In article <C2084F08.1A5BB%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/07 11:56 PM, in article
> JEuEh.3595$re4.390@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net, "John Richards"
> <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:jgkeegan-F53F88.18323825022007@individual.net...
> >> In article <nospam.m-m-CBF07F.18202225022007@newsread.uslec.net>,
> >> M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
> >>> Why is it Windows users say Macs get viruses but Mac users say they
> >>> don't??
> >>
> >> windows users, apparently, feel inferior and that want mac users to
> >> come down to their level.
> >>
> >> i use both a mac powerbook and a powerful vista notebook. they are
> >> both functional. the windows machine needs aggressive anti-viris,
> >> worm, etc. protection. the mac does not.
> >
> > Which is a testament to the Mac's lack of popularity...
> > Why would virus writers waste time on the 5% who have a Mac,
> > when they can get a much bigger result by targeting the 90%
> > who have a PC.
> Besides, it would require REAL work to bust into the Mac OS.
>
> Windoze is like whacking a piņata - without a mask...
>
Exactly. LOL
In article <kt17u2hr044npjan4llona8nt3phiud3dc@news-server>,
-= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:41:56 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >In article <e5g6u2d27rtaa8hgg00jvmfnfu9a3hmv5a@4ax.com>,
> > Tinman <ask@for.it> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:10:41 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >In article <mdd6u2hd5nqtv2v7d04g0dt5nmuivbvrph@4ax.com>,
> >> > Tinman <ask@for.it> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Was amused by your use of this though:
> >> >> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
> >> >>
> >> >> Too funny. Cry about MS and then turn right around and use their
> >> >> products. Hypocrite.
> >> >
> >> >He uses Office. I use it too,
> >>
> >> Wow, so do I. What big happy family.
> >>
> >>
> >> > but only because I need to work with PC
> >> >folk who don't (and can't) use any other office suite.
> >>
> >> Straw-man argument. Office formats have nothing to do with Usenet, and
> >> there are plenty of alternatives, even for the Mac. And since you didn't
> >> use Entourage to post your reply you already knew that.
> >>
> >> I won't get into the "and can't" comment.
> >
> >So don't.
> >
> >I need compatiblity with my Windows clients so I use Office. I also use
> >Entourage because many of my clients use the calendar function for
> >meetings, etc.
> >
> >I'd love to wean my corporate clients off Office, I'm sure your
> >suggestions for alternatives would be very persuasive.
>
> *cough* open office *cough*
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:43:24 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <C2084F08.1A5BB%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/07 11:56 PM, in article
>> JEuEh.3595$re4.390@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net, "John Richards"
>> <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:jgkeegan-F53F88.18323825022007@individual.net...
>> >> In article <nospam.m-m-CBF07F.18202225022007@newsread.uslec.net>,
>> >> M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
>> >>> Why is it Windows users say Macs get viruses but Mac users say they
>> >>> don't??
>> >>
>> >> windows users, apparently, feel inferior and that want mac users to
>> >> come down to their level.
>> >>
>> >> i use both a mac powerbook and a powerful vista notebook. they are
>> >> both functional. the windows machine needs aggressive anti-viris,
>> >> worm, etc. protection. the mac does not.
>> >
>> > Which is a testament to the Mac's lack of popularity...
>> > Why would virus writers waste time on the 5% who have a Mac,
>> > when they can get a much bigger result by targeting the 90%
>> > who have a PC.
>> Besides, it would require REAL work to bust into the Mac OS.
>>
>> Windoze is like whacking a piņata - without a mask...
>>
>Exactly. LOL
It must really suck to be in the infinitesimal minority when it comes
to computers. Your envy is apparently unbearable.
> In article <e5g6u2d27rtaa8hgg00jvmfnfu9a3hmv5a@4ax.com>,
> Tinman <ask@for.it> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:10:41 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> In article <mdd6u2hd5nqtv2v7d04g0dt5nmuivbvrph@4ax.com>,
>>> Tinman <ask@for.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Was amused by your use of this though:
>>>> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
>>>>
>>>> Too funny. Cry about MS and then turn right around and use their
>>>> products. Hypocrite.
