Corrected version - the previous one had a typo.

In article ,
bigboard writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| Then perhaps you should get out a little more (and probably read
| a bit more). If you look around, you will find that Lumbricus
| rubellus is commonly (even normally) called an earthworm, and many
| people claim that it works in wormeries.
|
| You will have to look a bit further to find the more general uses
| of the term "earthworm", but I suggest looking at the OED as a
| reference that summarises how words of the English language are
| used in practice. Please don't invent your own meanings without
| saying that you are doing so, as it merely causes confusion.
|
| I'm sorry if using 'Earthworm' to indicate a type of worm distinct from a
| composting worm confused you. I would have imagined that the meaning could
| be easily grokked from context.

Oh, it didn't confuse me - I was and am perfectly aware of what you
meant, being someone who is familiar with a large number of pseudo-
scientific jargons.

I was pointing out to you why your misuse of the English language
had caused an unnecessary argument between you and Franz Heymann.
Specifically:

You can get composting worms from your garden, but earthworms, ie
Lumbricus
terrestris, would not be any use at all. Wrong type completely.

Firstly, the worms were sold to me by a firm which specialises in worm
composting accessories.

In which case they will not be 'earthworms'.

Your first sentence is correct, though you are using the term "earthworm"
^^^^^^^
in a misleading fashion. Your last sentence is incorrect. They could
perfectly well have been Lumbricus rubellus.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.