• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Snake found in broccoli

OK, I've just had an idea. My brain hurts a bit now, so bear with me if it's stupid.

Some folks are arguing that the chicken's leg only becomes a drumstick after the chicken has died. Claus seems to think that a chicken's leg can rightfully be referred to as a drumstick even before the chicken has died. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Claus, but that's the impression I've gotten by reading the thread.)

By Claus' reasoning, "live chicken leg=drumstick". OK. But by the same reasoning, one could say "live human body=corpse". Right? Because if an attached live leg is also a drumstick, that would mean that a live human body can accurately be described as a corpse. Am I off base here?

But of course, that's ridiculous. A live human body is obviously not a corpse. In the same way, Claus, a live attached chicken leg is not a drumstick.

And I'll save you some keystrokes by saying: I get it. A leg is not a leg. (and a corpse is not a corpse either!)
 
This is totally unfair. If you're going to debunk Claus, you should make another thread so that everybody who got sick of reading this one can read it.
 
Rolfe said:
Oooh, a friend of mine breeds corn snakes. I think they're way cool. If a tad lacking in the "affectionate pet" department.
Click to expand...
My red-tail boa is a fairly affectionate sort, for a reptile. And very heavy. Of course, it may just be that I'm really warm. :)

Green Iguanas can be as affectionate and cuddly as cats; which, if you've ever cuddled an iggy, you'd know is not necessarily a good thing. Like cuddling rough sandpaper.

If Claus has been "wrong" about anything in this thread, it was in the implication in his OP that the inclusion of the remark about the snake opening its eyes was a strong reason for doubting the entire story.
Click to expand...
That seems to be his schtick in most cases -- responding with vague, nonsensical, tangential, or otherwise irrelevant comments or out-of-context passages to attempt to dismiss, rather than actually refute, a point or argument. He's particularly fond of ridiculous semantic games with English; which makes me believe that he either has nowhere near as good a grasp of the language as he likes to claim, or that he has a very good grasp, and is intellectually dishonest.

As for not being "wrong" about things; maybe not in the strictest sense here; but there have been other threads where his claims violate not only basic logic and common sense (as they do here); but the known principles of physics and medical science; to the point of denying the existence of documented medical evidence (or simply pretending it doesn't exist and refusing to address it). See some of the older firearm threads for examples.
 
Archangel said:
Oh and Claus, given that you haven't answered Rolfes' questions:

Do we have to start a Larsen list for you?

I mean you wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite in your badgering of Steve would you?
Click to expand...
Now, there's an idea.

I mean, this was all about Claus trumpeting his "evidence" that Steve "still runs away from the old questions". Of course I and probably everybody else have completely forgotten what these questions (from two years ago) were, and Claus has not seen fit to remind us.

How much easier it is to have a single summary of the outstanding matters, at least those that seem most important, to which attention can be drawn as the occasion arises! For example, further demands that posters answer some question or other. Of course, Claus would never want to be seen as running away from questions himself, I'm sure.

So, here are the main questions from the many that have arisen during the thread, in a handy list format.
  1. Claus posted:
    CFLarsen said:
    Darat said:
    No it is you that is playing semantics. Given the definition of an eye lid it is incorrect to state that snakes have "fused eyelids". Snakes have a different structure that protects their eyes, some creatures have eyelids, some have brills.
    Click to expand...
    What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.
    Click to expand...
    Claus, please give the name and publication details of the dictionary you were using to support the statement "all are allowed by the dictionary". Please also quote in full the entry or entries you were relying on.
  2. Please explain how any answer to that question could have been used to illuminate the matter of whether or not the brille of a snake may be classified as eyelids.
  3. Do we (that is us human beings, for the avoidance of doubt) refer to our eyelids as brille? If not, why not?
  4. Why were you so adamant that Wikipedia was a reliable reference for the use of the word "eyelid" in connection to the brille, rather than (for example) Webster's Dictionary? Especially in view of the numerous other occasions you have derided other posters for relying on Wikipedia as a source, while you have previously recommended Webster's as reliable? (See Mahatma Kane Jeeves' language award nominated post presenting the evidence for this is excruciating detail.)
All right, I think that's enough.

