TAN: Genetically modified foods
Robert Pfeifer
figured maybe it's time to turn to more serious matters.
This is something that's been bugging me for some time: The recent
outcry in public opinion in Britain against genetically modified
foods. It's pretty severe: For example, Sainsbury's supermarket
consider it a positive advertising point that their own brand foods
conatin _no_ GM produce. To me, the public's cries of "it might cause
cancer" and the like strike me as hysterical and equally good reason
for banning chemistry lessons, tobacco, cleaning solvents and oxygen -
the sole component of that nasty superoxide radical. It seems to me
that as the world population ticks past 6 billion and rising, we need
any agricultural breakthroughs we can lay our hands on. Sure, this may
not be the next one to stave off the Malthusian population crash we're
rocketing for, but it looks like the best bet to me. I mean, what are
the alternatives? Algae farms consuming the oceans? Orbiting farms?
Cannibalism?
Plus also there's the fringe benefits of continual improvement of our
understanding of the functioning of organisms and its relationship to
their genomes, and of continually improving genetic engineering
application techniques which may also be applicable in human disease
such as cystic fibrosis - experimental inhaler therapy already can
provide short term relief by administration of DNA replacing the
defective material. However, this does not integrate into the
chromosomes and replicate during cell division so the therapy needs
readministration every three months or so.
Now admittedly this science is not without its risks, ethical, medical
and environmental: Providing "fixes" for an individual in adult life
for effects of their genetic illness will make them more likely to
breed and thereby pass on their defects, leading to an increase in
dependence on gene technology to make affected individuals capable of
survival, as the deleterious genes increase in frequency in the
population. Also, therapy of germ line cells (which would prevent such
problems) is currently a banned area of research in the UK and AFAIK
also the USA, due to the temptation it provides with regards to
"improvement" and all the implications of this - risk of genetic class
stratification (hey, don't we - arguably - already have this? See
footnote 1). But if a thing is possible, just banned, someone
somewhere is going to do it, either where it isn't banned, or in
secret, and make lots of money doing so. And the better technology
gets, the easier it will be to do so.
Medically, there's a risk in any tampering with genomes in
that we don't fully understand all life on Earth yet. Maybe I had a
better point but if so I've forgotten it.
Environmentally, I'm sure we've all heard the fears of
"super-weeds" acquiring e.g. herbicide resistance from herbicide
impregnated crops (allows bulk field spraying with herbicide). Well,
this may indeed be a risk. But because one particular area of research
is risky is not a reason to condemn genetic engineering of crops as a
whole. There is now a variety of maize containing all essential amino
acids. Is this not a worthy creation as a staple food for more
disadvantaged parts of the world? What if we could grow a more
efficient potato? One that grew deeper into the soil, providing more
crop in less surface area, and carried nitrogen fixing bacteria like
legumes? Is this not worth it? Sure, again there's a risk of producing
hardier wild relatives. But we've coped with weeds for millenia and
the worst we'll do in _this_ case now is escalate _both_ sides in the
standoff.
So on the one hand we have potential postponement of worldwide famine
and war. Probably not until we can achieve mass exodus to other
habitats, or decent birth control, but every journey begins with a
single step.
On the other hand we have the risk that weeds will toughen along with
crops, but a chance they won't - or at least that they won't for
while; a population potentially becoming more dependent on the medical
profession - unless care and forethought is exercised and someone is
willing perhaps to make tough decisions regarding right to treatment,
or right to breed; and the potential for genetic "improving" of
foetuses by mavericks - but that genie's already out of the bottle. It
has been ever since the first DNA was shot into a plant cell on a gold
pellet. It's just a matter of time and openness. The techniques will
come now anyhow, if people want them. And I for one wouldn't mind
seeing my grandchildren spread across the galaxy, to live the best
part of forever. I may end up seeing it from a state retirement home,
redundant at age 40, or even a cardboard box in the metropolis. But
they would still be human, or human _enough_. I don't feel much
kinship for a potato, but an ubermensch I would think of as my
species' get even if we could no longer interbreed.
