Summations Only

So I just noticed the title of this thread is "Souhern baptists are scary"...and here I was about to bring up the Green Tree Frog as an example of an uncreative common name. What's that? A frog... that's green... and lives in trees? Brilliant!

Ever hear of a guy called Buffalo Bill?

quote:

---

Cody earned the nickname by killing 4,280 American bison (commonly known as buffalo) in eighteen months, (1867—68)

---

I don't think he ever traveled to Africa or Asia, let alone kill any Buffaloes there.

Your otherwise excellent post is marred only by the example you chose. Isaac Hayes used the word "bad" to describe someone in a positive way in 1971 (Theme from Shaft).Teens were using the word "bad" to describe good things in the mid 70s. I know this because I was one.The Freak didn't record his Bad until 1987.Carry on.

Yes. I know. I've seen them there. I've frigging eaten one (bit chewy). I know what a water buffalo is. Really? That'll be news to the European Bison, Bison bonasus, which has been happily living in Europe. Why don't you come over and tell them all how they should be in America? Maybe. Let's do a Google image search for "buffalo". I get this as my top result; In fact, the first six images are all of bison. Kind of backs up my point about how the word "buffalo" can refer to North American Bison. Y'know, like the dictionary I cited told you. The fact that the same picture is also the top result for "bison" kinda rams home the point that both terms are acceptable descriptions of the same creature. What exactly made you think I was the one who was confused? Was it when I presented a dictionary definition that clearly showed that "North American Bison" was an acceptable meaning of the word "buffalo"? Or was it when I referred to the creature as "Bison bison"? I mean, which part of "Bison bison" made you think I didn't know it was a bison? The first Bison maybe? Or the second?But really, your main problem here is not your deep ignorance of biology and its conventions, but your appalling ignorance of your own language. The English language is not a top-down prescriptive system. It is dependant on usage. The fact is that, inaccurate as it may be, the word "Buffalo" has been used for centuries to describe Bison bison. That makes it correct, whether you like it or not.Trying to insist that people adhere only to your preferred sense of a word is essentially an equivocation. It is also arrogant and snobbish. It is particularly galling when the hyper-correction you're so keen on is blatantly wrong. Have you heard of the psychological concept of projection?Mutate and Survive

you are probably one of those people who thinks poisonous snakes are really in the woods.

Bullshit.
Bison is a perfect example. It’s the common name, the genus name and the species name.
You are totally wrong.

Oh dear, it looks like you need a primer on biological taxonomy. And that's exactly why it's confusing. "Bison" on its own could refer to either a North American Bison or a wisent (European Bison). Or it could refer to both. That's why Latin binomials exist; they clarify what we're talking about. Common names don't and can't do that. Example;This is a dandelion; But it also goes by a number of other common names;

quote:

---

Bum-pipe, Burning fire.
Clocks, Clock flower, Clocks and watches, Combs and hairpins, Conquer more.
Devil's milk pail, Dog's posy.
Fairy clocks, Farmer's clocks.
Golden suns.
Horse gowan.
Irish daisy.
Jack-piss-the-bed.
Lay-a-bed, Lion's teeth.
Male, Mess-a-bed.
Old man's clock.
Peasant's clock, Pishamoolag, Piss-a-bed, Pissimire, Pissy beds, Pittlebed, Pittley beds, Priest's crown.
Schoolboy's clock, Shepherd's clock, Shit-a-bed, Stink divine, Swine's snout.
Tell-time, Tiddle beds, Time flower, Time teller, Twelve o'clock.
Wet-the-bed, Wet-weed, Wishes.

---

Now if you wanted to argue that "dandelion" was a better name than "bum-pipe" or "shit-a-bed", then I would have to agree. But that doesn't make someone who wants to call them bum-pipes is wrong. It just means that they've chosen to call it by a different common name than you. But common names don't mean shit, so that's okay.The second problem is that some common names apply to more than one species. This is true of the dandelion. The common name "dandelion" applies to both Taraxacum officionale and Taraxacum erthynospermum. It is not wrong to refer to either as "dandelion". It is simply a function of how common names don't mean shit. If you want to be specific, use the Latin binomial name. If you want to use the common name, go ahead, but in doing so you are being neither specific nor technical.The same applies to buffalo/bison. Whilst it may be a little misleading and something of a misnomer, the word "buffalo" is an accepted common term for Bison bison. This is true whether you like it or not. Just check a dictionary;

quote:

---

1
a) Any of several oxlike Old World mammals of the family Bovidae, such as the water buffalo and African buffalo.
b) The North American bison, Bison bison.
2
The buffalo fish.

---

Answers.com

quote:

---

1.
any of several large wild oxen of the family Bovidae. Compare bison, Cape buffalo, water buffalo.

---

Dictionary.com

quote:

---

: any of several wild bovids: as a : water buffalo b : cape buffalo (1) : any of a genus (Bison) of bovids; especially : a large shaggy-maned North American bovid (B. bison) that has short horns and heavy forequarters with a large muscular hump and that was formerly abundant on the central and western plains compare wisent (2) : the flesh of the buffalo used as food

---

Merriam-Webster

quote:

---

3 a US and Canad. name for Bison

---

Collins Concise dictionary No he's not and if you bothered to research anything, you could find this out. Try either of these articles, both of which just back up what Crashfrog and the rest of us have been telling you.You should try and listen to people once in a while, instead of just yelling "bullshit!". You might learn something.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Liar. There's no such thing as a poisonous snake. There are plenty of venomous snakes, though. Do you lie often?

how did i lie?you are the liar.

There's no such thing as a poisonous snake. You claimed there are. That's a lie.

... or a trivial error in English usage?Besides which, it seems that there are some poisonous snakes, including keelback snakes and some garter snakes, which acquire toxicity by eating poisonous toads and newts respectively.Topic, anyone?

I did not claim there was, you are doing something common with people of poor debating skills, this is called building a strawman. Pretty typical move by you, too bad you had to include Ad hominem with. I shouldn't even respond to ignorance such as yours.you need to work on your reading comprehension.I said to CS "you are probably one of those people who thinks poisonous snakes are really in the woods". I am completely dumbfounded by your inability to understand that line, and how it would appear anything like the strawman you built, other than you are liberal full of rage who lashes out with emotional responses rather than logical ones.

shhhhhhh i got my bases covered. i appreciate it, but messing with this ignorant Taz guy is kind of fun.

Please enlighten us by what is meant by this?

A google of: "poisonous snake in woods"returns hundreds of images. Click the link...