Re: Is this acceptable Chemical English?

From: number6 (snumber6_at_aol.com)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: 26 Feb 2005 19:43:05 -0800

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <cvo73e$ogd$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote:
> >In article <1109363209.295837.3380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "number6" <snumber6@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>David Bostwick wrote:
> >>> In article <cvnuns$5ic$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
(Lloyd
> >>Parker) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >Or "A 0.1675-g sample of extra pure X was placed in a 500-mL
> >>volumetric
> >>> >flask..."
> >>>
> >>> <pet peeve>
> >>>
> >>> "In" and "into" are not the same, as my 7th-grade teacher beat
into
> >>me.
> >>>
> >>> Picture in your mind the sentence, "She burst into the room."
> >>>
> >>> Now picture, "She burst in the room."
> >>
> >>
> >>I see what you mean ... in the first case ... her guts went flying
into
> >>the room ... in the second ... they just stayed in the room she was
in
> >>....
> >>
> >>>
> >>> </pet peeve>
> >>
> >
> >ROTFL. The one picture I had never visualized. And it still shows
the
> >difference.
> But according to my dictionary, "in" is acceptable in that context.
Two of
> the definitions listed for it are two definitions of "into" -- my
Webster's
> specifically says "go in the house" is acceptable for "go into the
house."

One should go in the outhouse after going into the outhouse ...