>>>
>>> He uses Office. I use it too,
>>
>> Wow, so do I. What big happy family.
>>
>>
>>> but only because I need to work with PC
>>> folk who don't (and can't) use any other office suite.
>>
>> Straw-man argument. Office formats have nothing to do with Usenet, and
>> there are plenty of alternatives, even for the Mac. And since you didn't
>> use Entourage to post your reply you already knew that.
>>
>> I won't get into the "and can't" comment.
>
> So don't.
>
> I need compatiblity with my Windows clients so I use Office. I also use
> Entourage because many of my clients use the calendar function for
> meetings, etc.
>
> I'd love to wean my corporate clients off Office, I'm sure your
> suggestions for alternatives would be very persuasive.
He has none.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
In article <ct17u2tg2d4gbc8pk41mbrd6g9ic0t8v5q@4ax.com>,
Bob Ward <bobward@email.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:43:24 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <C2084F08.1A5BB%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
> > George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/25/07 11:56 PM, in article
> >> JEuEh.3595$re4.390@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net, "John Richards"
> >> <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:jgkeegan-F53F88.18323825022007@individual.net...
> >> >> In article <nospam.m-m-CBF07F.18202225022007@newsread.uslec.net>,
> >> >> M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
> >> >>> Why is it Windows users say Macs get viruses but Mac users say they
> >> >>> don't??
> >> >>
> >> >> windows users, apparently, feel inferior and that want mac users to
> >> >> come down to their level.
> >> >>
> >> >> i use both a mac powerbook and a powerful vista notebook. they are
> >> >> both functional. the windows machine needs aggressive anti-viris,
> >> >> worm, etc. protection. the mac does not.
> >> >
> >> > Which is a testament to the Mac's lack of popularity...
> >> > Why would virus writers waste time on the 5% who have a Mac,
> >> > when they can get a much bigger result by targeting the 90%
> >> > who have a PC.
> >> Besides, it would require REAL work to bust into the Mac OS.
> >>
> >> Windoze is like whacking a piņata - without a mask...
> >>
> >Exactly. LOL
>
>
> It must really suck to be in the infinitesimal minority when it comes
> to computers. Your envy is apparently unbearable.
LOL. Please tell me what I'm missing. I run a $400K+ a year design
business with Macs. Never had the need for a PC except to access those
damn ActiveX web control panels (for which Virtual PC and now Parallels
work great for).
> You and your fudge-packing buddy, Birdbrain -err... "Hawk", have my
> permission to have the final word in this thread, because I know you don't
> have the mental ability to pass. Do you, Pavlov?
>
> I'll be working on my Mac checking my Apple shares whilst you two will be
> crying over your crashing PeeCees and M$ financial worries.
>
> Toodles, boys...
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
Aw come on...you know you're reading this...
And, even though you missed my point previous point entirely I still
hope you have a virus free machine...but I'm betting you won't...
The ultimate stupidity, the inability to learn or open your mind to
other possibilities. Sad.
Now all you "fudge-packing" people remember...don't ask and don't tell.
<grin>
>
> He has none.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
DARN! shouldn't have "gotten out more." Went out to dinner with friends
and now I've posted too late. Oh well, welcome back.
Drumstick wrote:
>> You and your fudge-packing buddy, Birdbrain -err... "Hawk", have my
>> permission to have the final word in this thread, because I know you don't
>> have the mental ability to pass. Do you, Pavlov?
>>
>> I'll be working on my Mac checking my Apple shares whilst you two will be
>> crying over your crashing PeeCees and M$ financial worries.
>>
>> Toodles, boys...
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>
>
> Aw come on...you know you're reading this...
>
> And, even though you missed my point previous point entirely I still
> hope you have a virus free machine...but I'm betting you won't...
>
> The ultimate stupidity, the inability to learn or open your mind to
> other possibilities. Sad.
>
> Now all you "fudge-packing" people remember...don't ask and don't tell.
