Someone objected to the new section on jenetiks being stricken with the conclusion that genetics is the cause. I moved to strike it, because it was confusing. In other words, it does not make the conclusion that genetics is the cause, nor does it support anything it does say, so I would delete the section to over-rule an objection.
I was looking for a citation, because a magazine or something does not archive editorials. It turns out that Gajdusek did not like it when Prussiner introduced the word "prion" into English. If I had been looking for "Scrapie", then I might hav found it. It belongs in a subsection in the section about debate. If Prussiner can be credited with anything other than a Nobel prize, it is that his hypothesis tested the dominant theory that life requires both D.N.A. and protein to reproduce.
In a sympathetic jesture, jenetiks does hav things to say about Protease Resistant Protein, so I would give genetics the last word in the debate.
"Agent of [[:category:amyloidosis]] survives temperatures that destroy protein and [[DNA]]" <ref name="pmid10716712">{{cite journal |author=Brown P, Rau EH, Johnson BK, Bacote AE, Gibbs CJ, Gajdusek DC |title=New studies on the heat resistance of hamster-adapted scrapie agent: threshold survival after ashing at 600 degrees C suggests an inorganic template of replication |journal=[[Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.]] |volume=97 |issue=7 |pages=3418-21 |year=2000 |month=March |pmid=10716712 |pmc=16254 |doi=10.1073/pnas.050566797 |url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10716712 |issn= }}</ref>
Am I the only one for whom this is highly to specific a discussion topic for this general mailinglist? To be honest, I'm not sure whether I completely understood one single sentence of the below, although I do grasp the single words...
Shouldn't that rather be moved to the article talk page or the discussion page of the appropriate WikiProject or similar?
Best, Michael
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
Someone objected to the new section on jenetiks being stricken with the conclusion that genetics is the cause. I moved to strike it, because it was confusing. In other words, it does not make the conclusion that genetics is the cause, nor does it support anything it does say, so I would delete the section to over-rule an objection.
I was looking for a citation, because a magazine or something does not archive editorials. It turns out that Gajdusek did not like it when Prussiner introduced the word "prion" into English. If I had been looking for "Scrapie", then I might hav found it. It belongs in a subsection in the section about debate. If Prussiner can be credited with anything other than a Nobel prize, it is that his hypothesis tested the dominant theory that life requires both D.N.A. and protein to reproduce.
In a sympathetic jesture, jenetiks does hav things to say about Protease Resistant Protein, so I would give genetics the last word in the debate.
"Agent of [[:category:amyloidosis]] survives temperatures that destroy protein and [[DNA]]" <ref name="pmid10716712">{{cite journal |author=Brown P, Rau EH, Johnson BK, Bacote AE, Gibbs CJ, Gajdusek DC |title=New studies on the heat resistance of hamster-adapted scrapie agent: threshold survival after ashing at 600 degrees C suggests an inorganic template of replication |journal=[[Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.]] |volume=97 |issue=7 |pages=3418-21 |year=2000 |month=March |pmid=10716712 |pmc=16254 |doi=10.1073/pnas.050566797 |url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10716712 |issn= }}</ref>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/3/10 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
Am I the only one for whom this is highly to specific a discussion topic for this general mailinglist? To be honest, I'm not sure whether I completely understood one single sentence of the below, although I do grasp the single words...
I'm in a similar position - I think this should be on the talk page where people that have the faintest idea what "jenetiks" is might be around.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/10 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
Am I the only one for whom this is highly to specific a discussion topic for this general mailinglist? To be honest, I'm not sure whether I completely understood one single sentence of the below, although I do grasp the single words...
I'm in a similar position - I think this should be on the talk page where people that have the faintest idea what "jenetiks" is might be around.
It appears to be an alternative spelling for genetics.
Carcharoth
2009/3/10 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/10 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
Am I the only one for whom this is highly to specific a discussion topic for this general mailinglist? To be honest, I'm not sure whether I completely understood one single sentence of the below, although I do grasp the single words...
I'm in a similar position - I think this should be on the talk page where people that have the faintest idea what "jenetiks" is might be around.
It appears to be an alternative spelling for genetics.
From context, I don't think so.
"Someone objected to the new section on jenetiks being stricken with the conclusion that genetics is the cause."
That sentences uses both words and seems to suggest they are somehow alternatives. I could go and look it up, I guess... hang on.
It seems the word doesn't exist... Now I'm even more confused.
Jay sometimes changes spelling to suit his view of how words should be spelled; I think we've discussed it on this list in the past (the use of j instead of g, hav instead of have, etc.). Probably not worth more discussion beyond directing him back to the article talkpage.
Nathan
2009/3/10 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Jay sometimes changes spelling to suit his view of how words should be spelled; I think we've discussed it on this list in the past (the use of j instead of g, hav instead of have, etc.). Probably not worth more discussion beyond directing him back to the article talkpage.
It's the inconsistent spelling that threw me...
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0903100918q58900db2i508fca10c3776a06@mail.gmail.com...
2009/3/10 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/10 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
Am I the only one for whom this is highly to specific a discussion topic for this general mailinglist? To be honest, I'm not sure whether I completely understood one single sentence of the below, although I do grasp the single words...
I'm in a similar position - I think this should be on the talk page where people that have the faintest idea what "jenetiks" is might be around.
It appears to be an alternative spelling for genetics.
From context, I don't think so.
"Someone objected to the new section on jenetiks being stricken with the conclusion that genetics is the cause."
That sentences uses both words and seems to suggest they are somehow alternatives. I could go and look it up, I guess... hang on.
It seems the word doesn't exist... Now I'm even more confused.
They sound the same, so they are homonyms. I *did* not write that way in articles. Even "hav" is a mistake. I am excluded from talk pages. I want to write a song that equates "Lawyers and Crack-heads" in the title. It will not get me any points in civility. _______ The reason why you're homeless is because you're full of snow.
<!-- I like three things about the experiment after this paragraph: 1. It shows that the disease tranmits from one species to another through food. 2. It is cheap to run, because Hamsters develop the disease faster than any other lab animal. 3. It supports dominant theory that D.N.A., structured protein, and water are essential to life. -->
"Agent of [[:category:amyloidosis]] survives temperatures that destroy protein and [[DNA]]" <ref name="pmid10716712">{{cite journal |author=Brown P, Rau EH, Johnson BK, Bacote AE, Gibbs CJ, Gajdusek DC |title=New studies on the heat resistance of hamster-adapted scrapie agent: threshold survival after ashing at 600 degrees C suggests an inorganic template of replication |journal=[[Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.]] |volume=97 |issue=7 |pages=3418-21 |year=2000 |month=March |pmid=10716712 |pmc=16254 |doi=10.1073/pnas.050566797 |url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10716712 |issn= }}</ref>