To make you aware, Garrett, the above paragraph was bitwise ISO 8859-1, but >your MIME header marked it as UTF-8. (And IrCOm posting this to the group to >clarify to anyone else what is going on; IrCOve re-coded the text so
that I donrCOt
send unreadable text.)
In article <1781000246-12588@newsgrouper.org>,
athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and
dromedaries regarded as pedantry in English?
Not pedantry, but wrong. A dromedary is a species of camel, not
something distinct from them.
The contrast is with bactrian, the other main camel species.
On 2026-06-10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:46, Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article <1109hvb$hg3v$1@artemis.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
But this example seems to be the other way round. The vernacular
language matches the technical taxonomy, and the idea that dromedaries >> >> are not camels seems to have popped up from nowhere as a piece of
bogus expertise.
There is no requirement that the French "le chameau" include the whole >> > clade. TLFi tells me:
ASIDE: I looked up 'clade' as I had not come across the word before. It >> lead me to 'taxon' (pl. taxa). Two new words to me. Just another day at >> AUE.
You are way behind the times.
In the good old days taxonomists burned each other at the stake
for using those terms,
What did taxonomists call themselves when they didn't like "taxon"?
Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:46, Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article <1109hvb$hg3v$1@artemis.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
But this example seems to be the other way round. The vernacular
language matches the technical taxonomy, and the idea that dromedaries >> >> >> are not camels seems to have popped up from nowhere as a piece of
bogus expertise.
There is no requirement that the French "le chameau" include the whole >> >> > clade. TLFi tells me:
ASIDE: I looked up 'clade' as I had not come across the word before. It >> >> lead me to 'taxon' (pl. taxa). Two new words to me. Just another day at >> >> AUE.
You are way behind the times.
In the good old days taxonomists burned each other at the stake
for using those terms,
--
What did taxonomists call themselves when they didn't like "taxon"?
All the same. That is why heresy fights can grow vicious.
Brief summary: Before the (19)-70ies taxonomy was mostly Linnean.
Taxonomists sought to impose an order on Nature by classification
based mostly on appearance. (lacking anything better)
Cladists insisted that nomenclature must be based on inheritance
instead.
So clades consist of ancestors and all their descentants,
regardless of (perhaps evolved) appearance.
It is a thing of the past by now because of the DNA revolution.
BTW, the terms are surprisingly recent.
'Taxon', VII International Botanical Congress, 1950
'Clade' 1957 (Julian Huxley)
[fide Wikipedia]
Jan
On 2026-06-10, Mike Spencer wrote:
It suddenly dawns on me that this guy has been engaged in argument
with numerous patients of negligible knowledge who had vast
repertoires of trendy pop-health misinformation on the Yeast
Conspiracy. And he's never going to utter the word "yeast", even if I
knock him down and twist his nose painfully with haemostats.
What is the Yeast Conspiracy?
Le 11/06/2026 |a 00:39, Mike Spencer a |-crit :
The point of recounting the yarn is to illustrate a problem when
talking to physicians.-a Some large majority of people don't know much
more about biology, medicine or their own bodies beyond what they
learned in high-a-a-a (or even middle) school.-a Doctors learn-a to explain >> things to them in ways that (at least appear to) leave the patient
satisfied that (s)he's informed.
If you know quite a lot about your body, physiology etc. and ask for
more technical information, the physician may be pleased to provide
it.
Less agreeable outcomes are
-a-a The MD feels threatened and become hostile.
-a-a The MD assumes you're a fellow physcian and offers a fully
-a-a technical response that exceeds your ability to follow it
-a-a The MD assumes you're a crackpot who has read the Wikipedia page on
-a-a $WHATEVER and is ignorantly replaying the key words.
-a-a Other.
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would have
you believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placebo
effect to hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of interconnected systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no test sockets and
no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite often non-specific or referred). There are no line-replaceable units (LRUs) that can be
unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis on the bench. Frankly,
if it was designed, especially by an omniscient entity who knew all
about illness and the advent of medicine, I don't think much of the designer.
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> wrote or quoted:[snip much more]
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old
First posted by me to USENET in January, and to some extend treating
the topic of universe design:
A physics newsgroup had this subject recently, "Hidden dimensions
could explain where mass comes from", so I asked the chatbot to
write a story where mass is brought to our universe from a hidden
dimension. It came out much longer than I expected!
The story is better and more consistent than stories I generated
few months ago. The paragraph wrapping with American hyphenation
(intended) was done by a Python script I wrote recently.
The Smugglers of Weight
In the Archive of Forbidden Experiments, no one spoke above a whisper.
It was not that the Archivists feared being overheard. The Archive floated in a sealed band of the Fifth Stratum, buffered from causal
winds, inaccessible to anything that did not know its exact equations.
It was habit, more than anything else. When you spent millennia cata-
loging things that could end realities, you learned to be quiet around
them.
Rhalin stood before Vault 7-Nu, hands folded behind his back, eyes
on the shimmering seal: a circular frame of equations suspended in the
air, turning slowly like a halo of frozen lightning. He had read its designation dozens of times before, but the glyphs still felt wrong in
his mind.
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:17:26 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and dromedaries regarded
as pedantry in English?
I would regard it as such, and actually more than pedantry:
inaccuracy.
All dromedaries are camels.
Not all camels are dromedaries.
Op 10/06/2026 om 6:17 schreef Steve Hayes:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:17:26 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and dromedaries >>> regarded
as pedantry in English?
I would regard it as such, and actually more than pedantry:
inaccuracy.
All dromedaries are camels.
Not all camels are dromedaries.
I can't follow here: you agree about the distinction, yet would regard distinguishing as pedantry, worse, inaccuracy???
