Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Ken Masters · Jul 21, 2003, 02:39 AM

Have you always wondered why God put fish on this earth, some may say they are here to be apart of the food chain, to contribute to a greater whole and those who watched the Lion King would say they are apart of the circle of life, I always thought they were put on this earth to make great Sushi.
But then.. Then I discovered the truth,

The truth about fish..
I know the real reason, a sinister reason, something that I can't keep it to myself any longer; I am a humanitarian after all. Fish, yes those demented looking things, that swim round in circular glass bowls and eat algae ARE THE WORK OF THE DEVIL,

EVIL... EVIL... I TELL U...

They are the true evil of this planet, and they are in dormant, waiting, wanting, and seeking for the right time for our demise. We must stop them while we still can, we must do all that is necessary, we must, I stress MUST stop them, and the only way to do so is to EAT THEM, YES EAT THEM, eat them all, and don't leave any swimming. And those so-called whales and dolphins, eat them eat them ALL... they are fish Disguise as mammals, but don't be fooled, eat them eat them ALL...

RIP there hearts out, and eat their children.

Cipher13 · Jul 21, 2003, 02:47 AM

The plural of 'fish' is 'fish'. Not fishes.

nonhuman · Jul 21, 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
The plural of 'fish' is 'fish'. Not fishes.

You obviously don't listen to (or get in Australia?) the Goldfish commercials. "I love the fishes 'cause they're so delicious!".

Ken Masters · Jul 21, 2003, 02:51 AM

sorri..i didn't check my grandma, in the three minutes i wrote this...

she died!!!

scaught · Jul 21, 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Ken Masters:
sorri..i didn't check my grandma, in the three minutes i wrote this...

she died!!!

you just might be the dumbest person ever to post in the macnn lounge discussion forums.

congratulations.

rjenkinson · Jul 21, 2003, 04:41 AM

ken masters?

-r.

Cipher13 · Jul 21, 2003, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by scaught:
you just might be the dumbest person ever to post in the macnn lounge discussion forums.

congratulations.

...and that is a BIG call.

icruise · Jul 21, 2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
The plural of 'fish' is 'fish'. Not fishes.

Not that I particularly want to support this guy, but it can be fish or fishes, at least according to the American Heritage Dictionary.

fish
noun: plur. fish fishes.
1. Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills, and a streamlined body and including:
1. a. Any of the class Osteichthyes, having a bony skeleton.
1. b. Any of the class Chondrichthyes, having a cartilaginous skeleton and including the sharks, rays, and skates.
1. c. Any of the class Agnatha, lacking jaws and including the lampreys and hagfishes.
2. Any of various unrelated aquatic animals, such as a jellyfish, cuttlefish, or crayfish.
3. Informal. A person: a cold fish; a poor fish.
4. Fish. Pisces (sense 2).

Spheric Harlot · Jul 21, 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
...and that is a BIG call.

I'd be careful about opening my gob wide enough for decent foot access if I were you:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Fish \Fish\, n.; pl. Fishes, or collectively, Fish. [OE. fisch, fisc, fis, AS. fisc; akin to D. visch, OS. & OHG. fisk, G. fisch, Icel. fiskr, Sw. & Dan. fisk, Goth. fisks, L. piscis, Ir. iasg. Cf. Piscatorial. In some cases, such as fish joint, fish plate, this word has prob. been confused with fish, fr. F. fichea peg.]
1. A name loosely applied in popular usage to many animals of diverse characteristics, living in the water.

2. (Zo["o]l.) An oviparous, vertebrate animal usually having fins and a covering scales or plates. It breathes by means of gills, and lives almost entirely in the water. See Pisces.

Note: The true fishes include the Teleostei (bony fishes), Ganoidei, Dipnoi, and Elasmobranchii or Selachians (sharks and skates). Formerly the leptocardia and Marsipobranciata were also included, but these are now generally regarded as two distinct classes, below the fishes.

The term "fishes" is quite appropriate as a plural. I usually see it when people are not necessarily referring just to several fish, but to several genera or species.

Carry on.

-s*

Cipher13 · Jul 21, 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'd be careful about opening my gob wide enough for decent foot access if I were you:

Excuse me? Do you have a problem?

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The term "fishes" is quite appropriate as a plural. I usually see it when people are not necessarily referring just to several fish, but to several genera or species.

Carry on.

-s*

Just like how principal and principle are now considered interchangeable?

rjenkinson · Jul 21, 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Just like how principal and principle are now considered interchangeable?

no, i think he's saying it's like people/persons.

-r.

christ · Jul 21, 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
no, i think he's saying it's like people/persons.

-r.

