy died in 1947, was a biophysicist, and was known mainly for his criticism of evolutionary biology. Also his reputation as a scientist was tarnished badly due to his woefully wrong estimate of the chances of randomly forming a two-thousand atom protein molecule (an argument creationists still use today, despite the fact that it is so very wrong.) Du Nouy was no "ardent evolutionist". Of course, that is all just gravy. Fact is that he had no access to the ever-more advanced genetic and taxanomic tools that we have been developing for the past six decades since he died. By the way, your guy appears to be ripping off his material from here (or possibly a similar site that has not gone under; these places all seem to feed off each other): http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:IORngdQUcsMJ:www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm+Pierre+Lecomte+du+Nouy That may explain why it's mostly out of date and lacks any sign of independent thought or logical rounding. Looks like that was ripped off from here: http://www.princeton.edu/~ccc/outline.html I doubt the protagonist in this little drama knows what the significance or relevance is to be honest. Quotes? Quotes? Wtf good are quotes? He hasn't shown any evidence he knows what he is arguing, that he has read the sources those quotes are taken from, that he understands their academic relevance, that he understands how evolutionary biology has adapted as a response to those conditions almost a hundred years ago, or that he even has any clue as to how taxanomic and evolutionary research works in the current era. If he wants to refute the existence of transitionals he's going to have to do a lot better than quote people to whom he incorrectly ascribes authority or beliefs.

Whuh? This thread isn't closed you freaky lobster. I did split some spam out yesterday though.

Torelate?

Yours might be. Mine definitely isn't. You're talking about this as if soot was the only reason for not having an office device that burns the inflammables you have fed into it.

Because it's more complex, more compact, less accessible, and usually warrantied in order to prevent user-end meddling.

I don't call giving the etymology when someone asks for the etymology "close".

Because it's FUN.

I don't know about you but I clean my fans (and cards as it happens) regularly, and I don't get paid for maintaining them.

That's not the etymology, that's the literal meaning. sesquipedalis, "of a foot and a half" - coined by Horace in Ars Poetica. From sesqui (semi+[as]+que - "one and a half") + pedalis ("of the foot").

I should certainly hope soot is not a problem there.

No, but you can judge it by its content. So what does it say the etymology is?

The Brachiosaurs managed it.

The ISBN should be printed on the back cover as well as in the front of the book. As the name of a book on English etymology, "Word Clues" doesn't really inspire confidence in someone like me.

You don't even need to pay people. If you approach a tribal people who have had some experience with outsiders before, and they see medical kits or supplies, they will nod and smile at whatever you show them.

Or, indeed, the etymology - seeing as I actually know this one.

I like the way that I reference the specific publications, and you reference "page 128".

The laser isn't really "hot". It is the lamp that generates most of the heat. I'm guessing they don't burn the paper because copy rooms and offices would gradually fill with soot.

People tell that story all the time (although the location changes from person to person). I have never once seen it backed up, and even if it was I would not be convinced without damned good evidence that the people involved demonstrated verifiable, non-incentivised recognition.

Tracing where a word comes from and why isn't quite the same as having the current usage, is it?

Well, dictionary.com agrees with me and takes its primary sources from US dictionaries. My Collins English Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary, both of which were written in England by English people, also agree. By the way, Dictionaries deal with languages and not dialects. A dialect would be described by a regional lexicon.

Ah but these ones are evil ones. I'd like to point out that the fact that they are evil is in no way connected to their gay marriages.

They create an electrostatic charge on the paper using a laser, and the toner sticks to it. Then it gets melted by the lamp and fuses in place. Bit of an odd technology, but it works quite well. http://www.chaminade.org/MIS/Articles/HowLaserPrinterWorks.htm