Like most others (I think) we Flemish will generally call dromedaries dromedarissen, and the other camels, kamelen.
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old
bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed.
After breakfast he heads out to his shed (so as not to be under his
wife's feet), where he has been building universes from his kit of
subatomic particles. He pokes about adjusting the position and
momentum of every particle in his current iteration of the universe (remember, he is God, so moves on an entirely different timescale to
us mere mortals), and watching to see what develops. Eventually, his
wife calls him in for lunch, after which they go shopping. They
shop, drop in on her mum for a cup of tea, and come home for
dinner. The Designer falls asleep in front of the telly. Before
bed, he nips out to check that his universe hasn't done anything too
strange. Perhaps he's also a radio ham, in which case he may spend a
couple of hours on two meters talking about his universe.
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of
interconnected systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no
test sockets and no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite
often non-specific or referred). There are no line-replaceable units
(LRUs) that can be unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis
on the bench. Frankly, if it was designed, especially by an omniscient
entity who knew all about illness and the advent of medicine, I don't
think much of the designer.
For evolutionary purposes, there is a lot of 'that's good enough to get by'.-a The general decay of the human body in later years is irrelevant
once offspring have offsprung.
Ar an t-aon|| l|i d|-ag de m|! Meitheamh, scr|!obh Hibou:
>
> I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would have you
> believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placebo effect to
> hide this.
Depends on the doctor, of course.
ItrCOs worth making the point that knowing the fine details of a pathology and
how treatment works is not actually necessary to make an effective treatment decision. (Yes, yes, itrCOs definitely a help.) We donrCOt know why atorvastatin
works better than the other statins in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes (my own suspicion is that it has an anticoagulant effect that the other
statins donrCOt, given that it gives epistaxis as a side effect and the others
donrCOt), but the studies say it does. We didnrCOt know why digoxin was an effective antiarrhythmic when it came into wide use as such, but it still worked despite no-one understanding why this extract of foxglove did what it did.
The more jargon, also, the more needless work the doctor creates for himself or
herself, because eventually he or she will have to explain in words the patient
understands.
I acknowledge that doctors have a dilemma. The placebo effect is real
and makes people better, and is stronger if doctors exude confidence. Honestly admitting "I haven't a clue, but we could give this a go" (i.e. let's thump the side of the telly) is less likely to evoke it.
[...] I acknowledge that doctors have a dilemma. The placebo effect is real and makes people better, and is stronger if doctors exude confidence. Honestly admitting "I haven't a clue, but we could give this a go" (i.e. let's thump the side of the telly) is less likely to evoke it.
If an infection is more than a cold, I may take it to my GP. With anything more complicated, I may well visit the library first. Sorry, that's how it is.
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> writes:
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old
bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed.
Sir Terry Pratchett, in The Last Continent, depicts just such a Creator.
After breakfast he heads out to his shed (so as not to be under his
wife's feet), where he has been building universes from his kit of subatomic particles. He pokes about adjusting the position and
momentum of every particle in his current iteration of the universe (remember, he is God, so moves on an entirely different timescale to
us mere mortals), and watching to see what develops. Eventually, his
wife calls him in for lunch, after which they go shopping. They
shop, drop in on her mum for a cup of tea, and come home for
dinner. The Designer falls asleep in front of the telly. Before
bed, he nips out to check that his universe hasn't done anything too strange. Perhaps he's also a radio ham, in which case he may spend a
couple of hours on two meters talking about his universe.
But quickly departs from your story line. Later events on the Last
Continent itself suggest that there may have been (and may continue to
be) a more complicated story to creation than represented by the
particular Creator whom we meet.
----
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
Also, yourCOre in Scotland, my experience of Scottish doctors is that theyrCOre
very good (they have to be, given the level of morbidity in Scotland).
Op 12/06/2026 om 9:04 schreef Aidan Kehoe:
Also, yourCOre in Scotland, my experience of Scottish doctors is that
theyrCOre
very good (they have to be, given the level of morbidity in Scotland).
Sure about that ( ) remark? :0)
On 12/06/26 20:52, wugi wrote:
Op 12/06/2026 om 9:04 schreef Aidan Kehoe:
Also, yourCOre in Scotland, my experience of Scottish doctors is that
theyrCOre
very good (they have to be, given the level of morbidity in Scotland).
Sure about that ( ) remark? :0)
What other country has deep-fried blood pressure tablets?
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> writes:
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old
bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed.
Sir Terry Pratchett, in The Last Continent, depicts just such a Creator.
After breakfast he heads out to his shed (so as not to be under his
wife's feet), where he has been building universes from his kit of
subatomic particles. He pokes about adjusting the position and
momentum of every particle in his current iteration of the universe
(remember, he is God, so moves on an entirely different timescale to
us mere mortals), and watching to see what develops. Eventually, his
wife calls him in for lunch, after which they go shopping. They
shop, drop in on her mum for a cup of tea, and come home for
dinner. The Designer falls asleep in front of the telly. Before
bed, he nips out to check that his universe hasn't done anything too
strange. Perhaps he's also a radio ham, in which case he may spend a
couple of hours on two meters talking about his universe.
But quickly departs from your story line. Later events on the Last
Continent itself suggest that there may have been (and may continue to
be) a more complicated story to creation than represented by the
particular Creator whom we meet.
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would haveFor evolutionary purposes, there is a lot of 'that's good enough to get
you believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placebo
effect to hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of interconnected
systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no test sockets and
no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite often non-specific or
referred). There are no line-replaceable units (LRUs) that can be
unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis on the bench. Frankly,
if it was designed, especially by an omniscient entity who knew all
about illness and the advent of medicine, I don't think much of the
designer.
by'. The general decay of the human body in later years is irrelevant
once offspring have offsprung.
