…and this is a 
Irons on Abraham
Category: Creationism
Posted on: December 10, 2007 4:40 PM, by PZ Myers
The inimitable Peter Irons has been hot on the trail of the Nathaniel Abraham case, the ditzy creationist who is upset because he got fired from an evolutionary biology lab. There are some interesting tidbits below, specifically the fact that Abraham claims the job ad did not make reference to acceptance of the theory of evolution as fact, yet when Irons dug up the job posting, it does say that this is work on evolutionary relationships.
It's a bad sign when you've got to misrepresent the facts in your court complaint.
Those who have been following the Nathaniel Abraham case might find the following of interest. BTW, the case has resulted in two postings on Uncommon Descent, by Bill Dembski and Barry Arrington, and almost two hundred UD comments (many of them off-topic), which seems odd, since Abraham is a flat-out YECer and wouldn't seem like a likely ID "martyr." But it does feed into creationists' persecution complex.
Anyway, I read Abraham's federal court complaint, which alleges he was fired solely because of his "sincerely held Christian beliefs" and that his "faith" does not allow him to "accept the theory of evolution as scientific fact." Abraham also alleges that the Woods Hole job posting he replied to made "no reference to any unqualified acceptance by job applicants of the theory of evolution as scientific fact[.]" (I don't know what a "qualified" acceptance of evolution would be).
But this claim is bullshit. I dug up the job posting, which says (after describing the research it would involve on zebrafish reactions to marine toxicity): "Results WILL BE interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study." (caps added). How could Abraham possibly write up his results without knowing this and using evolutionary terms and concepts? Impossible, IMO. He shouldn't have applied for the job in the first place (unless he was only attracted by the $47K salary, which seems likely). So he applied for the job under false pretenses, and then, when he slipped out his anti-evo views, cried discrimination when he was fired.
This case will get promptly tossed out of court for many legal reasons, which I won't cover here. But the main reason it will quickly die is that Abraham's lawyer is a far-out fundie from Florida (the guy who represented Terri Schiavo's parents in that legal fiasco), while the Woods Hole lawyer is with one of the biggest law firms in Boston, with more than 400 lawyers.
Politics
Comments
It's probably primarily a publicity stunt, for the sake of Expelled, for Huckabee's political good, and to feed the egos of Abraham and his fellow morons.
Yes, it'll likely be thrown out, and if not, it's very unlikely to win. But it'll be more fodder for IDiots and cretins to twist for their propaganda.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 10, 2007 4:46 PM
Clearly, the legal system is part of the Darwinist conspiracy.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 10, 2007 4:47 PM
Abraham is probably thinking it would help his case if he had a son he could sacrifice to his god Yaweh.
ps: since Creo's are not exactly know for their sense of humor, please note, this post is not a threat. No actual Creo's were harmed or killed in making this post. Harm will only occur if you persist in following the crazed dictates of your bible.
Posted by: J-Dog | December 10, 2007 4:49 PM
PZ, can you link to where Irons posted this? I'd like to see what else he has to say.
Thanks.
Posted by: shiftlessbum | December 10, 2007 4:53 PM
This was from e-mail, posted nowhere else but here.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 10, 2007 5:13 PM
I've run out of epithets strong enough to describe my disdain for these mouth-breathers, so I propose using "creationist" as its own epithet.
In fact, "creationist" should be so derogatory that it would be impolite to use it in mixed company--a new 'C-word' if you will.
Suggested usage:
Person A: Watch out for that guy. He's a real C-word.
Person B: What? Cocksucker? Cunt?
Person A: No. [Looks around, whispers] Creationist. He's a real creationist.
Person B: Hey, woah, c'mon! There's no call for language like that.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2007 5:14 PM
Person A: Watch out for that guy. He's a real C-word.
Person B: What? Cocksucker? Cunt?
Person A: No. [Looks around, whispers] Creationist. He's a real creationist.
Given that my mental image of the word 'cunt' is of a pulsating, pus-squirting, chancre-ridden, tuberculous rhinoceros vagina, we're talking some pretty harsh language here.
I cannot believe how stupid these people are.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | December 10, 2007 5:19 PM
In polite company we could adopt the euphemism "cdesignproponentist." Except I'm not sure of the pronunciation. "C-word," I guess.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 10, 2007 5:29 PM
Since stupidity or illiteracy aren't actionable, why not toss in a countersuit for frivolous litigation? Our pathetic Mr. Abrahams read the job description and is educated enough to understand it. What would his defense be? Hallucination during and after the hiring process?
