OT: is this real?

[Puke]

I consider "tetrachloride" to be a word. I do NOT consider the chemical representation of tetrachloride, "Cl4", to be a word. Thus, I do not consider ACGTTACGG to be a word, even though it does convey meaning.

I am hard pressed to come up with a strict definition, but it would probably involve being a component of language which can be used to construct a sentence or phrase. the simple ability to convey meaning is too broad, and my definition above is too poor. someone else will have to do better, but i think my first paragraph sums up the opinion of those arguing against Fyron.