Op 12/06/2026 om 9:04 schreef Aidan Kehoe:
Also, yourCOre in Scotland, my experience of Scottish doctors is that theyrCOre very good (they have to be, given the level of morbidity in Scotland).
Sure about that ( ) remark? :0)
On 2026-06-11, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would have >> you believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placeboFor evolutionary purposes, there is a lot of 'that's good enough to get by'. The general decay of the human body in later years is irrelevant once offspring have offsprung.
effect to hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of interconnected >> systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no test sockets and >> no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite often non-specific or >> referred). There are no line-replaceable units (LRUs) that can be
unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis on the bench. Frankly, >> if it was designed, especially by an omniscient entity who knew all
about illness and the advent of medicine, I don't think much of the
designer.
I read in one of Daniel Lieberman's books that humans are unusual in
living well past fertility, but this is explainable by observing how
useful grandparents are among hunter-gatherers.
Ar an t-aon|| l|i d|-ag de m|! Meitheamh, scr|!obh Steve Hayes:
[...] I seem to observe that some doctors also rely on the blurb put out by pharmaceutical companies.
IrCOm quite positive about pharmaceutical companies on balance and am happy to
see a rep. The incentive for almost everyone else in healthcare (in this part of the world) is to reduce the spend on care, so my urine culture results harangue me that I should not dip people without symptoms; I am paid capitation
for a substantial majority of my patients, my incentive is not to test people without symptoms. If I am sending a culture I want to know what it grows.
Similarly if there are plentiful bacterial cells but no white cells they donrCOt
even *do* the culture, on the reasoning that if there are no white cells then the patient is not sick enough for the culture to make a difference to clinical
management. But for me, as a GP, it almost never made a difference to immediate
clinical management since I have already prescribed the antibiotic at first contact, since we know that a womanrCOs self-reported symptoms of cystitis are a
more sensitive test and specific test than urine dipstick and culture (and itrCOs
usually a woman). The culture and sensitivity (what antibiotics work) changed management for the next UTI.
The incentive for the pharmaceutical companies is to sell their products. The best way for them to sell their products is for their products to cure disease.
This is what my patients want and this is what I want. The health system is ambiguous about this because no treatment is (often) cheaper than treatment. But then, if I treat a cystitis in an 85 year old woman effectively and prevent
progression to pyelonephritis and a hospital admission, that does save money for the health system. If I take off a skin cancer and prevent it spreading that saves on (often futile) chemotherapy or excision with skin grafts under general anaesthetic.
But of course pharmaceutical companies have their incentives and agendas and thatrCOs something to be aware of. I am sour at Bayer for its promotion of rivaroxaban on the basis of once-daily dosing, when the pharmacokinetics suggested twice-daily dosing (as with the competition) is more effective; the medication is usually prescribed to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation and I
do see (subjectively, but this fits with the data) more stroke with rivaroxaban
than with apixaban, the main competition. I donrCOt start people on rivaroxaban
but hospital doctors often do, and now that I am typing this it occurs to me that I should just switch all my patients to apixaban.
But we have at least one here on aue who I'm sure could give more reliable information.
Ar an dara l|i d|-ag de m|! Meitheamh, scr|!obh wugi:
Op 12/06/2026 om 9:04 schreef Aidan Kehoe:
Also, yourCOre in Scotland, my experience of Scottish doctors is that theyrCOre very good (they have to be, given the level of morbidity in Scotland).
Sure about that ( ) remark? :0)
Certain!
https://spice-spotlight.scot/2025/06/26/scotlands-life-and-healthy-life-expectancy-key-facts-and-figures/
rCLScotland has the lowest life expectancy and healthy life expectancy (HLE) in
the UK and the lowest life expectancy in Western Europe.rCY
If I hear a Scottish accent from a patient my level of worry about them goes up.
Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
On 2026-06-10, Mike Spencer wrote:
It suddenly dawns on me that this guy has been engaged in argument
with numerous patients of negligible knowledge who had vast
repertoires of trendy pop-health misinformation on the Yeast
Conspiracy. And he's never going to utter the word "yeast", even if I
knock him down and twist his nose painfully with haemostats.
What is the Yeast Conspiracy?
A hypothetical conspiracy minted off the cuff to allude to the
congeries of misinformation in "alternative" medicine, New Age confabulations etc. etc. that attribute to yeast whatever malady is
under discussion.
The point of recounting the yarn is to illustrate a problem when
talking to physicians. Some large majority of people don't know much
more about biology, medicine or their own bodies beyond what they
learned in high (or even middle) school. Doctors learn to explain things to them in ways that (at least appear to) leave the patient
satisfied that (s)he's informed.
If you know quite a lot about your body, physiology etc. and ask for
more technical information, the physician may be pleased to provide
it.
Less agreeable outcomes are
The MD feels threatened and become hostile.
The MD assumes you're a fellow physcian and offers a fully
technical response that exceeds your ability to follow it
The MD assumes you're a crackpot who has read the Wikipedia page on
$WHATEVER and is ignorantly replaying the key words.
Other.
Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> posted:
On 2026-06-11, Sam Plusnet wrote:In a catastrophic famine, it's useful in a pre-literate society to keep a few old crones around who can tell you what people ate to live through
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would have >> >> you believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placeboFor evolutionary purposes, there is a lot of 'that's good enough to get >> > by'. The general decay of the human body in later years is irrelevant
effect to hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of interconnected >> >> systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no test sockets and >> >> no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite often non-specific or >> >> referred). There are no line-replaceable units (LRUs) that can be
unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis on the bench. Frankly, >> >> if it was designed, especially by an omniscient entity who knew all
about illness and the advent of medicine, I don't think much of the
designer.
once offspring have offsprung.
