Joined: Oct. 2007
|Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 16 2011,07:50)|
|Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,22:58)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)|
|Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)|
|I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.|
May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?
(Also used here.)
[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:
Tracy, they already are using "dFCSI", so I'd advise against using it in this context. Mind you, it could be great wicked fun to muddy the waters by using an ID nonsense pseudo-word as a placeholder for a different undefined ID concept...