Claus may see this as trivial. However, he must realise that it's not the petty semantics that are the issue, but the matter of someone who chooses to hound and badger other posters for allegedly running away from questions they may not want to answer, running away himself and giving grounds for accusations of hypocrisy. The questions may be trivial, but they are not difficult.

Oh, and Claus, be advised that "I see. A leg is not a leg. Alice in Wonderland" and variations thereof is not an adequate response, and every repetition of such will be seen as adding further to the impression of evasion and hypocrisy.

Rolfe.

PS. Any poster at all has complete permission to link to this post any time Claus attacks them with a "Larsen List", or demands an answer to one or more contrived and baited questions, or accuses them of "running away from the questions". Feel free.
 
Last edited:
Can I just point out that my contributions to this thread have nothing to do about who was posting anything, whether that be Claus, Steve or Rolfe, I was interested in demonstrating why the description of a snake's eye protection (brille) as "fused eyelids" is either inaccurate and/or wrong.
 
Darat said:
Can I just point out that my contributions to this thread have nothing to do about who was posting anything, whether that be Claus, Steve or Rolfe, I was interested in demonstrating why the description of a snake's eye protection (brille) as "fused eyelids" is either inaccurate and/or wrong.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has seen a snake's shed skin will know that the covering over the eye is not a fused eyelid. It is also called an eyecap or a spectacle but not a lid or an eyelid. It is a transparent circular scale that goes over the eye, known as a brille (origin of term given previously above).
 
Rolfe said:
How much easier it is to have a single summary of the outstanding matters, at least those that seem most important, to which attention can be drawn as the occasion arises! For example, further demands that posters answer some question or other. Of course, Claus would never want to be seen as running away from questions himself, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have any luck, you can add the ones in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38047&highlight=democracy

The initial post (quoted) and response leading to the list of questions is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1269035&postcount=20

or here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1271210&postcount=34

or here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274171&postcount=39

here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1282648&postcount=54

While the list of questions that were completely ignored can be found here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1312875&postcount=74

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1318914&postcount=78

with a few extras here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1319934&postcount=80

The 17 questions listed above were posted on December 7, 2005 (a date that will live in infamy), and (along with the additional few) were bumped (by me) on Dec 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, (X-mas break), Jan 3 , 4, 8, and 16. Well over a month, a time of active posting for the gentleman in question, without even an attempted response.

Good luck, Rolfe.
 
Then there's the gam. Which is a bunch of whales or a leg. Which looks like a drumsick in some cases. In others it looks like Little Boy, a smaller thermoneuclear device than Big Boy. Which looked like a large leg. Or two. About 10 kilotons.
But now for something completely different.
http://tcruiseko.ymnd.com/
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
Then there's the gam. Which is a bunch of whales or a leg. Which looks like a drumsick in some cases. In others it looks like Little Boy, a smaller thermoneuclear device than Big Boy. Which looked like a large leg. Or two. About 10 kilotons.
Click to expand...

. . . aaaand Mornington Crescent.


Well played, all.
 
I'm not sure it's quite so clear-cut. As you said before, "it would be a bit of a stretch". I think that's closer to the truth. You've presented a good number of references that clearly state that "snakes do not have eyelids", and I think we all understand what that means. However, depending on how one regards the semantics, I can see that different usages may be allowable.

It's beyond doubt that the nictitating membrane and the haw are frequently described as "the third eyelid", so clearly the word eyelid doesn't only refer to the two opposing lids we usually mean by the term. Thus we have some precedent for the usage of the word as an "umbrella term", encompassing more than one specific type of eyelid. Nevertheless, these structures are also movable (except in species where they are vestigial), and this doesn't necessarily prove that the term can be extended to cover the spectacle as well, which, being immovable, has much less claim to the term "lid".