I read in one of Daniel Lieberman's books that humans are unusual in
living well past fertility, but this is explainable by observing how
useful grandparents are among hunter-gatherers.
the catastrophic famine 50 years ago.
On 2026-06-11, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
[...] The incentive for the pharmaceutical companies is to sell their products. The best way for them to sell their products is for their products to cure disease.
Well, sort of. The best products from their point of view are not
preventive measures (AIUI, vaccine research has to be subsidized) or
cures in the strict sense (take one course of this & you're better)
but things that people need to keep taking, such as viagra, statins,
or blood thinners.
On 2026-06-11, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would have >>> you believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placeboFor evolutionary purposes, there is a lot of 'that's good enough to get
effect to hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of interconnected >>> systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no test sockets and >>> no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite often non-specific or >>> referred). There are no line-replaceable units (LRUs) that can be
unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis on the bench. Frankly, >>> if it was designed, especially by an omniscient entity who knew all
about illness and the advent of medicine, I don't think much of the
designer.
by'. The general decay of the human body in later years is irrelevant
once offspring have offsprung.
I read in one of Daniel Lieberman's books that humans are unusual in
living well past fertility, but this is explainable by observing how
useful grandparents are among hunter-gatherers.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:05:39 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <1109eka$2g74$1@usenet.csail.mit.edu>,
Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
But where do you get the idea that it's an error? There are one-hump >>>>>camels and two-hump camels, and the one-hump camels are also called >>>>>dromedaries.
This is a great example of what I call "the tyranny of taxonomy", the >>>>idea that once Science has decided on a categorization, normal people >>>>and vernacular languages are somehow obligated to follow. See also >>>>"it's not a buffalo it's a bison", "no such thing as a fish", and a >>>>pernicious book published a few decades ago called THIS IS NOT A >>>>WEASEL.
I quite agree about the tyranny of taxonomy. There was no reason for
us to stop calling Pluto a planet, and tomatoes are certainly
vegetables.
Well, Pluto is substantially different from the other 8, and tomatoes
are *both* fruits (scientifically) and vegetables (not a scientific
term).
Would vegetarians avoid fruit on the grounds that fruits are not
vegetable?
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> writes:
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old
bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed.
Sir Terry Pratchett, in The Last Continent, depicts just such a Creator.
After breakfast he heads out to his shed (so as not to be under his
wife's feet), where he has been building universes from his kit of
subatomic particles. He pokes about adjusting the position and
momentum of every particle in his current iteration of the universe
(remember, he is God, so moves on an entirely different timescale to
us mere mortals), and watching to see what develops. Eventually, his
wife calls him in for lunch, after which they go shopping. They
shop, drop in on her mum for a cup of tea, and come home for
dinner. The Designer falls asleep in front of the telly. Before
bed, he nips out to check that his universe hasn't done anything too
strange. Perhaps he's also a radio ham, in which case he may spend a
couple of hours on two meters talking about his universe.
But quickly departs from your story line. Later events on the Last
Continent itself suggest that there may have been (and may continue to
be) a more complicated story to creation than represented by the
particular Creator whom we meet.
Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> posted:
On 2026-06-11, Sam Plusnet wrote:In a catastrophic famine, it's useful in a pre-literate society to keep a
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would have >>>> you believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placeboFor evolutionary purposes, there is a lot of 'that's good enough to get
effect to hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of interconnected >>>> systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no test sockets and >>>> no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite often non-specific or >>>> referred). There are no line-replaceable units (LRUs) that can be
unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis on the bench. Frankly, >>>> if it was designed, especially by an omniscient entity who knew all
about illness and the advent of medicine, I don't think much of the
designer.
by'. The general decay of the human body in later years is irrelevant
once offspring have offsprung.
I read in one of Daniel Lieberman's books that humans are unusual in
living well past fertility, but this is explainable by observing how
useful grandparents are among hunter-gatherers.
few old crones around who can tell you what people ate to live through
the catastrophic famine 50 years ago.
The instructions were so poorly printed, and written in some strange
almost language, he decided to just wing it.
Irrelevant to AUE: what makes you think that God does not know a
language, however strange?
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to
be eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not
qualify. Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
Sam Plusnet hat am 12.06.2026 um 22:31 geschrieben:
The instructions were so poorly printed, and written in some strange
almost language, he decided to just wing it.
Let me go back to a relevant question to AUE. Can you please explain
"some strange almost language" to a foreigner?
Why "almost"? What could "almost language" mean?
Irrelevant to AUE: what makes you think that God does not know a--
language, however strange?
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> writes:
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an
old bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed.
I'm not surprised, of course, that TP was way ahead of me and did a
better job of fleshing out the idea. I haven't read The Last
Continent, but I shall do so now.
Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> posted:
I read in one of Daniel Lieberman's books that humans are unusualIn a catastrophic famine, it's useful in a pre-literate society to
in living well past fertility, but this is explainable by observing
how useful grandparents are among hunter-gatherers.
keep a few old crones around who can tell you what people ate to live
through the catastrophic famine 50 years ago.
Op 10/06/2026 om 6:17 schreef Steve Hayes:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:17:26 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and dromedaries regarded
as pedantry in English?
I would regard it as such, and actually more than pedantry:
inaccuracy.
All dromedaries are camels.
Not all camels are dromedaries.
I can't follow here: you agree about the distinction, yet would regard >distinguishing as pedantry, worse, inaccuracy???
Would vegetarians avoid fruit on the grounds that fruits are not
vegetable?
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds.
The existence of menopause is an argument that having a grandmother is
good for human survival. As far as I can recall only humans, killer
whales, and narwhals have menopause.
But where do you get the idea that it's an error? There are one-hump
camels and two-hump camels, and the one-hump camels are also called dromedaries.