> <grin>
>
> Drum--
MS Financial problems ? You forget who owns it. Apple should be the one
thats worried. Hey bill, Can you loan apple another 100 mill ? hahaha...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:02:31 -0500, -= Hawk =-
<Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:52:21 -0600, George Kerby
><ghost_topper@hotmail.com> scribbled:
>
>>
>>On 2/26/07 6:41 PM, in article
>>labolide-AB881C.16415626022007@news.giganews.com, "Kurt"
>>>
>>> I'd love to wean my corporate clients off Office, I'm sure your
>>> suggestions for alternatives would be very persuasive.
>>
>>He has none.
>
>Didn't you storm off in a huff?
He was merely awaiting another person's reply so he could weasel himself
back into the thread--even at the expense of throwing out an
intellectually vapid one-liner that even a 4-year-old who can spell
"Google" would be embarrassed of. Par for the course.
--
Mike | Another study I've devised involves asking
| a woman to open a jar of pickles.
In article <hm77u2dam3jesvm67d7u1nqk6k3i3stri6@news-server>,
-= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:23:05 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >In article <kt17u2hr044npjan4llona8nt3phiud3dc@news-server>,
> > -= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:41:56 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> >> scribbled:
> >>
> >> >In article <e5g6u2d27rtaa8hgg00jvmfnfu9a3hmv5a@4ax.com>,
> >> > Tinman <ask@for.it> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:10:41 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >In article <mdd6u2hd5nqtv2v7d04g0dt5nmuivbvrph@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Tinman <ask@for.it> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Was amused by your use of this though:
> >> >> >> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Too funny. Cry about MS and then turn right around and use their
> >> >> >> products. Hypocrite.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He uses Office. I use it too,
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow, so do I. What big happy family.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > but only because I need to work with PC
> >> >> >folk who don't (and can't) use any other office suite.
> >> >>
> >> >> Straw-man argument. Office formats have nothing to do with Usenet, and
> >> >> there are plenty of alternatives, even for the Mac. And since you didn't
> >> >> use Entourage to post your reply you already knew that.
> >> >>
> >> >> I won't get into the "and can't" comment.
> >> >
> >> >So don't.
> >> >
> >> >I need compatiblity with my Windows clients so I use Office. I also use
> >> >Entourage because many of my clients use the calendar function for
> >> >meetings, etc.
> >> >
> >> >I'd love to wean my corporate clients off Office, I'm sure your
> >> >suggestions for alternatives would be very persuasive.
> >>
> >> *cough* open office *cough*
> >
> >Great idea, go pitch it to Warner Music for me.
>
> You asked for suggestions to get your clients off the Micorosoft tit, I
> gave you one. Don't expect me to do your job for you too.
In article <25e7u2h711kk91jqt7d4vja4ep9u6p4l9s@news-server>,
-= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:58:01 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >LOL. Please tell me what I'm missing. I run a $400K+ a year design
> >business with Macs.
>
> And I worked in a million dollar television studio doing video editing
> on Macs that blew up at least once a night. What's your point? No
> computer is perfect. No one computer is perfect for every user's
> situation. I don't like Macs, so what? Someone else doesn't like PCs,
> big deal. This idiotic argument over PCs vs Macs has been going on since
> the first Mac came out. Let's all just get the fuck over it already.
Good as ending as any... BTW- Which Macs were blowing up?
In article <t5v8u2prqlst0o5719r9br4h6i54n8va19@news-server>,
-= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:39:32 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >In article <25e7u2h711kk91jqt7d4vja4ep9u6p4l9s@news-server>,
> > -= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:58:01 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> >> scribbled:
> >>
> >> >LOL. Please tell me what I'm missing. I run a $400K+ a year design
> >> >business with Macs.
> >>
> >> And I worked in a million dollar television studio doing video editing
> >> on Macs that blew up at least once a night. What's your point? No
> >> computer is perfect. No one computer is perfect for every user's
> >> situation. I don't like Macs, so what? Someone else doesn't like PCs,
> >> big deal. This idiotic argument over PCs vs Macs has been going on since
> >> the first Mac came out. Let's all just get the fuck over it already.
> >
> >Good as ending as any... BTW- Which Macs were blowing up?
>
> Don't recall the model, pretty sure they were Power Macs. Connected to
> an iCube/iMix video editing system. Constant crashes. Had to save every
> 10 - 15 minutes or run the risk of losing all previous work.
