HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: moss@brl.mil (Gary S. Moss (VLD/VMB) <moss>)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: Re: mystery creatures
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:36:15 GMT
Reply-To: moss@brl.mil
Organization: Ballistic Research Laboratory

In article <1992Aug26.173051.19516@newshost.lanl.gov>, hall@beta.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) writes:
|> <KARYA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
|> >While watching the thing described yesterday (and above) I
|> >noticed for the first time several worms living under the surface
|> >of the coral gravel at the bottom of my tank.  I counted eight of
|> >these in the cross section of substrate that I can see through
|> >the front glass of my tank.  These are thin (like the bloodworms
|> >I feed my mandarin), orange at the front and purple at the back,
|> >about 1" long, and have a series of white legs(?) running down
|> >each side of the body.  They squirm around between the pieces of
|> >gravel, often coming very close to the surface, but don't come
|> >out onto the surface (at least in the light).  They must have
|> >come in to the tank on the small piece of living rock that my
|> >zooanthid colony is attached to.  If this is the case they have
|> >been living in the tank for 8 months or so.  Given the number
|> >that I can see through the front glass there may be quite a
|> >population of them.  Has anyone seen this creature before?  I
|> >haven't noticed any ill-effects yet.  Are these things dangerous?
|> 
|> I bet they're bristle worms, in which case you should eliminate
|> them ASAP.

I would recommend fishing one out and examining it closely, or take it
to a decent fish store for analysis.  Chances are if they don't know
what it is, they have a reference book for sale that they can peek in.
If the white things are legs, it's probably not a bristle worm.  You
should be able to tell with a magnifying glass if it has bristles or
not.  Take the time to be sure before take drastic measures to kill
what might be a beneficial detritus scavenger.  I have worms that look
similar to your description and seem to do no harm.  I believe that
they are called "opal worms" in my Invertebrate Encyclopedia, but it
doesn't say if they are bad or good.  The pictures of bristle worms
I have seen are very brilliantly colored and have rows of tufted
bristles.  I'm sure there are many species, so I shouldn't generalize.

Please let us know what you find out.
-Gary
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
From: Kathleen Bedard <mistress@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: new fish
X-To: SARAH VANASSE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:55:00 GMT

SV>Newsgroups: rec.aquaria,alt.aquaria
SV>From: sarah1@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Sarah Vanasse)
SV>Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
SV>Distribution: na

SV>Can someone please
SV>recommend some nice peaceful fish to add to this tank.
SV>        I really can't go with the fish store recommendations here as they
SV>will sell any thing to get a quick buck and they really don't have very
SV>knowledgable staff.
SV>Thanks in advance
SV>Sarah.


I've been running my community tank for about 6 months now with no
problems.  I have a nice combination of fish:

Swords - bright vibrant orange
Victory Moon Platy - yellow with black V on their tails
Pardise Fish - good as long as you just get a male and female
Neon Tetras - great fish - colourful, schooling
Head and Tail Light tetras - got them, sort of dull now though
Red Eye Tetras - nicer than the H & T tetras
Black Tetras - nice and they school, saw some fancy ones - nice
Angel Fish - pick the more aggressive angels so they won't be timid
Otocinclus - good cleaners of algae and don't attack other fish

Hope that helps.

Kathleen

---
 * SLMR 2.1a * 
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
From: madavis@isvax.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Blue-green algae
Organization: LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE CO.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 23:45:06 GMT

 How do I get rid of blue-green algae in my freshwater aquarium ?
     I've tried chemicals, turning the lights of for five days, and completely
cleaning the tank out, but it seems to come back stronger everytime.
     If anyone has some suggestions I would greatly appreciate them.
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
From: ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita)
Subject: Mystery Creature (Worm)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:16:07 GMT

I found a *very* interesting thing in my tank today.  It might be a
worm.  In a guppy tank, it was about 1/2 inch long and thinner than a
strand of hair (one was in the tank for comparison).  It wiggled, and
wiggled tirelessly, seemed to have a front and back in purpose, but was
symmetric in appearance, and white.  Is this some type of parasite?  I
was unable to catch it, and was afraid of what it might do to the
guppies.  They definitely saw it, and did *not* try to eat it.

Any help would be appreciated, but if you are as stumped as I am, I
won't condem anyone for not responding.

Frank Fujita
From: miller@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Tim Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: Pure Water
Keywords: DI RO
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:52:32 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network



After all the years of searching for a DI water guru, I may have become
one if you consider the volume of mail I have been getting from my first
posting!

