Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!tank!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: raph@planet.british-telecom.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: 2 remarks about the name "virus"
Message-ID: <0005.8908011131.AA28024@ge.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 31 Jul 89 19:06:43 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List 
Lines: 15
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

In comp.virus you write:

>1. The English language has certain traditional ways of naming groups
>of animals, e.g., a goggle of goblins, a school of fish, a pack of
>wolves, etc.  Since both `virus' and `Trojan horse' have some kind of
>animal overtones, I wonder what other people (preferably English
>majors) think is a good way to name a group of those beasts.
>Definitely not `diskful'---a disk is likely to be anything but full
>after a visitation. A test-tube of viruses? A can of worms?  A pack of
>Trojan horses? `This BBS offers a horde of Trojan Horses for
>downloading.' Please reply directly to me, and I'll summarize in the
>newsgroup.

These terms are called 'venereal' terms, because they were used in
venery, or hunting. Maybe your analogy is stricter than you thought.