That editing system is ancient history. Was using old Quadras too,
before PowerMacs. Things have come a long way since then. Final Cut pro
kinda changed things.
In article <nospam.m-m-8C13C3.17231227022007@newsread.uslec.net>,
M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
> In article <labolide-0BE9B2.07393227022007@news.giganews.com>,
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I worked in a million dollar television studio doing video editing
> > > on Macs that blew up at least once a night.
>
> > - Which Macs were blowing up?
>
>
> I think he's lying.
He's also talking about 10 year+ old equipment and pre-PowerMacs.
Have no idea how unstable the techs set up that studio. These days, it's
all bulletproof.
As I understand it, on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:24:49 -0000, gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>>Talk about prank! The fallacy that Macs are immune from viruses and
>>exploits is so much bull-hocky. Macs (and OS-X) are absolutely no more
>>impervious to these attacks than are PCs; it is simply that almost all the
>>exploits are against the PC, which account for 96% of all computers sold.
>
>Macs are certainly NOT immune. However, there are a number of
>features of Windows that certainly don't help the situation. One
>of them is being able to double-click on executable code that came
>from an outside source (email, web site, USENET) and RUN it without
>even having to save it as a disk file. Another is Windows hiding
>file extensions so you can't tell the difference between a piece
>of malware and an image.
You have the option to not have the extensions hidden.
>
>Also, Windows usually gets set up (fixed in Vista, I think) with all
>users having administrative privileges.
Every copy of XP I've used hasn't done this. There is the
option to set it up like this during installation, but only a moron
would grant *everyone* admin privileges.
>That's not a good thing for
>viruses being able to write on and infect system files (at least on
>systems with more than one user, other users get infected when the first
>one does. That's less likely if users can't write on each other's files.)
>
>
>>If Macs were 97% of the computers sold, it would be Macs being attacked and
>>PC users saying "get a PC". I love the look on the face of a Mac owner that
>>has brought his/her machine in for a problem, and we tell them it was
>>infected...they actually believe that their machines are "impervious". This
>>false sense of security is laugable, and dangerous.
In article <7sk9u2979u48l9kn3ek11pu5rjcv2i999a@news-server>,
-= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:42:06 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >In article <t5v8u2prqlst0o5719r9br4h6i54n8va19@news-server>,
> > -= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:39:32 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> >> scribbled:
> >>
> >> >In article <25e7u2h711kk91jqt7d4vja4ep9u6p4l9s@news-server>,
> >> > -= Hawk =- <Hawk@thispartisbogus.cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:58:01 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> >> >> scribbled:
> >> >>
> >> >> >LOL. Please tell me what I'm missing. I run a $400K+ a year design
> >> >> >business with Macs.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I worked in a million dollar television studio doing video editing
> >> >> on Macs that blew up at least once a night. What's your point? No
> >> >> computer is perfect. No one computer is perfect for every user's
> >> >> situation. I don't like Macs, so what? Someone else doesn't like PCs,
> >> >> big deal. This idiotic argument over PCs vs Macs has been going on since
> >> >> the first Mac came out. Let's all just get the fuck over it already.
> >> >
> >> >Good as ending as any... BTW- Which Macs were blowing up?
> >>
> >> Don't recall the model, pretty sure they were Power Macs. Connected to
> >> an iCube/iMix video editing system. Constant crashes. Had to save every
> >> 10 - 15 minutes or run the risk of losing all previous work.
> >
> >That editing system is ancient history. Was using old Quadras too,
> >before PowerMacs. Things have come a long way since then. Final Cut pro
> >kinda changed things.
>
> Beta tape's ancient history too, so's 3/4" and 1" but they're still in
> use in places... gods I hated the 1" machine....
-= Hawk =- wrote:
> Beta tape's ancient history too, so's 3/4" and 1" but they're still in
> use in places... gods I hated the 1" machine....
Which one? There were so many to choose from...!
