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.
I was thinking the truth was 2, but that Claus was trying rather unsuccessfully to pass it off as 3.
However, luchdog's point is also very persuasive.
Actually, I'm not even sure he's been "wrong" about anything here, as such. He merely posted a virtually meaningless question which seemed to imply that Darat might refer to his legs as drumsticks.
Many electrons died before he finally indicated that this had not been the intent of the question, though rather than admit that the fault was his for wording it poorly, he chose to blame the English language.
We are still left wondering what his point actually was. I still have, like, no idea at all man. Thus I want to know which dictionary he was consulting to support his assertion that "all are allowed by the dictionary", and I want to know the details of the entry or entries he was using to come to that conclusion. I also want to know how he proposed to use any answer he might have received to support his point that the brille of a snake may be classified as eyelids. In order to understand whatever the hell it was he might have meant.
Not difficult questions, but ones he continues to evade.
Note that I do not in fact wholly disagree with Claus on the main issue. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve when he says
.... it's a stretch to call the covering of a snake's eyes eyelids.
Yes,
it's a stretch. I'm very persuaded by the many references provided earlier in the thread which reject that usage, but I have also found one reputable herpetological text which does use the word eyelid in that context.
It's not the usual way the terms are used, but at a stretch, one might allow it. So what?
So what is just Claus wanting to pick a fight with Steve, because he sees Steve (the Steve from two years ago) as a woo with whom he has history, and who left the forum leaving unanswered questions behind. He expects everyone to fall in line and agree with him, because this is a sceptics forum, and he is the uber-sceptic, and so the good guy. He must be right, by definition, while Steve, as the woo, must be wrong. Even a trivial typo (
"Accipter" for "Accipiter", I think) must be picked up on by Claus and highlighted, because any little failing of Steve's must be noted.
Er, no. It doesn't work like that, Claus.
I've got a history with the old Steve too. But rather than pursue that now, I'm far more interested in meeting the Steve of 2006, who has yet to say anything even remotely woo-ish that I've seen, and who has made numerous interesting (and occasionally amusing) posts. And I'm happy to get to know this Steve on his own terms, and wait until he volunteers anything about his current attitude to matters woo - if indeed he ever chooses to do this.
I don't like Claus muscling into every thread Steve posts in, posting snide remarks which derail the thread (oops, sorry Goshawk, you pointed out
it wasn't a derail in your case, it was a hijack) and bumping ancient threads with cryptic comments just because he sees Steve's account is active.
Nevertheless, this is one thread I don't have the slightest qualm about derailing, considering I have some sneaky (and quite unreasonable) ideas about why it was started in the first place.
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.
Hell, we take anything printed by the
Sun with a good solid pinch of salt. Weren't they "Freddie Starr ate my hamster!"? But beyond that, is it more likely that the woman simply imagined in retrospect that she'd seen the snake open its eyes, or that there was no snake, and no broccoli, and maybe no woman either?
Arguing against the essential veracity of an entire story because of one clearly wrong but probably simply mistaken element can take us right into CT territory.
Rolfe.
PS. From the hijacked thread.
The lesson here? You can't run away from the questions.
All I can say is, you're making a damn good try at it.
It was that or sing Zappa's "Baby Snakes" at the top of my lungs, and I've enough respect for the cost of replacement glass to see why that'd be a poor choice.
