you are just arguing semantics!
are you unsatisfied with the grammar of my statement? should i rather say
any entity that contains dna and rna at the same time is to be called life?
or how about 'life:things transcribing and translating'
i do not think that your point is valid. that is as long as we talk about a biological definition of live. as soon as you want to argue the philosophical side you might be right. but then on the other hand your previous attempt to define life would look rather clumsy.
from your previous posts i get that you do share my view, so could you tell me what you dislike about my definition?
by the way last time i checked the molec. micro biology books i usually use called viruses infectious particles.
oh and another thing: until now i met nobody who uses virii. which might be also based on the fact that -ii is the ending for F. and M. latin words ending on -ius. which would naturally mean that virii is nonsense. (that so as long as you dont write normally virius)