Posted by: Hal | December 10, 2007 5:31 PM
Our tax dollars go to morons like this when they should be quartered and shot. Seriously, if he wanted money that badly, there are plenty of creationist ways of doing it. There's no shortage of those gullible morons around. He could have opened a new museum, showing how adam and eve were able to practice incest to populate the world. He clearly wasn't smart enough to make money off other fellow gullible creationists, yet he was able to apply for a post-doc position.
The best solution towards imbeciles like this is to have every applicant sign a disclosure form advocating evolution through natural selection. They should also sign another waver stating that no personal religious beliefs should obstruct their scientific research.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | December 10, 2007 5:54 PM
I felt that sense of irony when the "loves to text during class" girl in my British Lit session stated that the world would be better off if we focused less on science and more on God.
I wanted to grab her phone and break it, then say, "I feel closer to God already."
Posted by: Ryan | December 10, 2007 5:56 PM
A reporter I spoke with a couple of days ago also told me that he'd gotten a copy of the job posting and it clearly stated that evolutionary biology was the context of the postdoc position. I didn't say anything about it because I had no way of knowing whether the reporter was looking at the correct job posting (and he misquoted me a bit in his article, too, which made me even more suspicious about his accuracy in doing his homework). That Irons has gotten a copy with the same terms tends to lend a bit of support to this fact about the posting in my mind, though.
On the other hand, the comments I'm getting from a certain apparent Creationist calling itself "Interested Observer" on this entry are starting to make me think that perhaps the whole trouble with Creationists is that they have poor reading comprehension in the first place. Maybe Abraham just didn't know what the word "evolution" meant?
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | December 10, 2007 6:02 PM
"Our tax dollars go to morons like this when they should be quartered and shot."
I don't think the government should be quartering and shooting any money.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 10, 2007 6:05 PM
I like the way BarryA, a lawyer, asks his readers to decide if Woods Hole is in the wrong (hint: Yes) based only on Abraham's version of events. Nobody is allowed to mention WH's version, because he wants to focus on the real issue of the case. He goes on to deny, in the comments, that he's trying to rig the debate. Is this the line he takes in his court cases?
Posted by: steve_h | December 10, 2007 6:06 PM
Hi,
Creationists, christianists, and fundies are stealth virii. They infect the healthy host and then transmit signals to fellow pathogens to enter the compromised host. School boards have low immunity because many lack killer (intellectual) cells.
Add to this the migration of mental ability from the rural areas due to a lack of sustenance and the niche usually occupied by a PZ is now held by Randall Terry.
Now we have the rapidly spreading stoopid cancer metastisizing throughout the organism and only drastic measures will be effective.
Posted by: Mold | December 10, 2007 6:11 PM
I think the really sad part of this story, is that there were probably several well qualified post-docs who went for this job, many who could have done a great job, who missed out. The job instead went to somone undeserving who is now doing their best to tarnish the name of a credible scientific instituion.
Given the shortage of jobs in the life sciences (which PZ has alluded to before), I can't help but think Abrams hiring is a shame for the Woods Hole, as some well qualified individual who came second, missing out on a great oppertuinty. Science is the loser.
I wonder what the panel who hired him was thinking? Well... I guess hindsight is always 20-20.
Posted by: ChrisC | December 10, 2007 6:16 PM
Obviously, it starts with [kd]. Requires a little practice, but it's feasible. Just don't aspirate too hard.
---------
Also, you don't get a third i out of virus.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2007 6:23 PM
When I was in grad school, as a condition for taking my assistantship, I had to sign something to the effect that I would continue to work in science for some number of years after I finished my studies. I wonder if Abraham was supported by a training grant, and, if so, I wonder if employment at Liberty satisfies NIH's expectations.
Posted by: Art | December 10, 2007 6:26 PM
Ah, Barry's given me he's quite the dishonest piker of an attorney because he's playing Grand Jury while pretending it's a "fair trial." Anyone who has more than a grade-school understanding of the legal process should be aware that Grand Juries are not "fair trials" in any way, shape or form as the defense is generally not allowed to be there or put-on proof. Just as Barry won't allow any contrary evidence or testimony to the complaint and UD staunchly removes any defense or dissent.
