View previous topic | View next topic

viruses can get viruses??

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Posital
956436.  Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:56 pm Reply with quote

I think we're agreeing here - would be good to have more information, eh?

 
dr.bob
956759.  Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:18 am Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
Dear me, I hope you don't quote references like that in your day job, Dr Bob!! That was by a blogger called "grrlscientist" in 2008. Do you something a bit more, well, reliable to hand?


I'm sorry that an evolutionary biologist and ornithologist who writes about evolution, ethology and ecology for the Guardian and who provides a reference to the peer-reviewed paper in Nature in her blog is not a good enough reference for you.

Or perhaps you didn't bother to actually read the link properly, but just decided to start acting in a condescending and dismissive way as soon as you saw the name of the blogger.

 
gruff5
956808.  Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:53 am Reply with quote

anyone can write for the Guardian, Doctorrrr Bob, as you well know. What kind of credential is that. An "ornithologist" - someone who likes birds? Most of us, I hope. Someone who believes in evolution? most of us again, I hope.

Why not provide us with the link to the *actual* peer-reviewed Nature article about virus-virus infections that grrlscientist imagines she saw. If you don't mind.

I think I'm about to be claiming 5 quid.

 
dr.bob
956833.  Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:28 am Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
anyone can write for the Guardian, Doctorrrr Bob, as you well know.


OK, get back to me when you've had an article printed therein.

 
CB27
956834.  Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:33 am Reply with quote

Just because someone has taken on a pseudonym and is an ornithologist, that's enough to discount what they've written? I was asked by my bosses to assume a pseudonym when I was writing on an industry website because they were nervous that any personal opinions I might put forward would be construed as the opinions of my employers, even though my input was mostly of a technical nature. It's not an uncommon practice.

I have to admit I have no knowledge in the field of microbiology, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find the article in question, based on the information in the blog, but it's not available freely to everyone, so it seems the blog is actuallya good link to give the details.

If you're still unable to find the original entry, it is http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v6/n10/full/nrmicro2002.html

 
gruff5
957574.  Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:19 am Reply with quote

I probably won't contribute too much more to this thread as I'm already bored of it & I've frankly got better things to do with my time. So, unless someone says something interesting, this will be my last post:

I asked for the original Nature article referred to - ie a peer-reviewed article in Nature magazine that follows the normal procedure of hypothesis-testing, experiment, data etc etc Dr Bob can surely tell us what this should mean.

What you've just linked to there a review, not a piece of original research. It is, essentially, an opinion piece and therefore not subject to scientific scrutiny - much like articles in the Guardian. The magazine in question is "Nature Reviews Microbiology" which is published by the Nature Publishing Group. You might note that News International publishes The Sun, The Times & they used to publish The News of The World.

The opinion piece by Rachel Smallridge (who is she?? not Grrrlscientist, surely?!) refers to:

Quote:
Raoult and co-workers previously challenged the field of virology by identifying a virus that was so large its size questioned the definition of a virus


The word "challenge" is often used by people who don't know what they're talking about to people who do (virologists in this case). The short paragraph I can see from your link (I ain't paying good money for tripe) is not enough for me to tell who the feck Raoult is, but I bet you he never did get his sought after article in the Nature magazine proper.

" a virus that was so large its size questioned the definition of a virus" - it walks like a bacteria, it quacks like a bacteria - it's a f***ing BACTERIA!!!

Now go away!!

PS I've not bothered to try and have articles published in The Guardian, but I have had full feature articles (ie at least 3 pages long) published in a magazine to be found in WH Smiths and other major magazine outlets. The topics have included string theory, cosmology, bacteriophages (virus infections of bacteria), dark matter, homotoxicology, the mathematics of nature

 
CB27
957586.  Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:48 am Reply with quote

Wow, someone really has a chip on their shoulder.

I had a number of links open which I found, I might have linked to the wrong one, but it proved something - you can search for the original yourself.

But noooo, rather than find the original and read it and therefore argue against it, it seems you're far more comfortable attacking people who you know nothing about, that shows real intelligence.

It's also hilarious to see you attack someone's credentials of having articles posted in the Guardian, and boosting your own by mentionening you've been published in magazines in WH Smith, that bastion of scientific resources.

As for who different people are, there is a simple resource at your fingertips.

Whoever, if you prefer, you can continue sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear anyone else in the knowledge you're the big winner.

 
'yorz
957587.  Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:53 am Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
" a virus that was so large its size questioned the definition of a virus" - it walks like a bacteria, it quacks like a bacteria - it's a f***ing BACTERIA!!!


a bacterium (singular)
two bacteria (plural)


Simples*

 
CB27
957592.  Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:12 am Reply with quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleocytoplasmic_large_DNA_viruses

Looking at a few of them, a certain name pops up a few times as part of the discovering team.

 
dr.bob
957622.  Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:26 am Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
I asked for the original Nature article referred to - ie a peer-reviewed article in Nature magazine that follows the normal procedure of hypothesis-testing, experiment, data etc etc


Which was quoted at the end of the blog piece.

Since you seem to be particularly hard of thinking, I'll reproduce it so you can see what I'm talking about:

Quote:
Source

Bernard La Scola, Christelle Desnues, Isabelle Pagnier, Catherine Robert, Lina Barrassi, Ghislain Fournous, Michele Merchat, Marie Suzan-Monti, Patrick Forterre, Eugene Koonin & Didier Raoult. The virophage as a unique parasite of the giant mimivirus Nature DOI:10.1038/nature07218.


All you really need is the last bit: "DOI:10.1038/nature07218"

Type that into google, and it'll take you directly to the letter published in Nature. Still, why bother doing that when it's much more fun to condescend and patronise people, then boast about that on entirely different threads because you're so proud of your actions.

gruff5 wrote:
PS I've not bothered to try and have articles published in The Guardian


I guess that must be the only reason why you haven't had any articles published there.

 
CB27
957671.  Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:47 am Reply with quote

The funny thing is that I originally tried the link mentioned in the article, found that it was for subscribers only, tried to be helpful and look for a copy that was free, but couldn't, so when I went to post the link here, because I had several tabs open, I copied the wrong one.

You try and be helpful and get sneered at for your effort. Charming.

 
gruff5
957880.  Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:20 pm Reply with quote

letters to Nature, Doc Bob (where did you get your mickey-mouse PhD, BTW?) - did you not read my previous post about what a publication to Nature means??!

much as I like wikipedia & use it frequently myself, it should not --

oh, for fuck's sake, I said I would not post again unless someone said something interesting & I should stick to my word.

I can see why Davini got the hell out of QI forum - a gathering place for some (not most of you QI'ers, natch) of the greatest dullards to stumble onto the internet

OK, continue discussing this phantom amongst yourselves ...

Byyyeeeee!!

 
Posital
957927.  Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:09 am Reply with quote

I don't know that it's a phantom, just headline reporting. I think it's news that's at least four years old getting a spruce - up.

Looks like you have a heavy weight on your shoulders.

Stay well gruff5.

 
CB27
957950.  Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:39 am Reply with quote

Can someone clear up all the toys someone threw out of the pram?

 
dr.bob
960268.  Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:30 am Reply with quote

That's a shame. I do so enjoy a good flounce, and I haven't seen on around these parts for quite a while. It's a pity I'd already left for my christmas holiday and missed this one.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group