Or datums/ data

simonjames · Jul 21, 2003, 06:28 AM

Hey look mar - theres them geeks you told me 'bout. And look, they're discussin' tha' english language

yee har - you think they might start a 'flaming?

Spheric Harlot · Jul 21, 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Excuse me? Do you have a problem?

Just like how principal and principle are now considered interchangeable?

Hello?

You piped up with a "correction" - and a minor and lame nitpick at best - that wasn't.

If you're gonna yell "dumbass" on somebody, it would in general do well to at least check your data.

And no, "fishes" and "fish" is NOT like "principal" and "principle", nor like "capitol" and "capital".

More like "peoples" ("There's no such word!" he cried, for he had been to night school) and "people".

You opened your gob, and messed up. Foot - mouth. Accept it, and move on.

Your lame attempt to insinuate that I simply can't distinguish common, but incorrect usage from correct English isn't working, and it's the second time you've tried it in this thread.

Deflate your ego please: it's blocking your view.

-s*

Cipher13 · Jul 21, 2003, 07:06 AM

The only comparison made between fish/fishes and pricipal/principle is that both are incorrect.

I never said they were the same KIND of mistake. They're obviously not, as you so extraneously stated.

I didn't mess up. "Fishes" may be accepted by many, but that acceptance is only in the same vein as the aforementioned interchangeability of principal/ple.

I don't even really care if dictionaries accept it or not. In my opinion, the use of the word "fishes" denotes nothing but ignorance.

*I* do not like to see it used.

Gene Jockey · Jul 21, 2003, 07:35 AM

I knew this kid named Mike when I was young, and when we would play board games he had the nasty habit of trying to play by his own rules. When we'd call him on it and show him that what he was trying to do was either not in the rulebook or expressly forbidden by the rules, he'd just insist "that was the way he always played" and when we'd tell him to suck it up and play for real, he'd get pissy and leave.

Don't be like Mike, Cipher.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Fish \Fish\, n.; pl. Fishes, or collectively, Fish. [OE. fisch, fisc, fis, AS. fisc; akin to D. visch, OS. & OHG. fisk, G. fisch, Icel. fiskr, Sw. & Dan. fisk, Goth. fisks, L. piscis, Ir. iasg. Cf. Piscatorial. In some cases, such as fish joint, fish plate, this word has prob. been confused with fish, fr. F. fichea peg.]

This entry, showing fishes, is from 19 f*cking 13. So don't give us that "modern slide of language into wrongness" bull. You've been wrong for at least 90 years.

Deal.

--J

Cipher13 · Jul 21, 2003, 07:44 AM

That's fine. It's technically acceptable. I'm willing to accept that.

However, it is 100% redundant - I don't believe there is any circumstance under which fishes is appropriate but fish is not (correct me of I'm wrong).

Therefore, I will continue to use fish 100% of the time, and frown on any use of the word fishes as I currently do.

In my opinion, its use is still a display of ignorance, given that there is a better word out there.

Eriamjh · Jul 21, 2003, 07:46 AM

Funny how not one reply in this thread has anything to do with the original post.

The only thing funny I've ever heard anyone say about fish is this:

"I don't drink water. Fish f*ck in it."

That's why this is the lounge!

Gene Jockey · Jul 21, 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
In my opinion, its use is still a display of ignorance, given that there is a better word out there.

All right. Acceptance is good

You're free to have an opinion on the matter as much as I am, but I for one like to use words like fishes. I'm aware of the fact that I can just use fish, but in conversation, I like to be able to use as wide a vocabulary as possible to keep things interesting. So the more words I have at my disposal for any given situation, the better; I'm not going to rule out a word simply for the sake of economy when it could add a little something extra to a conversation.

Just in the way of an alternative POV.

--J

Oh, and the reason I haven't responded to anything in the original post is because it made me die a little inside. Thanks for bringing it up, you insensitive clod!

Spheric Harlot · Jul 21, 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
The only comparison made between fish/fishes and pricipal/principle is that both are incorrect.

[...]

I don't even really care if dictionaries accept it or not. In my opinion, the use of the word "fishes" denotes nothing but ignorance.

*I* do not like to see it used.

That has quite definitely by now been established as *your* problem, and yours alone.

"Fishes" IS used regularly - and correctly - by highly educated and intelligent people, all the time, such as, oh, The California Academy of Sciences, or the Smithsonian, and just about every English-language Christian denomination of the last 500 years or since whenever the King James translation was done.

In modern usage it appears, as I stated above, to denote the subject of several species or genera of fish, rather than just the generic colloquial term for a type of meat or general aquatic animal, though this is obviously not a hard-and-fast rule.

Now wash that foot and put it back in your shoe.

End of story.