The reason you can drink the RO water that you buy in the grocery store
(or where ever you buy it) is that those machines use cellulose acetate
membranes to perform the reverse osmosis.  They are extremely susceptible
to bacteria, and highly tolerant of chlorine.  So even though they remove 
90-95% of the ionics and all of the colloids, the CA membrane passes
enough of the chlorine to keep the bacteria from growing.  So your "pure"
drinking water still has a few odds and ends left in it.

Cellulose Acetate membranes are "old" technology.  Newer membranes are
thin-film composites, with much higher throughputs and higher rejection
rates (purer product), and higher tolerance of bacteria.  But they have
almost no tolerance for chlorine.  These are the membranes that are in most
medium and large systems.  These systems will have an activated charcoal
filter before the RO to remove the chlorine.  This RO water is highly
unsafe to drink, since there is nothing left to inhibit the growth of
bacteria.  And some really nasty bugs can live in the dark on just water
and carbon based molecules, whether it be plastic or your digestive tract.

Most bottled water is sterilized with ozone, put into the bottle and sealed.
Ozone in water has a 20 minute half-life at room temperature, and the 
ozone that comes out of solution sterilizes the inside-top of the 
container.  By the time you get the bottle home, you have oxygen-rich
sterile water.  So until you break the seal and let bugs in, it stays sterile.

	If anyone wants more ramblings on pure water and how to get the
most gallons for a buck, mail me and I will try to summarize for the group.

		Tim			miller@ecn.purdue.edu
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: Re: mystery creatures
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:25:53 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <92239.120932KARYA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> KARYA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:

->I have yet to receive any replies to my post of yesterday
->regarding anemone reproduction.  Over 24 hours after I first
->discovered it, the piece of tentacle that separated from my
->condylactis anemone is still alive(?), (i.e. still moving
->apparently under its own motivation - not waving in the current.)
->It stretches and contracts from about 1/2" to about 1", although
->today it is less vigourous in its movements than it was
->yesterday.  I'd still appreciate comments etc.

 If this is a method of reproduction, it does sound rather odd. I have
read a scientific journal article which described a new method of repro-
duction which seemed to be used by various corals. They called it "polyp-
bailout". What happens is a polyp will release from the main coral colony
and try to attach itself elsewhere or release a developed planulae later.
They did not know what stimulated this. Look for small planulaes or eggs
inside the anenome tentacle. I doubt if the anenome is using a form of
fragmentive reproduction, but I guess it is possible.
 Dont know what you could do besides take notes so you could be better 
prepared to handle it next time.
 It is possible that the tentacle was biten off or cut of by other reef 
inhabitants.

 Steve Tyree - Reef Breeder
From: fssmith@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Greg Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: baby bubble coral
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:41:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


    I posted the following paragraph a few weeks ago

<    This morning I noticed a small, .75 inch diameter whitish green mass on
<the bottom of my 135 gallon reef tank.  Upon closer examination I was able to
<identify it as a small bubble coral.  It has a small mouth  at its center and
<it does not appear to have a calcareous base.  A long time ago a piece of a
<larger bubble coral started to elongate past the end of the coral base.  After
<a month or so the extended piece fell off and down into the rock work of the
<tank.  That piece became attached to a piece of dead organ pipe coral and
<continued to live for over a year.  Since then I had purchased a hard plate
<like coral and placed it in such a manner that it blocked most to all of the
<light reaching the small bubble coral.  About a month or so ago I noticed that
<the small bubble coral was no longer in its original position.  Perhaps the
<coral I noticed this morning was the piece that attached to the dead organ pipe
<coral and decided that it should seek a better home or perhaps or perhaps, less
<likely, one of the larger bubble corals in the tank released another baby.
<(Surely I would have noticed it). 

<    If I can find the baby bubble when I get home after work today, I will try
<to isolate it in a plastic mesh structure with a small rock inside for it to
<attach to.  I have used this method somewhat successfully for small pieces of
<xenia. 

    I thought I would update everyone on what happened.  I made a small 3 inch
by two inch by one inch deep basket out of the plastic canvas mesh they sell in
craft stores.  I glued the sides together with a hot glue gun.  I placed the
coral in a small depression in a piece of live rock and hung the basket
containing the live rock and baby coral from a piece of plexiglass such that
the coral was about 1 inch under the water surface and out of direct light from
the metal halides.  The coral was doing fine until I started trying to feed
it thawed frozen brine shrimp.  It appears that some of the shrimp didn't get 
eaten and started to rot.  The decay spread to the baby bubble coral and caused
it to rot also.

    Lessons learned...  Next time I will increase the current in the basket
by placing it in a different location.  I will also remove any food that has
not been eaten within an hour or so.  I occasionally find these small corals 
in the tank and now I am ready for them.