--
The US Post Office should just raise postage rates by two dollars an ounce
with the promise that they won't raise rates for at least a week. They'll
never go for it; they couldn't possibly wait a whole week.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:56:15 -0500, Drumstick <no_thanks@you.com> wrote:
: In article <labolide-4881A7.21023925022007@news.giganews.com>,
: labolide@spacegmail.com says...
: > Sorry, Drum. I've been reading the occasional virus threat story for
: > years now. Still never been a real one.
: > BTW - how many Windows viruses are there now?
: >
: >
: Couple of things to consider folks:
: 1. The past is no guarantee of the future.
: 2. There was a time (and I'm old enough to remember it) when PCs didn't
: get viri either.
If you insist on getting cute with Latin words, you should at least do it in
the right case. The accusative plural of "virus" (assuming it's a
2nd-declension masculine noun) is "viros".
But since this use of "get" is idiomatic in English, you may be safer using
ablative instead (as in "infected by means of a virus"). That would be
"viris".
: 3. Humility is an honorable trait....keeps you out of trouble.
: <smile>
:
: As for the Mac's track record, no argument as I have never owned one.
: Worked on one at work once (IIe no less!) and it was a nightmare! Two
: versions of Basic, flaky hardware and SLOW as smoke even then.... See, I
: told you I was old enough.
:
: May you always be free of viri....but if it's true, I'm betting it won't
: last.
The genitive plural would be "virorum". But the more Latin-sounding "free from
viruses" would again use ablative (e.g., "liber a viris").
Since you're old enough to remember the good old days, you may have taken
Latin in high school too. ;^)
Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:56:15 -0500, Drumstick <no_thanks@you.com> wrote:
> : In article <labolide-4881A7.21023925022007@news.giganews.com>,
> : labolide@spacegmail.com says...
> : > Sorry, Drum. I've been reading the occasional virus threat story for
> : > years now. Still never been a real one.
> : > BTW - how many Windows viruses are there now?
> : >
> : >
> : Couple of things to consider folks:
> : 1. The past is no guarantee of the future.
> : 2. There was a time (and I'm old enough to remember it) when PCs didn't
> : get viri either.
>
> If you insist on getting cute with Latin words, you should at least do it in
> the right case. The accusative plural of "virus" (assuming it's a
> 2nd-declension masculine noun) is "viros".
>
> But since this use of "get" is idiomatic in English, you may be safer using
> ablative instead (as in "infected by means of a virus"). That would be
> "viris".
>
> : 3. Humility is an honorable trait....keeps you out of trouble.
> : <smile>
> :
> : As for the Mac's track record, no argument as I have never owned one.
> : Worked on one at work once (IIe no less!) and it was a nightmare! Two
> : versions of Basic, flaky hardware and SLOW as smoke even then.... See, I
> : told you I was old enough.
> :
> : May you always be free of viri....but if it's true, I'm betting it won't
> : last.
> The word virus has no classically attested plural form in Latin. In antiquity the word had not yet acquired its current meaning. It denoted something like toxicity; venom; a poisonous, deleterious, or unpleasant agent or principle; or poison in the abstract or general sense[2]. Since virus in antiquity denoted something noncountable, it was a mass noun. Mass nouns, such as air, valor, and helpfulness in English, pluralize only under special circumstances, hence the nonexistence of plural forms.[3]
>
> Further, it is unclear how a plural might have been formed under Latin grammar if the word had acquired a meaning requiring a plural form. In Latin virus is generally regarded to be a neuter of the second declension, but neuter second declension nouns ending in -us (rather than -um) are so rare that there are no recorded plurals. Possibilities include vira (by analogy with 2nd declension neuters in -um such as bellum) and virus with a long u (by analogy with 4th declension masculine such as status, although as a neuter noun the plural of virus in the 4th declension would be virua). However, none of these is attested[4].
>
> The form virii would not have been a correct plural, since the ending -ii only occurs in the plural of words ending in -ius. For instance, take radius, plural radii: the root is radi-, with the singular ending -us and the plural -i. Thus the plural virii is that of the nonexistent word virius. The form viri might also be incorrect in Latin. The ending -i is normally used for masculine nouns, not neuter ones such as virus, although there are exceptions such as humus -"soil" which is feminine and vulgus -"crowd" which is neuter; moreover, viri (albeit with a short i in the first syllable) is the plural of vir, and means "men."