So... As the old saying goes: "Prosecutors have so much control over grand juries that they could convince them to "indict a ham sandwich." And that's what Barry is doing - a hollow show-trial that's nothing more than a Grand Jury process guaranteed to produce victory for the forces of ignorance.
Too bad it'll have to come in front of a real Judge and possibly to a real trial. Like Kitzmiller eventually did...
Posted by: Moses | December 10, 2007 6:31 PM
As an aside:
Back when Peter rode in on his white horse to slap down that rich dilettante who'd been pestering PZ with a frivolous lawsuit, a number of commenters suggested that those who wanted to show Peter their appreciation should consider buying one of his books. I thought that was great advice, and picked up God on Trial. If you haven't done so yet, give it a thought.
The really cool thing about doing this is that you'll be rewarding yourself much more than you "reward" Peter. It's absolutely fascinating stuff as a matter of historical record -- every US law student should read it, even if they don't plan to wrestle with con law after their foundations course.
And Peter has a rare and humane gift. He makes very clear where he thinks the right and the wrong are in each of his case studies -- no "opinions differ on shape of earth" here. But at the same time, he never loses sight of the fact that humans are complex 3-dimensional persons, not cartoon characters. He gives the dramatis personis plenty of space to state their cases in their own words. Even where they are plainly and appallingly wrong -- for example and especially, some of the Dover, PA school board -- it is clear that they are more than cardboard cutouts. They are tragic figures. Tragic in a very small way, mind; but they are not pantomime villains. In a different forum I might be tempted to say, "There but for the grace of God go I."
These stories have heroes as well as villains, of course, and the heroes get to speak their piece too. And like the villains, they also are revealed as complex and quirky; people in whom there is much to admire, but who in some cases might well also be irksome.
I'm looking forward to reading my second Irons book. And you should all think about picking one up, or giving one as a gift for Cephalopodmas (or even for Christmas -- a fair few of the good guys in God on Trial are Christians themselves).
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | December 10, 2007 6:31 PM
Note to self: Pay more attention when you edit... Grr...
Posted by: Moses | December 10, 2007 6:32 PM
Sorry, but if this is the type of material Peter Irons writes, I'm glad I've never heard of him. Other reports mention that Abraham claimed to be willing to interpret data according to evolution, but that his employer immediately seized upon the requirement that he *personally* believe X. To my un-lawyerly mind, this can possibly be discrimination against religious beliefs, and when a commentator ignores that argument and is not a lawyer it is a bad sign.
Posted by: NE1 | December 10, 2007 6:36 PM
ow! I got something in my virii!
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 10, 2007 6:41 PM
Show us these reports.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2007 6:44 PM
virii
Just be warned that if I *do* find you, I will hurt you.
(Annoyed Latin wonk/computer geek)
Posted by: Graculus | December 10, 2007 7:00 PM
As I understand it, Peter Irons is a lawyer.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 10, 2007 7:22 PM
"Results will be interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study."
Assuming those are the exact words of the job posting, I wonder if Abraham thought that "within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the GENES and SPECIES under study" was some sort of shorthand for "microevolution." Perhaps he mentally added the word "only" right after the words "results will be interpreted" -- and he relaxed. This is all going to be at the level of species and their genes.
No problemo.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 10, 2007 7:28 PM
Thank you, Azkyroth, for pointing out that I am a lawyer (I was just replying to Troll NE1 when your comment popped up). And thank you, Mrs. Tilton, for your kind words about my God on Trial book. In further answer to the troll, it's worth noting that in his complaint, Abraham says "he was willing to analyze aspects of his work using evolutionary concepts IF WARRANTED" (my caps). That's a weasely statement if I ever heard one. And asa Abraham's boss said in a letter to him, "you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work." Post-docs are always listed as co-authors in publications that result from their work; that's the icing on their cake, and helps them find good jobs after the post-doc. Abraham's position, BTW, was for just one year, so he only missed out on a few months salary, nowhere near the $500K he's demanding. And he hasn't published anything since joining the Liberty U. faculty, since he's obviously doing no research.
Posted by: peter irons | December 10, 2007 7:38 PM
NB As far as I could make out the other week when I went looking with Google scholar for articles, not much research has been done on that sort of charisma - in comparison with beauty, say. I have trouble seeing it myself because the allegedly charismatic leader types always seem like obvious lying slime-balls to me. So I must be lacking the relevant aspect of distorted perception which allows the gullible to even see them as being charismatic, let alone believe them. Hence my wondering if anyone had bothered to research this. It seems somewhat related to that RWA stuff but isn't quite the same.