On 10/06/26 01:50, Richard Tobin wrote:
But where do you get the idea that it's an error?-a There are one-hump
camels and two-hump camels, and the one-hump camels are also called
dromedaries.
Il existe deux sortes de chameaux: les chameaux et les dromedaires.
Obviously this is wrong. What's the correct way to say it in French?
(And in Italian, and in other languages where "camels" are always bactrians.)
On 2026-06-11, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would haveFor evolutionary purposes, there is a lot of 'that's good enough to get by'. The general decay of the human body in later years is irrelevant
you believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placebo
effect to hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of interconnected >> systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no test sockets and >> no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite often non-specific or
referred). There are no line-replaceable units (LRUs) that can be
unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis on the bench. Frankly, >> if it was designed, especially by an omniscient entity who knew all
about illness and the advent of medicine, I don't think much of the
designer.
once offspring have offsprung.
I read in one of Daniel Lieberman's books that humans are unusual in
living well past fertility, but this is explainable by observing how
useful grandparents are among hunter-gatherers.
On 12/06/26 23:09, Phil wrote:
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> writes:
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an
old bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed.
[...]
I'm not surprised, of course, that TP was way ahead of me and did a
better job of fleshing out the idea. I haven't read The Last
Continent, but I shall do so now.
Creation has happened more than once. There is a wizard in Unseen
University who has abandoned stodgy old conservative wizardry and
dabbles in modern ideas like quantum magic. He has built a computer
called Hex. At some stage -- I've forgotten which book -- he used Hex to create a new world called Roundworld.
I too should get a copy of The Last Continent. I think I once read it,
but it's not in my bookshelves and I've forgotten the plot.
Sam Plusnet hat am 12.06.2026 um 22:31 geschrieben:
The instructions were so poorly printed, and written in some strange
almost language, he decided to just wing it.
Let me go back to a relevant question to AUE. Can you please explain
"some strange almost language" to a foreigner?
Why "almost"? What could "almost language" mean?--
Irrelevant to AUE: what makes you think that God does not know a
language, however strange?
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:25:50 +0200, wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
Op 10/06/2026 om 6:17 schreef Steve Hayes:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:17:26 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and dromedaries regarded
as pedantry in English?
I would regard it as such, and actually more than pedantry:
inaccuracy.
All dromedaries are camels.
Not all camels are dromedaries.
I can't follow here: you agree about the distinction, yet would regard >distinguishing as pedantry, worse, inaccuracy???
No.
I am saying that camels are a larger set, within which are two smaller
sets, dromedary and Bactrian (there may be others for all I know).
What I regard as inaccurate (in English) is not distinguishing between
the smaller sets, but saying that one of the smaller sets is outside
the larger set.
Compare with another species:
Chihuahuas and Border Collies are both dogs.
It would be inaccurate, rather than pedantic (in English) to say that
Border Collies are not dogs because only chihuahuas are.
The one-hump camel, he's a dromedary
The two-hump camel, he's a Bactrian
And I will bet my pyjama flannel
There isn't any three-hump camel.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:25:50 +0200, wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
Op 10/06/2026 om 6:17 schreef Steve Hayes:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:17:26 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and
dromedaries regarded as pedantry in English?
I would regard it as such, and actually more than pedantry:
inaccuracy.
All dromedaries are camels.
Not all camels are dromedaries.
I can't follow here: you agree about the distinction, yet would regard >distinguishing as pedantry, worse, inaccuracy???
No.
I am saying that camels are a larger set, within which are two smaller
sets, dromedary and Bactrian (there may be others for all I know).
What I regard as inaccurate (in English) is not distinguishing between
the smaller sets, but saying that one of the smaller sets is outside
the larger set.
Compare with another species:
Chihuahuas and Border Collies are both dogs.
It would be inaccurate, rather than pedantic (in English) to say that
Border Collies are not dogs because only chihuahuas are.
The one-hump camel, he's a dromedary
The two-hump camel, he's a Bactrian
And I will bet my pyjama flannel
There isn't any three-hump camel.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:05:39 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <1109eka$2g74$1@usenet.csail.mit.edu>,
Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
But where do you get the idea that it's an error? There are one-hump >>>>>camels and two-hump camels, and the one-hump camels are also called >>>>>dromedaries.
This is a great example of what I call "the tyranny of taxonomy", the >>>>idea that once Science has decided on a categorization, normal people >>>>and vernacular languages are somehow obligated to follow. See also >>>>"it's not a buffalo it's a bison", "no such thing as a fish", and a >>>>pernicious book published a few decades ago called THIS IS NOT A >>>>WEASEL.
I quite agree about the tyranny of taxonomy. There was no reason for
us to stop calling Pluto a planet, and tomatoes are certainly
vegetables.
Well, Pluto is substantially different from the other 8, and tomatoes
are *both* fruits (scientifically) and vegetables (not a scientific >>term).
Would vegetarians avoid fruit on the grounds that fruits are not
vegetable?
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
On 10/06/26 01:50, Richard Tobin wrote:
But where do you get the idea that it's an error? There are one-hump
camels and two-hump camels, and the one-hump camels are also called
dromedaries.
Il existe deux sortes de chameaux: les chameaux et les dromedaires.
Obviously this is wrong. What's the correct way to say it in French?
(And in Italian, and in other languages where "camels" are always
bactrians.)
Peter Moylan hat am 13.06.2026 um 07:41 geschrieben:
On 10/06/26 01:50, Richard Tobin wrote:
But where do you get the idea that it's an error? There are one-hump
camels and two-hump camels, and the one-hump camels are also called
dromedaries.
Il existe deux sortes de chameaux: les chameaux et les dromedaires.
Obviously this is wrong. What's the correct way to say it in French?
