TUNA!

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote...
"Bob Weinberger" wrote...
"Kevin Vang" wrote...

A rather specialized alternate definition of the word. In the
competetive bass tournament world, a fisherman will keep every
fish he catches until he has his legal bag limit. Then, if
should catch a larger fish, he will place it in his livewell
and remove one of the smaller fish and release it.
Snip

The act you describe above (illegal in most states) is not a "specialized
alternate definition" of culling; it is a classic example of the standard
definition of culling.
The fishermen described above are culling their CATCH to remove the
individuals that are undesireable to them. That is far different than
maintaining that slot limits amount to culling the undesireable specimens
from THE GENERAL FISH POPULATION in a body of water.
The fish removed with slot limits are no better or worse than those that
remain, both within and outside the slot. There is simply deemed to be
enough of a population in that slot for which retention is allowed that
the
fisheries bio's believe a certain amount of them may be removed without
overly adversely affecting the total fishery.
[snip]

Culling is simply controlled predation.

I don't think I said "Welcome back" this time around.
--
TL,
Tim
who is in awe of your ability to pick up right where you left off without
missing a beat, and bring the usual suspects along with you.
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Willi" wrote in message
...

IMO, your "universally accepted definition" applies to the scientific
community, not the common usage of the word. "Grossly imprecise" is true
when compared to the scientific definition but so what? That tends to be
true of any words that were adapted from scientific language into common
usage. People communicate in a different manner when having a
conversation than when writing a scientific paper or writing a novel
or posting on the internet or........

Where and how a word is used alters its meaning and since the remark
originally was part of a post on a newsgroup and not part of scientific
treatise, I disagree with your "universally accepted definition".

Willi


If you reread my post you should be able to ascertain that I applied the
phrase "virtually universally accepted definition" to the NOUN cull ( I
notice that you conveniently snipped my use of the qualifier "virtually").
Go ahead and ask as many English speaking people as you can find (whether
scientifically trained or not) what calling someone or something a cull
implies. I'll bet all of Wolfie's SNNs that you will be hard put to find
anyone who has had any exposure to the word at all that does not indicate
that the word has connotations of something undesireable.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

Tim J. wrote:

Since a cartoon can ascribe powers from the imagination of the cartoonist, my
money's on Mighty Mouse.

(Freakin' realist)

Does Mighty Mouse get to use kryptonite? Does Superman get to use
limburger cheese? It could be a draw.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Bob Weinberger wrote:

Baloney. The American Heritage Dictionary gives the definition of "to
cull" as:

VERB:
1. To pick out from others; select.
2. To gather; collect.
3. To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).

Only in the third alternative is there any suggestion of removing
undesireables -- hardly the "defining" element.

Oh, so if T-Bone, Charlie, or Willi were to declare that you are a cull,
after picking you out from others, using a process which by remarkable
coincidence is called culling, you would be just as likely to consider
their evaluation to be complimentary or neutral as you would be to consider
it derogatory. ;)


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

Bob Weinberger wrote:



If you reread my post you should be able to ascertain that I applied the
phrase "virtually universally accepted definition" to the NOUN cull ( I
notice that you conveniently snipped my use of the qualifier "virtually").
Go ahead and ask as many English speaking people as you can find (whether
scientifically trained or not) what calling someone or something a cull
implies. I'll bet all of Wolfie's SNNs that you will be hard put to find
anyone who has had any exposure to the word at all that does not indicate
that the word has connotations of something undesireable.


The word used was culling not cull, and the word culling IS used in a
variety of ways.

But if you want to talk about the noun cull, I'm sure someone would be
glad to do so with ya!

Willi

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Bob Weinberger wrote:


While some dictonaries have included the simple definition of "to
separate,
select or pick out", without including the criteria for such selection ,
in
their list of definitions for culling, their action is merely an
acknowledgement of the lack of rigor by a portion of the populace in
properly using the term culling.

I think that this often occurs when the same words are used in some
field of science and are also used in our common language. The
definition of "culling" you used is a correct, more precise one that is
used in science. Common usage of the word is more varied and less
precise. The meanings of words change over time and are influenced by
common usage. When words are "borrowed" from the scientific community by
people for use in their everyday conversations, these words often adopt
new meanings, sometimes wildly different from their origins. When you're
writing a scientific paper, there would be a generally accepted,
specific definition for the word "culling." However, in common usage,
there is a much wider range of meanings. Neither of these usages are
"wrong" or "stupid" or ????????


When you're trying to justify killing fish by stating that it's for the good
of the fishery and you call the one's you're throwing back (presumably
alive.....but that has explicitly been stated to be a matter of some
indifference) culls, that is stupid. Attempting to rationalize anything
that stupid it is stupid. Failure to recognize that it is stupid is stupid.
Pretending that it has something to do with alternate definitions is stupid.
Pretending that Tim actually said something else is stupid. Efforts to
justify stupidity are stupid. In this day and age, failure to attain
literacy is stupid.

Wolfgang

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Wolfgang wrote:
"Willi" wrote in message
...


Kevin Vang wrote:

The ND fishing regs specifically

use the word "culling" in the regulation which proscribes it,
so apparently it is considered standard usage in some circles.


Well I'm sure Wolfgang would just label them as stupid!


Certainty in the absence of evidence is stupid.

That's not what I was trying to convey. I'll make it easier for you to
understand.

I made that statement because each person that disagreed with your
definition of "culling" was labeled as stupid.

No, Tim was labeled as stupid because HE failed to agree with HIS definition
of culling. Anyone who has still not seen that must also be stupid.....it
has nothing to do with me.

Personally, I think that
people that have the tendency to label other people as stupid, tend to
have some sort of self esteem issues.

No you don't. Why do you make this **** up?

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:



Personally, I think that
people that have the tendency to label other people as stupid, tend to
have some sort of self esteem issues.


No you don't. Why do you make this **** up?

Maybe cause I'm stupid???

Willi

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Bob Weinberger wrote:

Baloney. The American Heritage Dictionary gives the definition of "to
cull" as:

VERB:
1. To pick out from others; select.
2. To gather; collect.
3. To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).

Only in the third alternative is there any suggestion of removing
undesireables -- hardly the "defining" element.

Oh, so if T-Bone, Charlie, or Willi were to declare that you are a cull,
after picking you out from others, using a process which by remarkable
coincidence is called culling, you would be just as likely to consider
their evaluation to be complimentary or neutral as you would be to
consider
it derogatory. ;)

You DO know that you aren't going to win this one, right, Bob? I mean, when
dealing with people who believe that a dictionary is not only an adequate
substitute for, but actually preferable to understanding words, you CAN'T
win.

Wolfgang
still, it IS kinda fun to watch someone else beat them up.

"Tim J." wrote in message
news:_2%bc.182069$_w.1840293@attbi_s53...

"Wolfgang" wrote...
snip
Wolfgang
who, personally, subscribes to the thoroughly reasonable theory that
superman would win because he's a real guy, while mighty mouse is a
cartoon.

Since a cartoon can ascribe powers from the imagination of the cartoonist,
my
money's on Mighty Mouse.

Hmph! Superman also appears in comic books, does he not?

(Freakin' realist)

Ed Homonym! Ed Homonym!

Wolfgang