Greg Smith
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria,alt.aquaria,rec.aquaria
From: mar@athena.mit.edu (Mark A. Rosenstein)
Subject: Re: [M] Tang needs help!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:46:45 GMT

Yes, tangs are very susceptible to ick.  If you have very good water quality
in your reef, I wouldn't move the tang from there to a quarantine tank of
questionable quality.  Instead, keep the tang in the reef where it will
otherwise be healthier.  Raising the temperature to 80 or 81 will speed up
the lifecycle of the parasites and give the tang a better chance of fighting
them off.  Consider getting a cleaner wrasse or cleaner shrimp to help groom
the fish.  I have successfully helped a hippo tang fight off ick without
any medications.

Finally, how sure are you of your pet store?  If the fish is healthy when you
buy it, and you put it in a reef tank with very good water quality, then the
fishes natural defenses should keep it safe from ick even if the parasites are
in the tank.  Make sure that the fish your retailer sells were not collected
with cyanide (of course, you have only the word of your retailer and his
distributor on this).
					-Mark
From: lucas@WATSON.IBM.COM ("Bruce Lucas")
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: debate
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:23:45 GMT

> There is a property of linguistic debate (probably true of all science)
> which goes as follows: most theoretical positions have an extremist face
> and a human face.  Take the reasonable face of any position, ignore all
> actual analyses of real phenomena, and it looks just like every other
> position.

Phew!  Thank you, I was beginning to wonder what was going on here.  I've
been skimming the "prototype" discussion for signs of something substantive,
and as an outsider, it appeared to me to be largely composed of quibbling
over vague definitions of terms used in a context that implied more
precision than was shown to be present.  (Sorry for the overly harsh
characterization.)  In my field (computer science), this happens frequently,
and is generally the result imprecise terminology and different
perspectives on the problem.  In my ideal world, when two views are seen
to be largely equivalent ("in violent agreement"), the particicpants go away
happy to have learned another way to look at the world.  (Of course, in
this ideal world I've already banished hunger and war :-)

Cheers,
Bruce Lucas
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was: Cognitive linguistics...)
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:16:27 GMT

In article <81918@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

>Remember that the novice human, in the
>generative scenario, is trying to achieve an understanding of what is well-
>formed.  Grammar construction is the method that allows him/her to do this.

What exactly do you mean by "achieve a knowledge of what is well-formed"?
To achieve a knowledge of something presumes an external object of some
sort, like a climber who can see the summit before he climbs, and there-
fore knows both where he is headed, and when he has arrived.

When you speak of grammar construction as a means to the achivement of the
aforesaid knowledge, are you claiming that grammar construction is purely
an inductive process, or are you claiming that it involves modification or
application of innate principles?

>The novice human in the NP scenario is only trying to pronounce words.

What does this mean?  Was my son's initial effort at directed speech
motivated solely by a desire to pronounce words?

Rick, as I read your posting, I honestly don't feel I have any idea of what
you are saying.  Maybe I'm just not on your wavelength, or maybe I'm just in
over my head.  Or maybe you're not articulating yourself very clearly.  In
all likelihood I'm at fault somewhere here, so please accept my apologies if
my puzzlement seems annoying.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Followup-To: poster
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 06:05:02 GMT

> In 1850 the British Parliament passed the Acts of
> Parliament Abbreviation Bill, designed not so much to restore women's
> rights but, as its name indicates, to shorten the language of the statutes.
> ... 
> "Be ut enacted, That in all Acts to be hereafter made Words importing the
> Masculine Gender shall be deemed and taken to include Females, and the
> Singular to include the Plural, and the Plural the Singular, unless the
> contrary as to Gender or Number is expressly provided" [British Session
> Papers 91850) 338.I.5]
> 
> Gender and number are here treated together, as they commonly are in 
> grammars, but it is noteworthy that they are not treated in identical
> fashion ...

In Canada we have the Interpretation Act, with similar provisions.
The copy I have was, if I understand it correctly, last amended in 1986.

# 33. (1) Gender--Words importing male persons include female persons
# and corporations.
# (2) Number--Words in the singular include the plural, and words in the
# plural include the singular.

Again note that the treatment of gender is asymmetrical.  I find this
particularly interesting when it is coupled with the following two
excerpts from the same act:

# 3. ... (2) Application to this Act--The provisions of this Act apply
# to the interpretation of this Act.
and
# 17. Her Majesty Not Bound or Affected Unless Stated--No enactment is
# binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives
# in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment.

Notice that section 17 is *not* written in the masculine.  If the Queen
suddenly died today, this section would have to be hastily amended, or
else the new King would no longer have immunity to Canadian laws!