(And in Italian, and in other languages where "camels" are always
bactrians.)
The Italian Wikipedia disagrees. They write: Cammello * comunemente utilizzato per identificare entrambe le specie del genere Camelus,
ovvero anche per il dromedario; in tal caso vengono distinti come
"cammello a due gobbe" e "cammello a una gobba".
I'm not surprised that "clade" is later (1957 according to the OED
too), but it's interesting that "taxonomy" goes back to 1819 but
"taxon" only to 1929 (OED again).
But as counterexamples CAR-T-cell therapy is often a genuine cure for the >relevant cancers (and is priced accordingly); there is a recent genuine cure >for sickle cell anaemia (which is, yes, priced accordingly).
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:
Would vegetarians avoid fruit on the grounds that fruits are not
vegetable?
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
In article <27180.12872.14534.295328@parhasard.net>,
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
But as counterexamples CAR-T-cell therapy is often a genuine cure for the
relevant cancers (and is priced accordingly); there is a recent genuine cure >> for sickle cell anaemia (which is, yes, priced accordingly).
And from the standpoint of biopharma, they set their prices on the
basis of what alternative treatments cost; if there are no
alternatives, the prices may be very high indeed, but in the more
common cases, payers (insurance carriers and government health
systems) will gladly pay $20,000 for a medicine if the expected cost
of the prior standard of care is $25,000 in hopsital bills. In other
words, payers can be expected to have done the statistics.
-GAWollman
On 12/06/26 20:52, wugi wrote:
Op 12/06/2026 om 9:04 schreef Aidan Kehoe:
Also, yourCOre in Scotland, my experience of Scottish doctors is that
theyrCOre
very good (they have to be, given the level of morbidity in Scotland).
Sure about that ( ) remark? :0)
What other country has deep-fried blood pressure tablets?
Ar an dara l|i d|-ag de m|! Meitheamh, scr|!obh wugi:
Op 12/06/2026 om 9:04 schreef Aidan Kehoe:
Also, yourCOre in Scotland, my experience of Scottish doctors is that
theyrCOre very good (they have to be, given the level of morbidity in
Scotland).
Sure about that ( ) remark? :0)
Certain!
https://spice-spotlight.scot/2025/06/26/scotlands-life-and-healthy-life-expectancy-key-facts-and-figures/
rCLScotland has the lowest life expectancy and healthy life expectancy (HLE) in
the UK and the lowest life expectancy in Western Europe.rCY
If I hear a Scottish accent from a patient my level of worry about them goes up.
On 12/06/2026 00:09, Mike Spencer wrote:
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> writes:I suspect the 'creator' didn't want to do all the basic stuff from scratch, so he bought a kit.
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old
bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed.
Sir Terry Pratchett, in The Last Continent, depicts just such a Creator.
After breakfast he heads out to his shed (so as not to be under his
wife's feet), where he has been building universes from his kit of
subatomic particles. He pokes about adjusting the position and
momentum of every particle in his current iteration of the universe
(remember, he is God, so moves on an entirely different timescale to
us mere mortals), and watching to see what develops. Eventually, his
wife calls him in for lunch, after which they go shopping. They
shop, drop in on her mum for a cup of tea, and come home for
dinner. The Designer falls asleep in front of the telly. Before
bed, he nips out to check that his universe hasn't done anything too
strange. Perhaps he's also a radio ham, in which case he may spend a
couple of hours on two meters talking about his universe.
But quickly departs from your story line. Later events on the Last
Continent itself suggest that there may have been (and may continue to
be) a more complicated story to creation than represented by the
particular Creator whom we meet.
It wasn't a good quality kit, several important parts were missing and others
were unsuitable substitutes for more expensive items.
The instructions were so poorly printed, and written in some strange almost language, he decided to just wing it.
Hence we have.....
Sam Plusnet hat am 12.06.2026 um 22:31 geschrieben:
The instructions were so poorly printed, and written in some strange
almost language, he decided to just wing it.
Let me go back to a relevant question to AUE. Can you please explain
"some strange almost language" to a foreigner?
Why "almost"? What could "almost language" mean?
Irrelevant to AUE: what makes you think that God does not know a
language, however strange?
Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
Especially if they are serious,
and do what needs to be done in the outdoors
instead of on a pot,
Jan
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:25:50 +0200, wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:And a no-hump camel is a llama.
Op 10/06/2026 om 6:17 schreef Steve Hayes:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:17:26 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and dromedaries regarded
as pedantry in English?
I would regard it as such, and actually more than pedantry:
inaccuracy.
All dromedaries are camels.
Not all camels are dromedaries.
I can't follow here: you agree about the distinction, yet would regard
distinguishing as pedantry, worse, inaccuracy???
No.
I am saying that camels are a larger set, within which are two smaller
sets, dromedary and Bactrian (there may be others for all I know).
What I regard as inaccurate (in English) is not distinguishing between
the smaller sets, but saying that one of the smaller sets is outside
the larger set.
Compare with another species:
Chihuahuas and Border Collies are both dogs.
It would be inaccurate, rather than pedantic (in English) to say that
Border Collies are not dogs because only chihuahuas are.
The one-hump camel, he's a dromedary
The two-hump camel, he's a Bactrian
And I will bet my pyjama flannel
There isn't any three-hump camel.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
The one-hump camel, he's a dromedaryAnd a no-hump camel is a llama.
The two-hump camel, he's a Bactrian
And I will bet my pyjama flannel
There isn't any three-hump camel.
On 13/06/26 18:37, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
The one-hump camel, he's a dromedaryAnd a no-hump camel is a llama.
The two-hump camel, he's a Bactrian
And I will bet my pyjama flannel
There isn't any three-hump camel.
No humping in the lamasery!