Posted by: SEF | December 10, 2007 7:45 PM
If true, I would think that this puts paid to the case, as it clearly indicates that Abraham was not willing to do the work he was hired for.
Posted by: Tulse | December 10, 2007 8:10 PM
He is actually a rather well known law professor.
One note of caution about the effect the job posting will have on the case: Abraham's complaint alleges that he "assured Defendants that he was willing to analyze aspects of his research using evolutionary concepts." They are apparently attempting to distinguish between "unqualified acceptance" and a willingness and ability to do the work as some sort of compartmentalized intellectual exercise. For what its worth, they are saying one can do science without beliving it is true and the job posting didn't demand belief.
Posted by: John Pieret | December 10, 2007 8:18 PM
In case anyone is interested, here's a Yahoo! News (via Reuters) article on this case:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071210/od_nm/evolution_lawsuit_dc;_ylt=ArRzge7CTIzmiLloNhxFcKms0NUE
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA | December 10, 2007 8:28 PM
If the question before the court is whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, that is exactly how a judge considering a motion to dismiss on that basis should consider the Plaintiff's pleading. Such a motion admits (for purposes of the motion) the factual averments of the complaint (but not the legal conclusions to be drawn therefrom) as being true, and raises the issue of whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to no relief even if the facts alleged in his complaint were proven. If that is the case, the motion is granted and the suit is dismissed at the pleading stage; if not, the parties can proceed to discovery and possibly to trial.
I have not read Mr. Abraham's complaint, but if the accounts of his theory that I have read are accurate, I have my doubts as to whether this complaint will survive a motion to dismiss.
Posted by: John in Nashville | December 10, 2007 8:31 PM
From the lawsuit, at http://www.courthousenews.com/2007/1...sHoleXtian.pdf
"8. Plaintiff, as a Bible-believing Christian, accepts the Holy Bible to be the Word of God, and hence infallible.
"9. As a Christian, the plaintiff believes, pursuant to the teachings of the Holy Bible, that God created the Heavens and the Earth,
"10. Plaintiff does not acknowledge evolution as an undisputed scientific fact, but as a scientific theory;
"11. Plaintiff responded to a posting on Defendant Hahn's website for a post-doctoral position at WHOI requiring post-doctoral expertise with zebra fish developmental biology and toxicology;
"12. While the job posting listed in detail the educational and professional qualifications needed, no reference to any unqualified acceptance by job applicants of the theory of evolution as scientific fact was mentioned;
............
"15. There is no requirement in the NIH grant that grantees or their agents accept or endorse the theory of evolution as scientific fact.
"16. Plaintiff's work with Defendants focused on zebrafish developmental biology, toxicology and programmed cell death areas of research which require no acceptance, or application of, the theory of evolution as scientific fact.
"17. Plaintiff at all times, before his employment began while helping to design and construct the lab and during his employment, performed exemplary work and was often praised and commended by [his supervisor] and other staff members for the quality of his research, commitment and scientific presentations.
.............
"20. Plaintiff assured Defendants that he was willing to analyze aspects of his research using evolutionary concepts if warranted ... but his sincerely held religious belief did not allow him to accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact.
............
"29. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff due to his sincerely held religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII, and consequently fired him based on his religious beliefs and Christian faith.
"30. Plaintiff was fired even though acceptance of evolution as scientific fact rather than theory (in contravention of his sincerely held religious beliefs) was in no way a bona fide occupational qualification of employment, was not previously mentioned or implied as a requisite for hiring, and was never listed among necessary criteria for the advertised position by Defendants."
Yessirree, it's all about the science (see especially paragraphs 8, 9, 29, & 30). And how can he be good at thinking up hypotheses, designing and running experiments, and analyzing the results if he is already committed to a specific conclusion?
Posted by: N.Wells | December 10, 2007 9:28 PM
It grates a bit to see "Woods Hole" and "WH" used as the name of an institution. Woods Hole is a village, and among its scientific facilities are the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) and a National Marine Fisheries lab.
Posted by: dkew | December 10, 2007 9:39 PM
The source was probably Abraham. It is in his complaint filed in federal court.
Hahn, his boss said the opposite. The boss said Abraham told him he wasn't going to let his data go out in any paper with evolutionary themes. Since when does a postdoc tell the PI what to do with data and try to prevent his papers from being published? That would be grounds for firing anywhere right there.