-s*

Spheric Harlot · Jul 21, 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
In my opinion, its use is still a display of ignorance, given that there is a better word out there.

Seeing that "fishes" differentiates from the generic term "fish" when talking specifically of a number of species of fish, I can't help but feel that "fishes" is, in many cases, the better word.

If ignorance comes into play here, I'm pretty sure it doesn't abide by your rules in this case.

-s*

christ · Jul 21, 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
...I don't believe there is any circumstance under which fishes is appropriate but fish is not (correct me of I'm wrong)...

crossword clue: plural of fish (6 letters).

Cipher13 · Jul 21, 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by christ:
crossword clue: plural of fish (6 letters).

Touch�.

JLFanboy · Jul 21, 2003, 10:22 AM

Well, if you think back to the whole Noah's Ark flood myth, wasn't it supposed to wipe out all the bad things? All the bad humans and animals? Well, what about fish?

Really, there must be tons of evil fish swimming around now. Fish should rule the world. Tons of evil fish.

Like evil pilot fish (with the lights on their heads) who swim around in twos towards unsuspecting ordinary fish, who scream, "Oh, it's a car coming towards me, it's a car!--Hey!!! Bloody Pilot fish! I know your dads!"

Just a thought.

P.S. - Thanks Eddie.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 21, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Touch�.

Cipher13 · Jul 21, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by JLFanboy:
Well, if you think back to the whole Noah's Ark flood myth, wasn't it supposed to wipe out all the bad things? All the bad humans and animals? Well, what about fish?

Really, there must be tons of evil fish swimming around now. Fish should rule the world. Tons of evil fish.

Like evil pilot fish (with the lights on their heads) who swim around in twos towards unsuspecting ordinary fish, who scream, "Oh, it's a car coming towards me, it's a car!--Hey!!! Bloody Pilot fish! I know your dads!"

Just a thought.

P.S. - Thanks Eddie.

Well. We're all sarcopterygii when you think about it.

JLFanboy · Jul 21, 2003, 10:31 AM

Well. We're all sarcopterygii when you think about it.

Sarcopta-whatnow? Who-terygii?

benb · Jul 21, 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by JLFanboy:
Well, if you think back to the whole Noah's Ark flood myth, wasn't it supposed to wipe out all the bad things? All the bad humans and animals? Well, what about fish?

Really, there must be tons of evil fish swimming around now. Fish should rule the world. Tons of evil fish.

P.S. - Thanks Eddie.

Well, I'll clear you up and set you straight.

No, the animals were never 'evil'. Just man. Animals do not have knowledge of good and evil, they are incapable of sin. The reason to take along animals on the ark was for the continuation of the species, not because the animals were found to be righteous like Noah. As fish lived in the water anyway, there would be no reason to worry about them.

JLFanboy · Jul 21, 2003, 10:34 AM

Well, I'll clear you up and set you straight.

No, the animals were never 'evil'. Just man. Animals do not have knowledge of good and evil, they are incapable of sin. The reason to take along animals on the ark was for the continuation of the species, not because the animals were found to be righteous like Noah. As fish lived in the water anyway, there would be no reason to worry about them.

Dude...it was a joke. God, I'd hoped somebody on this board would have seen some Eddie Izzard.

But thanks for setting me straight.

DeathToWindows · Jul 21, 2003, 10:44 AM

fishes... hello gollum

"sweet fishessss..."

benb · Jul 21, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by JLFanboy:
Dude...it was a joke. God, I'd hoped somebody on this board would have seen some Eddie Izzard.

But thanks for setting me straight.

Dude...no kidding. Nice of you to remove the

from the quote too. That was the indication that I wasn't being serious either.

JLFanboy · Jul 21, 2003, 11:10 AM

Well, I kinda thought you were being sarcastic, until you got real specific about the flood, and I thought, "Aw geez, someone without a sense of humor!"

Good to know I was wrong.

benb · Jul 21, 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by JLFanboy:
Well, I kinda thought you were being sarcastic, until you got real specific about the flood, and I thought, "Aw geez, someone without a sense of humor!"

Good to know I was wrong.

Ha, yea, that sounds about right. I do have humor, I couldn't imagine being dead serious all the time. An Amelia Bedelia type.

And this is a Ken Masters thread. Which means nothing is as it seems.

He did after all, break his friend's EYE!!!!

Michael_Jackson · Jul 21, 2003, 12:12 PM

i luv u Ken Masters, keep writing!

Logic · Jul 21, 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Ken Masters:
And those so-called whales and dolphins, eat them eat them ALL... they are fish Disguise as mammals, but don't be fooled, eat them eat them ALL...

You are a really strange person but anyway.......

Bon Appetite!