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:25:50 +0200, wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
Op 10/06/2026 om 6:17 schreef Steve Hayes:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:17:26 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and
dromedaries regarded as pedantry in English?
I would regard it as such, and actually more than pedantry:
inaccuracy.
All dromedaries are camels.
Not all camels are dromedaries.
I can't follow here: you agree about the distinction, yet would regard
distinguishing as pedantry, worse, inaccuracy???
No.
I am saying that camels are a larger set, within which are two smaller
sets, dromedary and Bactrian (there may be others for all I know).
What I regard as inaccurate (in English) is not distinguishing between
the smaller sets, but saying that one of the smaller sets is outside
the larger set.
Compare with another species:
Chihuahuas and Border Collies are both dogs.
It would be inaccurate, rather than pedantic (in English) to say that
Border Collies are not dogs because only chihuahuas are.
The one-hump camel, he's a dromedary
The two-hump camel, he's a Bactrian
And I will bet my pyjama flannel
There isn't any three-hump camel.
You lose, ><https://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/foto/camel-with-three-humps-digital-composition-royalty-free-beeld/145897299>
* Radey Shouman <87se6r4iqp.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> :
Wrote on Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:16:30 -0400:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:
Would vegetarians avoid fruit on the grounds that fruits are not
vegetable?
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
The "Phalahari diet", observed by religions in Indialit. Phala = fruit
ahar = diet (food,intake), grains and legumes are forbidden, but the fruit-vegetable debate allows for potatoes to count as fruit, and are allowed. The diet can be a lifelong vow by some renunciates who then
become eponymously named ("phalahari babas")
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> writes:
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old
bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed.
Sir Terry Pratchett, in The Last Continent, depicts just such a Creator.
But quickly departs from your story line. Later events on the Last
Continent itself suggest that there may have been (and may continue to
be) a more complicated story to creation than represented by the
particular Creator whom we meet.
Op 14/06/2026 om 0:24 schreef Madhu:
* Radey Shouman <87se6r4iqp.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> :
Wrote on Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:16:30 -0400:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:
Would vegetarians avoid fruit on the grounds that fruits are not
vegetable?
Seems unlikely.-a I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating.-a Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
The "Phalahari diet", observed by religions in Indialit. Phala = fruit
ahar = diet (food,intake), grains and legumes are forbidden, but the
fruit-vegetable debate allows for potatoes to count as fruit, and are
allowed. The diet can be a lifelong vow by some renunciates who then
become eponymously named ("phalahari babas")
Oh well, if they start accepting roots and tubers as fruit...
long shot, but I'm still hoping someone will come along tell me what
book it was that I read sometime around 1989-90, (probably published a
few years before that). unfortunately I've forgotten the title, the
author and the plot. What I remember in it was the metaphysical
conception of universe, conceived as a wart on God's nose, and Jesus had
had a sister called Christine who represented, in contrast womanly sensibilty.
I think the jacket classified it under black comedy, though it did not
strike me as being of that genre. It a UK author, probably with much
sucess and fame and popularity in the 80s, and was found on the shelves
next to sci fi.
Hopeful.
Den 12.06.2026 kl. 22.16 skrev Radey Shouman:
Would vegetarians avoid fruit on the grounds that fruits are notSeems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
vegetable?
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds.
Do the fruitarians spread the seeds?
Den 12.06.2026 kl. 22.13 skrev Radey Shouman:
The existence of menopause is an argument that having a grandmother is
good for human survival. As far as I can recall only humans, killer
whales, and narwhals have menopause.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/wild-female-chimps-menopause
On 13/06/2026 9:43 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eatingEspecially if they are serious,
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
and do what needs to be done in the outdoors
instead of on a pot,
Jan
I met a fruitarian a couple of tims, at conferences.
He was the thinnest person I have ever seen.
Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
long shot, but I'm still hoping someone will come along tell me what
book it was that I read sometime around 1989-90, (probably published a
few years before that). unfortunately I've forgotten the title, the
author and the plot. What I remember in it was the metaphysical
conception of universe, conceived as a wart on God's nose, and Jesus had
had a sister called Christine who represented, in contrast womanly
sensibilty.
I think the jacket classified it under black comedy, though it did not
strike me as being of that genre. It a UK author, probably with much
sucess and fame and popularity in the 80s, and was found on the shelves
next to sci fi.
Hopeful.
Neil Gaiman's 'Neverwhere', maybe?
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 11:43:03 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:25:50 +0200, wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:
Op 10/06/2026 om 6:17 schreef Steve Hayes:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:17:26 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
So my question is this: is distinguishing between camels and
dromedaries regarded as pedantry in English?
I would regard it as such, and actually more than pedantry:
inaccuracy.
All dromedaries are camels.
Not all camels are dromedaries.
I can't follow here: you agree about the distinction, yet would regard
distinguishing as pedantry, worse, inaccuracy???
No.
I am saying that camels are a larger set, within which are two smaller
sets, dromedary and Bactrian (there may be others for all I know).
What I regard as inaccurate (in English) is not distinguishing between
the smaller sets, but saying that one of the smaller sets is outside
the larger set.
Compare with another species:
Chihuahuas and Border Collies are both dogs.
It would be inaccurate, rather than pedantic (in English) to say that
Border Collies are not dogs because only chihuahuas are.
The one-hump camel, he's a dromedary
The two-hump camel, he's a Bactrian
And I will bet my pyjama flannel
There isn't any three-hump camel.
You lose, >><https://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/foto/camel-with-three-humps-digital-composition-royalty-free-beeld/145897299>
Hallucinations excepted.
There isn't any three-hump camel.
You lose,
<https://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/foto/camel-with-three-humps-digital-composition-royalty-free-beeld/145897299>
Hallucinations excepted.
