So now we are moving on to D.I.Y? I thought this thread was about cat shaped spam?

My "research", (I use that term loosely, since the internet and Wikipedia were both party to it), has obviated this, (potential), fact; modern taxonomy suggests that our "domestic cat", is actually a subspecies of the african wild cat, "Felis Silvestris Catus"!

This may seem like a small bit of news, since it does make perfect sense, that at one time, the domestic cat had to have been wild!

However, for someone who grew up watching cartoons starring "Tweety Pie", (the canary), and >> "Sylvester" << (the cat), it presented a maximum, "holy s***", so that's where they got that name from moment"!

Once again I include a disclaimer: No computers were harmed, no malware of any kind was either produced or injected into the discussion during the production of this post, so help me Jobs!

Whoops, almost forgot, no douchebags were further outed. I don't know how I could have overlooked doing so, just flat out lazy I suppose.

Now, I’m glad this thread got back to cats, it was going to the dogs for a while.



Yes, this derivation seems quite logical and I suppose “Felis Catus” lost the wild “Silvestis” middle name when he became domesticated.

But though the christening of Sylvester cat is thus explained, it is an unfortunate choice, because Sylvester is not wild enough to put Tweety in its place, which is of course the cat’s stomach. In fact, being a cat supporter, I never watch that silly cartoon for this very reason.

WOW! There really are bored people out there!

At least tell us you don't root for Wile E. Coyote.It's not that we're bored so much as it's the fact we don't have lives!

Thanks, but your posts aren't the ones I'm concerned about...

Well, starting a thread and calling those who participate in it “bored” doesn’t say much about the value you attach to it. But, apart from being paradoxical, such a comment is…er…how shall I put it…not exciting.

Now to something more interesting.

Coyotes belong to the dog family which has a long standing vendetta with us cats. So I do root them, but the grammatically correct preposition to accompany the verb “root” should not be “for” but “out”.

Talk about uptick in spam...
Maybe they're not on vacation after all...

Whats the plural of spam?

more spam !

Having multiple Email accounts.

Actually, in the context of Email distribution, "spam",is both an adjective and a verb. So, this means that spam, when used as an adjective, doesn't have a plural, but rather the associated noun and its verb would be singular or plural. IE, the singular, "that email is spam", or the plural, "those emails are spam".

As a verb, the infinitive form would be, "to spam", and its conjugations would follow normal English conventions;

Present tense; I spam; you spam; they spam; he,she, or it spams.

Past participle; spammed

Progressive tense or present participle; "spamming"

For instance, the future perfect, they "will have been spammed" as of tomorrow.

I'm still working on an example of the subjunctive pluperfect.

While this list is incomplete, I hope that it serves as a guide for your future endeavors in utilizing the word "spam" to its fullest potential.

As always, I am glad to contribute any effort necessary to maintain the integrety of the English language, and to prevent it being further mutilated by contemporary culture.

Actually, it was in the context of food.

Actually then, there is no plural.

As always, the final arbiter of this would likely be "The Scrabble Dictionary", wherein they always offer a plural for words that are rarely, if ever, pluralized.

So, therein may lie your salvation in this supercilious quest.

Actually, you can experience spam in grandiose multiplicity with just one email account.

So, I’d say the plural of spam is...posting your email anywhere on the web.
...I correct that also, because it’s too restrictive: The plural of spam is...creating an email account.

To have the plural of spam in the context of food, you have to be very hungry.

Sadly, this noble aim may well be the definition of “fighting a losing battle”.

Just give the language mutilating contemporary culture a little more time.

Strategic, I guess I'm a spoiled sport, but I'm going to pull this back on topic.

I do not think ALL viruses come from the companies that have the software programs to find, prevent or fix them. But I do think there is a strong possibility that at least some do.

Kind of like this: I think the tobacco companies are behind the nicotine patches and 'other' non-smoking paraphernalia. I think pharmaceutical companies are behind some of the illnesses or 'conditions' we take their pills for.

I am not very trustful in this real world. The bottom line is money- make it the honest way or create another way. So you round your question up> I think there is a very strong possibility that 'some' software companies are behind 'some' of the malware they write software for.

Very little is 'all' or 'none' anymore!

Wow Bobbye, your reply is almost as if I wrote it myself!
As for the pharmacists, that's another one, especially when the doctors get a cut of the profits when they eagerly fill out prescriptions. Life is all about revenue... the crooked way. Even the corner mechanic can't do everything on your car anymore because the manufacturer's make them that way. That is why it's hard to believe the viruses would be different, they are all part of the same crowd.

Given that it's almost always easier to extract organic compounds than it is to synthesize them, that vitamin B-3 is "Nicotinic acid", and the fact that Nicotine is also an extremely strong insecticide, I'd say this observation is pretty much a slam dunk.

Given the concept of "RLS",(restless leg syndrome), I'd say that they actually fabricate them.

I'd think that victimized software houses packing malware in with their pirated software at places such as "Limewire", would make a lot of sense in a "street justice" sort of way.

Hey Captain!
I haven't seen you around in a while...

So: to sum it up: Do the "good guys" do "bad" things to promote use of their "good" products and services.

Captain, I would not put RLS syndrome in this discussion. It is a real, neurological disorder. Some drug cause side effects, which may be naturally real because of their chemical makeup. It would be a good discussion for a thread not related to computer viruses to explore whether something can be chemically added purposely to cause a side effect like RLS, which would require a drug to control.

Cause and effect covers a lot of territory. What happens on our computer systems can be a 'cause from' an intentional, malicious intent like a virus or Worm or Trojan and the effect could be requiring the use of software from the actual cause itself!

Now that's a hard one to keep straight!