>
> The genitive plural would be "virorum". But the more Latin-sounding "free from
> viruses" would again use ablative (e.g., "liber a viris").
>
> Since you're old enough to remember the good old days, you may have taken
> Latin in high school too. ;^)
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:38:21 -0700, RWEmerson
<foolish_consistency@hobgoblin.com> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:56:15 -0500, Drumstick <no_thanks@you.com> wrote:
: > : In article <labolide-4881A7.21023925022007@news.giganews.com>,
: > : labolide@spacegmail.com says...
: > : > Sorry, Drum. I've been reading the occasional virus threat story for
: > : > years now. Still never been a real one.
: > : > BTW - how many Windows viruses are there now?
: > : >
: > : >
: > : Couple of things to consider folks:
: > : 1. The past is no guarantee of the future.
: > : 2. There was a time (and I'm old enough to remember it) when PCs didn't
: > : get viri either.
: >
: > If you insist on getting cute with Latin words, you should at least do it in
: > the right case. The accusative plural of "virus" (assuming it's a
: > 2nd-declension masculine noun) is "viros".
: >
: > But since this use of "get" is idiomatic in English, you may be safer using
: > ablative instead (as in "infected by means of a virus"). That would be
: > "viris".
: >
: > : 3. Humility is an honorable trait....keeps you out of trouble.
: > : <smile>
: > :
: > : As for the Mac's track record, no argument as I have never owned one.
: > : Worked on one at work once (IIe no less!) and it was a nightmare! Two
: > : versions of Basic, flaky hardware and SLOW as smoke even then.... See, I
: > : told you I was old enough.
: > :
: > : May you always be free of viri....but if it's true, I'm betting it won't
: > : last.
:
: The word virus has no classically attested plural form in Latin. In antiquity
: the word had not yet acquired its current meaning. It denoted something like
: toxicity; venom; a poisonous, deleterious, or unpleasant agent or principle;
: or poison in the abstract or general sense[2]. Since virus in antiquity denoted
: something noncountable, it was a mass noun. Mass nouns, such as air, valor, and
: helpfulness in English, pluralize only under special circumstances, hence the
: nonexistence of plural forms.[3]
:
: Further, it is unclear how a plural might have been formed under Latin grammar
: if the word had acquired a meaning requiring a plural form. In Latin virus is
: generally regarded to be a neuter of the second declension, but neuter second
: declension nouns ending in -us (rather than -um) are so rare that there are no
: recorded plurals.
Well, that would be because neuter nouns ending in -us are almost(?) all
3rd-declension. The one that springs to mind most readily in this context is
"genus" (pl. genera). By whom is virus "generally regarded to be a neuter of
the second declension"? By your own reasoning (with which I guess I don't
quarrel), that seems highly unlikely.
: Possibilities include vira (by analogy with 2nd declension neuters in -um
: such as bellum)
and because the nominative and accusative plural of all neuter nouns ends in
"a".
: and virus with a long u (by analogy with 4th declension masculine such as
: status, although as a neuter noun the plural of virus in the 4th declension
: would be virua). However, none of these is attested[4].
:
: The form virii would not have been a correct plural, since the ending -ii
: only occurs in the plural of words ending in -ius.
Often shortened to (long) -i. But in any case, I never suggested a -ii plural
for virus.
: For instance, take radius, plural radii: the root is radi-, with the singular
: ending -us and the plural -i. Thus the plural virii is that of the nonexistent
: word virius. The form viri might also be incorrect in Latin. The ending -i is
: normally used for masculine nouns, not neuter ones such as virus, although
: there are exceptions such as humus -"soil" which is feminine and vulgus
: -"crowd" which is neuter; moreover, viri (albeit with a short i in the first
: syllable) is the plural of vir, and means "men."
:
: > The genitive plural would be "virorum". But the more Latin-sounding "free from
: > viruses" would again use ablative (e.g., "liber a viris").
: >
: > Since you're old enough to remember the good old days, you may have taken
: > Latin in high school too. ;^)
Re: Trace ANY cellular phone. 
Linear Mode