403 ERROR
The request could not be satisfied.
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
Den 15.06.2026 kl. 02.43 skrev Steve Hayes:
[...]
There isn't any three-hump camel.
You lose,
<https://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/foto/camel-with-three-humps-
digital-composition-royalty-free-beeld/145897299>
Hallucinations excepted.
403 ERROR
The request could not be satisfied.
I get a random picture and have to accept cookies. Next there's the
usual captcha with Dutch text. Clicking the little box brings out the picture of a three-hump camel.
Seems unlikely.-a I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating.-a Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
Fruitarians, eh? I think they must be bats.
I can refuse cookies and then see the three-humped camel.
Den 15.06.2026 kl. 07.27 skrev Hibou:
Fruitarians, eh? I think they must be bats.
Aren't bats carnivors?
Den 15.06.2026 kl. 07.27 skrev Hibou:
Seems unlikely. I have heard of "fruitarians", who avoid eating
anything not evolved for eating. Fruits qualify, they're meant to be
eaten, the better to spread seeds. Grains and leaves do not qualify.
Seems a very strenuous lifestyle to me.
Fruitarians, eh? I think they must be bats.
Aren't bats carnivors?
Den 15.06.2026 kl. 07.27 skrev Hibou:
I can refuse cookies and then see the three-humped camel.
My being so used to accepting cookies made me write "have to accept".
They disappear when I close the browser, so I don't care.
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
Le 11/06/2026 a 00:39, Mike Spencer a ocrit :
The point of recounting the yarn is to illustrate a problem when
talking to physicians.a Some large majority of people don't know much
more about biology, medicine or their own bodies beyond what they
learned in highaaa (or even middle) school.a Doctors learna to explain
things to them in ways that (at least appear to) leave the patient
satisfied that (s)he's informed.
If you know quite a lot about your body, physiology etc. and ask for
more technical information, the physician may be pleased to provide
it.
Less agreeable outcomes are
aa The MD feels threatened and become hostile.
aa The MD assumes you're a fellow physcian and offers a fully
aa technical response that exceeds your ability to follow it
aa The MD assumes you're a crackpot who has read the Wikipedia page on
aa $WHATEVER and is ignorantly replaying the key words.
aa Other.
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would have you >> believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the placebo effect to
hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of interconnected
systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has no test sockets and no >> built-in test (except for pain, which is quite often non-specific or
referred). There are no line-replaceable units (LRUs) that can be
unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis on the bench. Frankly, if >> it was designed, especially by an omniscient entity who knew all about
illness and the advent of medicine, I don't think much of the designer.
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed. After breakfast he heads out to his shed (so as not to be under his wife's feet), where he has been building universes from his kit of subatomic particles. He pokes about adjusting the position and momentum of every particle in his current iteration of the universe (remember, he is God, so moves on an entirely different timescale to
us mere mortals), and watching to see what develops. Eventually, his wife calls him in for lunch, after which they go shopping. They shop, drop in on her mum for a cup of tea, and come home for dinner. The Designer falls asleep
in front of the telly. Before bed, he nips out to check that his universe hasn't done anything too strange. Perhaps he's also a radio ham, in which case he may spend a couple of hours on two meters talking about his universe.
Phil noted that:
On 11/06/2026 08:18, Hibou wrote:
Le 11/06/2026 |a 00:39, Mike Spencer a |-crit :
The point of recounting the yarn is to illustrate a problem when
talking to physicians.-a Some large majority of people don't know much >>>> more about biology, medicine or their own bodies beyond what they
learned in high-a-a-a (or even middle) school.-a Doctors learn-a to explain
things to them in ways that (at least appear to) leave the patient
satisfied that (s)he's informed.
If you know quite a lot about your body, physiology etc. and ask for
more technical information, the physician may be pleased to provide
it.
Less agreeable outcomes are
-a-a The MD feels threatened and become hostile.
-a-a The MD assumes you're a fellow physcian and offers a fully
-a-a technical response that exceeds your ability to follow it
-a-a The MD assumes you're a crackpot who has read the Wikipedia page on >>>> -a-a $WHATEVER and is ignorantly replaying the key words.
-a-a Other.
I seem to observe that doctors generally know less than they would
have you believe, and rely heavily on jargon and triggering the
placebo effect to hide this.
In fairness, their job isn't easy. The human body is a good argument
against the existence of a Great Designer. It's a mess of
interconnected systems, of feedback loops that can't be broken, has
no test sockets and no built-in test (except for pain, which is quite
often non-specific or referred). There are no line-replaceable units
(LRUs) that can be unplugged, replaced, and taken away for diagnosis
on the bench. Frankly, if it was designed, especially by an
omniscient entity who knew all about illness and the advent of
medicine, I don't think much of the designer.
If there is a designer, I prefer to think of that designer as an old
bloke (bound to be a bloke) tinkering in his shed. After breakfast he
heads out to his shed (so as not to be under his wife's feet), where
he has been building universes from his kit of subatomic particles. He
pokes about adjusting the position and momentum of every particle in
his current iteration of the universe (remember, he is God, so moves
on an entirely different timescale to us mere mortals), and watching
to see what develops. Eventually, his wife calls him in for lunch,
after which they go shopping. They shop, drop in on her mum for a cup
of tea, and come home for dinner. The Designer falls asleep in front
of the telly. Before bed, he nips out to check that his universe
hasn't done anything too strange. Perhaps he's also a radio ham, in
which case he may spend a couple of hours on two meters talking about
his universe.
Sorry, late response; forgot to put the ObXKCD link here.
<URL:https://xkcd.com/3222/>
/dps-a "see bonus below"
<URL:https://xkcd.com/3114/>
/dps
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:55:41 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,561 |