This case has already been adjudicated in the state of Massachusetts before some state board concerned with employment and discrimination. It didn't get very far despite the fact the state boards have lower bars than federal venues.
Just a PR stunt. Abraham traded a scientific career for one as a religious extremist. Ironically the latter probably pays well and is far easier. All you have to do is lie continuously.
If the suit is expecially frivolous, they can ask for legal and attorney fee reimbursement or countersue. I would definitely go for that if they are Just Making Things Up in their complaint. Which is already somewhat documented.
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2007 10:46 PM
I am baffled by the idea of someone spending an entire career analyzing their data in a way they don't personally agree with. What drew him into science in the first place? To me, studying biology is synonymous with studying evolution. On the other hand, it's not impossible that someone engaging in (to quote a previous poster) "a compartmentalized mental exercise" could make significant contributions. But the question still remains: how can they spend a career engaged in doublethink?
Posted by: Knoedler | December 11, 2007 1:05 AM
Posted by: Bobby | December 11, 2007 1:26 AM
Anyway, I really, really hope this case gets laughed out of court -- and I wouldn't shed a tear if Abraham got barred from the courts. The case is utterly without merit! A biologist not believing in evolution is absurd as an astrophysicist believing that stars are small candles fixed to a transparent sphere which surrounds the Earth.
Posted by: AJS | December 11, 2007 5:07 AM
@ #39
The word "virii" is based on the (incorrect) assumption that it's the Nominative Plural form of "virus" -- since "virus" apparently is based on the -us declination.
However the Latin word "virus" is indeclinable.
Posted by: Chris | December 11, 2007 6:07 AM
Rey Fox @#13:
Right. That would make it worthless. A coin with a bullet hole in it isn't worth a plugged nickel.
Posted by: arensb | December 11, 2007 8:32 AM
I dunno. I can sort of grok how somebody who was smart but "born again" (such people unquestionably exist, a fascinating psychological subject for sure) could get interested in subjects like the mechanisms of gene regulation and apoptosis while buying into the belief that such mechanisms were created by his or her omnipotent invisible sky-daddy of choice. Certainly the concept of evolution allows a much more accurate and intellectually satisfying context for fitting such mechanisms into a big picture, but the truth is, I think, that productive every-day molecular-biology benchwork of pipetting and gel-jockeying really does not require the big picture to be kept in mind. If one is really interested primarily in proximate mechanisms, their ultimate origin is not necessarily relevant.
What pisses me off about this guy is that he had zero publications, got fired from his only post-doc after less than a year, then got hired at the Associate Professor level! At Liberty PseudoUniversity, true, but still...as somebody now on my fourth assistant professorship this just galls me.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 11, 2007 9:56 AM
I have trouble seeing it myself because the allegedly charismatic leader types always seem like obvious lying slime-balls to me.
That's an interesting point. I completely agree. Most televangelist types would make me want to wipe my hand off after they shook it. There was a guy on TV last Sunday morning telling the Fiathful(TM) that if they sent him $1000 dollars they would, essentially, have entered the lottery for a miracle from God, who, it was promised, would make 300 of the people who donated millionaires within the year. With his slicked back hair, froggy smile, and oily voice I thought, Who in the hell is looking at this man and thinking he is not a scam artist? Not to mention hearing the sound of this obvious scamming voice?
Even when I was a little kid in Catholic class I recoiled at the idea of being in the tiny box with the priest, and that was way before I knew anything about child molestation!
But then, apparently some people think Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity are Hawt.
Me, I like me some Ed O. Wilson. Now that is a man with real charisma.
On topic: A Woods Hole post-doc who does not accept the idea of evolution through natural selection is like an astronomer who believes the Earth is the center of the universe. They can run the equipment, make the measurements, and make the graphs, but when it comes time for analysis they are always going to be completely off-base.
Posted by: Joolya | December 11, 2007 10:30 AM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 11, 2007 10:38 AM
Hi,
Thanks to all those who took Latin and Decleansed my misuse.
Posted by: Mold | December 11, 2007 11:17 AM
But, you know, that's my point--they're not going to be off-base if the questions being asked are all at the proximate level of mechanism.