I checked one reference, a CD-rom called A Guide to Snakes, published in 2000 by the Royal Veterinary College as an educational resource for veterinary surgeons, and authored by Michael Walters, BVSc, MSc, MRCVS, Professor Peneel Zwart, DVM, PhD and Professor Frederic L. Frye, BSc, DVM, MSc, CBiol, FIBiol, FRSM. In the anatomy section I found the following paragraph.
Spectacle
The embryonically fused eyelids (hence no palpebral fissure) form a transparent covering of the eye called the spectacle (also known as the brille or eyecap).
Click to expand...
So these authors seem not to have a problem with the use of "eyelid" as an umbrella term which may include the spectacle in the same way as it includes the nictitating membrane.

As I see it, common usage states that "snakes do not have eyelids" as a simple way to begin the explanation of the true situation, that instead they have something quite unlike what we would normally refer to as eyelids. In this usage "eyelid" is being used as a specific term to describe a pair of eyelids such as those human beings have. Nevertheless I don't think this necessarily excludes the possibility that "eyelid" may also serve as an umbrella term to include not only "ordinary" eyelids, but also nictitating membranes, haws, and (certainly according to the CD-rom) brille(n) (is that the correct plural?).

There's no doubt that everyone in this conversation is entirely clear on what it is that snakes do have, and the argument is purely semantic. I don't think, in fact, that anyone is indisputably wrong here.

My beef in this thread has never been with the possible acceptability of the umbrella usage, but with Claus's ambiguous, evasive and frankly hypocritical approach to the debate.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger said:
Well, if you have any luck, you can add the ones in this thread:....

While the list of questions that were completely ignored can be found here:....

The 17 questions listed above were posted on December 7, 2005 (a date that will live in infamy), and (along with the additional few) were bumped (by me) on Dec 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, (X-mas break), Jan 3 , 4, 8, and 16. Well over a month, a time of active posting for the gentleman in question, without even an attempted response.

Good luck, Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Claus began all this by declaring that Steve's decision not to post in threads where Claus believed he had challenged him was "evidence that he still runs away from the old questions".

I think we can all see the obvious conclusion here.

Rolfe.
 
Jeff Corey said:
In others it looks like Little Boy, a smaller thermoneuclear device than Big Boy. Which looked like a large leg.
Click to expand...
[pedantic] Fat Man, not Big Boy. [/pedantic]

Fat Man looked rather like a large EGG, not a leg. Nor a drumstick. Surely you're not implying that humans lay eggs, then beat them with drumsticks?!?!

O_:-}
 
NotJesus said:
I see three possibilities:

1) Claus really is stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, despite what dictionaries say and despite several posters' attempts to patiently and logically explain why it is not so, in terms which should be clear to a reasonably intelligent eight-year-old (even an eight-year-old whose native language is not English).

2) Claus would rather pretend to be stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, than admit that he was wrong. (Has Claus ever admitted he was wrong about ANYTHING?)

3) Claus is amusing himself with a private joke -- one which is funny only to himself.
Click to expand...
I would hazard a guess that Claus may have retracted his statement or changed his mind after some brow beating. But in this case, the first definitive rebuttal of his claim came from Steve Grenard. Knowing their history it seems entirely likely that Claus would rather burn in hell than retract a statement based on a concise rebuttal from Steve.

In my opinion this is the problem with voracious, fire and brimstone like tenacity in dealing with people whose beliefs are contrary to our own. It leaves you in a position where anytime you might have to admit to being wrong, that it feels like swallowing razor blades.

The semantics game is being played by Claus. It seems clear that the technical term for the protective structure of a snakes eye is brille. Whether or not it is justified to also call that structure an eyelid is almost irrelevant. Snakes have brilles. Period.
 
voidx said:
I would hazard a guess that Claus may have retracted his statement or changed his mind after some brow beating.
Click to expand...
Point of information. Is anyone aware of any occasion where Claus has ever retracted any statement, in the "I was mistaken" sense?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Point of information. Is anyone aware of any occasion where Claus has ever retracted any statement, in the "I was mistaken" sense?
Click to expand...

There have been a couple of times. Once he misidentified an Estonian text as Finnish and he accepted the correction. I don't remember the details of the other few cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom