Color me confused. Are you saying that it is more correct to suggest that A-bombs are made from fertilizer?
I see the hole. I see you digging…
And you were probably the kid who waited until someone was on the bottom of the pile before getting in a kick of your own — not confident enough to be a bully, not brave enough to lead the charge. Derleth is correct about the term being a misnomer. I can understand people on other boards getting upset over that sort of knowledge, but here? No wonder it’s taking longer than we thought. Our enemies have infiltrated us.
There are lots of words that have become accepted as correct even as they have been proven to be incorrect later, but due to their prior usage the meaning remains. Why is this such a big deal?
This is not Derleth’s first crusade of this type, if I recall correctly. He’s particularly keen on the esoteric distinction between hackers and crackers, as if we don’t know the difference. Of course we do, we’re simply opting to use the common verbiage. So it is here. It’s much ado about nothing.
Nah, I never bullied anyone. And in this case, I didn’t read far enough into the original thread to even notice the discussion that is the subject of this thread.
However, I trust that you have never ever taken even a mild shot at somebody on the second page of their “pit” thread. And never will do so.
I’m not sure about that. Do you think the phrase “chemical weapon” is a misnomer as commonly used? What about “9 millimeter pistol”? “Hydraulic brakes”?
[…shrug…] Ask the pitter.
Nevertheless, it’s true. I’m just surprised that this is the first hearing of it by some. I’ve heard it for years. And I’ve given links to scientists who confirm it, including a link to a peer-reviewed journal. Still no budging by the other side. But like one of the articles said, it’s a misnomer that’s here to stay. So okay, fine. But excoriating Derleth merely for pointing out the facts and explaining why, this is blatantly antithetical to the board’s cause. A proper reaction might have been, “Wow, thanks! I never knew that!” Instead, we get a Pit thread in which a lot of people are bragging about how ignorant they are, and covering their eyes when proof is given. One dumbass even called it an “appeal to authority” fallacy to cite scientific opinion on the matter. I mean Jesus.
There you go, appealing to authority again. 
Do you think the phrase “chemical weapon” is a misnomer as commonly used? What about “9 millimeter pistol”? “Hydraulic brakes”?
Dammit, Bob. There were plenty of brand new bombs, but you had to go for that retro 50s charm.
You cited a software engineer. Why is that a relevant scientific opinion?
A “nuclear” weapon, properly speaking, is one where the nuclei of infectious cells are used as a biological weapon.
<Anhk-Morpork ignoramus>: “Look- a monkey!”
<Librarian>: OOK! (violent grammar lesson ensues)
While I admire your perceived sexual prowess, I think you might want to set your sights a little more realistically.
Possibly it was the loved ones of the late Thag Simmons
If you had checked his curriculum vitae, you would have seen that he has also been a Research Assistant at the Laboratory for Nuclear Science at MIT, and that he has taught Thermodynamic, Waves, Optics and Modern Physics as well as Problem Solving in Physics at a university in Istanbul. But even after citing him, I cited a physics professor from the University of British Columbia. He drew you a picture explaining exactly why it’s a misnomer. And after citing that, I cited a peer reviewed journal article, which I quoted so you wouldn’t have to pay to read it.
[…shrug…]
If you want to continue playing this game of ignoring cites while offering none of your own, I won’t complain. You evidently don’t value your argument at all.
I think it is one thing to casually mention that a common usage is technically incorrect. It is another to accuse a poster of being ignorant for using a word to mean what 99 percent of the population believe it means.
bolding mine.
From Webster-
Main Entry: atomic bomb
Function: noun
1 : a bomb whose violent explosive power is due to the sudden release of energy resulting from the splitting of nuclei of a heavy chemical element (as plutonium or uranium) by neutrons in a very rapid chain reaction —called also atom bomb
2 : a nuclear weapon (as a hydrogen bomb)
I would be surprised if anyone has every actually used the words ‘atomic bomb’ in reference to a bomb made of TNT.
That’s certainly a valid point.
If you would bother to read my posts, you would know that I already cited Oppenheimer, whose opinion trumps anything you have posted so far. If I attach little value to my argument, I value yours even less.
Well, I started this thread while under the impression that the target was proudly defending both their ignorance and lack of reading comprehension.
Their responses here make it clear that they were in fact proudly defending their lack of historical awareness and faulty logic facilities.
Either are pittable, IMHO.
What am I supposed to say? “Wow, thanks, I never knew that it was wrong to apply the word ‘atomic’ to reactions involving only the nucleus, but correct to apply it to reactions that involve only the outer electron shell!”
What the fuck kind of sense is that supposed to make?
The guy who conceived of the weapon’s possibility, and the guy who oversaw the building of the damn thing both called it “atomic”. One might see this as their attempt to acknowledge that they were making use of more of the atom than just the outer electron shell. There’s nothing at all inappropriate about the term.
No you didn’t, unless you are also Crotalus. There’s no other mention of Oppenheimer, and that was only an “I think so” post. No cite saying that atomic bomb is not a misnomer. The only thing you’ve cited is a Wikipedia article about “appeal to authority”, to which **straight man ** responded that Dr. Safkan is correct, and that my cite was “perfectly reasonable”.
I posted about Oppenheimer in the original thread, which you would know if you could manage to keep up. Your problem is you pop into threads way late then make a fool of yourself. Jeez, Lib, who holds your hand when you are away from the boards?
I know this is a nitpick, but I’m pretty sure that the entire atom is a goner when fission occurs. The electron shell isn’t left behind in intact form.
So the whole argument here is that part of the atom is more involved in the critical process of…well…criticality…than the whole atom? DO you want to start calling “explosives” “chemicals whose reaction produces a detonation rate greater than x meters per second?”
I don’t think “atomic” is sufficiently incorrect to require a revisionist argument over terminology established by the inventors of the device. And I’m pretty much a grammar nazi.
Sailboat