Followups directed to email, since this is becoming rather off-topic
for all of the groups.
-- 
Mark Brader		"'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust,
Toronto			 means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)."
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com		-- Income Tax Act of Canada, 108(1)(h)

This article is in the public domain.
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
From: kathleen@casbs.Stanford.EDU (Kathleen Much)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:35:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.173343.24488@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Roger Lustig (roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) writes:

>Yes, recasting to all plural is often a good idea. However, consider
>an instruction: "When the operator sees the red light blink he must 
>press the blue button." We can probably make some good recasting,
>but not to "all". Neither can we use "they" instead of "he", particularly
>is the instruction is to be read by non-native speakers. Being one
>myself, I can guarantee you that this usage of "they" is utterly
>confusing.

Would you be confused by "When you see the red light blink, press the
blue button"?  Or by "When the red light blinks, the operator must
press the blue button"? (if people besides operators are the target
audience)



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Much, Editor		|E-mail: kathleen@casbs.stanford.EDU
CASBS, 202 Junipero Serra Blvd.	|Phone: (415) 321-2052
Stanford, CA  94305		|Fax: (415) 321-1192
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:03:21 GMT

In article <BtnA73.6nE@acsu.buffalo.edu> v187ef4y@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu 
(Patrick J Crowe) writes:
>Correct me if I'm wrong (gently, please!), but isn't it part of the prototype
>approach that the prototype is a member of the category?  Is it really possible
>to get everyone who uses the category "bird" to agree on exactly which is the
>prototypical bird?  Is there really any individual who is the prototypical
>bachelor?  Am I making any sense?

To quote Eleanor Rosch: "To speak of a _prototype_ at all is simply a
convenient grammatical fiction; what is really referred to are judgments of
degree of prototypicality."

Thus, what we find is that people make judgments about how typical members
of a category are.  One way of interpreting this is to say that they 
have a single member, the prototype, in mind; but this is only one possible
model based on prototype effects, and not a particularly sophisticated one.
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was: Cognitive linguistics...)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:03:52 GMT

In article <81918@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
> Remember that the novice human, in the
>generative scenario, is trying to achieve an understanding of what is well-
>formed.  Grammar construction is the method that allows him/her to do this.
>The novice human in the NP scenario is only trying to pronounce words.  (S)he
>may have various opinions about what needs to get said (i.e. what is well-
>formed), but the Process system does not serve as a heuristic for well-formedness
>until you can say what needs to get said.  Presumably, if you have a speech
>impediment, that doesn't mean you can't notice it.  The process system, minus
>the perceived impediment, comes to tell you what is legal phonological form.

This isn't too plausible, if I follow what you're saying.  If someone
has, say, extreme cerebral palsy, with total inability to produce
intelligible speech, does the theory predict that this person will
develop a radically different phonological system from those less
disabled or impediment-free?  There may be developmental work on this,
though I suspect phonology has always gotten short shrift in the
studies. Perhaps someone knows.

>
>Generative syntax, like generative phonology, seats linguistic intuition
>in the grammar.  (Well, why not?  The term "grammar" itself prejudices the
>ontology of the thing.)  It is a mystery to me how the novice child makes
>its way in the generative scenario.  How can it test a grammar without knowing
>what is grammatical in the first place? 

I's a hard problem on any scenario.  The hardest. But there is
interesting work being done, in particular by Lila Gleitman's lab and
its diaspora on the very earliest stages of syntax acquisition, and by
many people on slightly later stages.  A few days at the BU Language
Acquisition conference should convince everyone of the interest and
difficulty of the questions and of the substantial progress that's been
made, at least for syntax.  Why the acquisition of phonology is such an
underdeveloped field in comparison, I don't understand.

If one approaches syntax from a principles-and-parameters point of view,
the child's task is not grammar-testing, but a process of elimination of
wrong grammars.  How this happens is a topic of research, hampered by
its double-acrostic character: grammatical theory itself is still poorly
developed.  An explicit computational theory of possible grammatical
switches is developed in a recent unpublished paper by Ken Wexler and
Ted Gibson, and there is other, similar work out there.

-David Pesetsky
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: this categorization crap
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:49:39 GMT

There's something I think people are missing when they talk about
language catagories and junk like that.

The category depends on the context in which it was developed; in other
words, whether or not you put two or more things in a common category
depends on what you want to use them for.

If I want to slice bread, a knife and a screwdriver are two totally
different things.  If, however, I want to pry a thumbtack out of my
ceiling, they are pretty much the same, as is a good stiff thumbnail.

Categories are fluid and only MODEL the world -- and depend on the
categorizer's point of view. 

Regards,
Janis C.
 

Newsgroups: sci.lang