Okay, at the very basic level, perhaps. I could measure the retrograde motion of Venus very accurately - if the question were, "What is the variation in retrograde motion of Venus year-to-year?" I could answer it. But if I were convinced that Venus orbited the Earth, I would have no way of fitting my observations into the larger context (i.e. why this is an interesting or important question to ask).
This post-doc could write up his data about the genetic differences between cephalopods, or whatever, and it would all be very nice, but simple description doesn't really make a manuscript publishable. And there is no way of discussing comparative biology outside of the centext of evolution. Not really.
Not to mention, if he refused to let any of his data be used in evo-devo papers, he is hurting the work of other post-docs and students in the lab as well as the PI; bascially rendering his work unusable by anyone but him (and unpublishable because the analysis is going to be garbage).
If I told my advisor I "don't believe in Western blots" do you think he'd let me off doing them? (He won't. I tried.)
Posted by: Joolya | December 11, 2007 12:50 PM
Joolya is on target. If Abraham refuses to publish his data in any paper that includes a discussion of evolution, he's not only repudiating a condition of his job description, but effectively monkey-wrenching the entire research group.
I'm sure Liberty University is glad to have him. They deserve each other.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | December 11, 2007 1:09 PM
from #34:
"but his sincerely held religious belief did not allow him to accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact"
Is he really claiming that a scientific theory has LESS weight than scientific fact?
Or will that even be part of the trial, if it comes down to it? Just so wrong...
Posted by: Bruce | December 11, 2007 1:10 PM
Mike O'Risal said "On the other hand, the comments I'm getting from a certain apparent Creationist calling itself "Interested Observer" on this entry are starting to make me think that perhaps the whole trouble with Creationists is that they have poor reading comprehension in the first place."
Actually, what they have are excellent reading incomprehension skills.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton | December 11, 2007 1:35 PM
Which just shows, Bruce, that he is a DI shill and not a competent biologist! (A fact being a tidbit of repeatable data, and a theory being the larger interpretation of many pieces of data after many repetitions by many people.)
Posted by: Joolya | December 11, 2007 1:37 PM
Feh. Virii is a perfectly cromulent English plural of virus. Leave Latin grammar rules back in dead-and-buried Latin.
Posted by: stogoe | December 11, 2007 4:56 PM
Hi,
You have to think of Liberty U, Pat Robertson U, and the rest as less colleges and more of wingnut welfare. Behe was credentialed but was also a marketing ploy to get more of the local Catholic kids to choose Lehigh. Yes, you know higher ed is also a biz.
If not for wingnut welfare, what would these folks do? A degree from crap college puts you on the loading dock at WalMart. And not likely to advance. After spending thousands of dollars you really don't want to say you got taken.
This also is an opportunity to spread fundie disease on the secular dime. There is the fact that many will see this person as one they wish to emulate.
Posted by: Mold | December 11, 2007 5:12 PM
The plural of "virus" as a Latin word would be "viri" (with one I). But since it's actually a stuff-word, not a thing-word, it obviously does not have a plural. "Virus" as an English word can be said to have changed its meaning from the donor language (because it's being used as a thing-word rather than a stuff-word), and therefore should follow English pluralisation rules -- in this case, adding "es". One virus, many viruses. "Viri" might be acceptable from someone whose Latin was faulty; but definitely not "virii".
Posted by: AJS | December 12, 2007 7:19 AM
David Marjanović, OM @ 17: "... you don't get a third i out of virus."
Or a second one, for that matter.
Unless, of course, it's a "messenger" virus reprogramming your DNA to produce extra is.
Hopefully the third one would go in the middle of your forehead, not someplace really awkward like the tip of your big toe....
Posted by: Pyre | December 14, 2007 7:12 PM
AJS @ 53: Agreed. Class "virus" with "fish" and "sheep" as both a singular and plural noun.
School of fish, not school of fishes. Flock of sheep, not flock of sheeps.
"You've got a virus" surely doesn't mean just a single member of the class; more like a school, flock, or Republican Party of virus.
I suppose the pluralized forms -- "fishes", "sheeps", or "viruses" -- might be useful when discussing multiple different breeds or species of the type.
Right when you put guppies, goldfish, and piranhas in the same tank, you could (briefly) refer to the tank contents as "fishes"; but after that, as "fish".
Likewise, a group combining the Ebola filovirus and the faculty of Liberty University might be (briefly) described as "viruses"; but after that, as "hazardous medical waste".
Posted by: Pyre | December 14, 2007 7:27 PM