Life of the species against a few hardy weeds, a few tough decisions
and the betterment of that species at our expense? No choice. Not as
far as I'm concerned.
Oh - and here's some Alistar bait:
Prince Charles is a fool. (Note for USites: He publically condemned GM
food.)
Rob
--
"Happiness? Happiness ... is to wake up, on a bright spring morning, after
an exhausting first night spent with a beautiful ... passionate ... multi-
murderess." E-mail: Robert Pfeifer <rp @ i.am>
"Shit, is that all?" WWW: http://i.am/the.god.of.hellfire/
Robert Pfeifer
write:
[germ line genetic]
}"improvement" and all the implications of this - risk of genetic class
}stratification (hey, don't we - arguably - already have this? See
}footnote 1).
[1] People with lower intelligence have difficulty getting some of the
better paid jobs and so tend towards lower income, social scale
ratings and circumstances. Intelligence is a mixture of nature and
nurture, but among those raised in an environment ideal for optimising
their intelligence those with a genetic predisposition towards greater
intelligence will do better, ergo there will be a greater proportion
of more genetically intelligent-predisposed people among the higher
social classes. Conversely, therefore, there will be a greater
proportion of less genetically intelligence-endowed individuals in
lower social classes.
Admittedly intelligence is not the only predicator of quality of
employability. Some professions may value appearance, or elocution, or
charisma, but you can put a case for all of these being influenced by
the quality of a person's genes. To pick the grossest example, ability
to elocute well will be predisposed against by an intelligence low
enough that the individual is more likely for this reason to drop out
of school early and may therefore miss out on elocution training
opportunities that someone remaining in education may be offered e.g.
drama school. Thus more people among the more intelligent are likely
to be well elocuted.
Likewise, charisma is aided by both good looks and intelligence. It's
more beneficial to be charming and intelligent than adorably thick,
and both are hampered by looking like the back end of a dog.
Rob
--
Reality v1.1: 15 totally new emotions! 7 extra laws of physics! 3 new ways to
achieve transcendence! Now with "Deja Vu" bug fixed and multiplayer support
for up to 8 billion people...
Robert Pfeifer E-mail: <rp @ i.am> WWW: http://i.am/the.god.of.hellfire
Mani Annamalai
r...@i.am (Robert Pfeifer) wrote:
> Since my fluffy banterometer seems to be broken at the moment I
> figured maybe it's time to turn to more serious matters.
>
> This is something that's been bugging me for some time: The recent
> outcry in public opinion in Britain against genetically modified
> foods.
There was a similar outcry in Australia as well, with the local
consumer groups insisting anything that contained genetically
modified "items", whether a Mars bar or soybean milk, be labelled with
warnings similar to those on cigarrettes. The govt. response was to
basically say that the industry should regulate itself, ie, if you
don't want to put up warnings, you don't have to.
Now, since I am nothing if not a victim of the Twelve Who Control All
The Media In The World, am I being misled by the eeevil Corporations
Chasing After Profits - who say that genen foods are good - or am I
being misled by the Anarchistic Anti-Establishment Hippie Squads (or
whatever their current designation is) - who say that genen foods are
bad?
I'm confused. So, learned ones (in relevant areas at least), kindly
illuminate me on the various areas of this debate.
{snip}
> Oh - and here's some Alistar bait:
> Prince Charles is a fool. (Note for USites: He publically condemned GM
> food.)
>
> Rob
Hey, its not like he wasn't a fool beforehand, you know.
(ObTAN: Down with the monarchy. Long live the Republic, if only to end
the the various pedantic debates about it over here).
--
Mani Annamalai mani@DELETE_THIS.camtech.net.au
NULLUS ANXIETAS (From The Last Continent)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
The Counterrevolutionary Council
Mani Annamalai <ma...@camtech.net.au> praised Shub-Internet thus:
> (ObTAN: Down with the monarchy. Long live the Republic, if only to end
> the the various pedantic debates about it over here).
Thank you for reporting your seditious and treansonable thoughts,
citizen. Your name also will be put on the list.
--
The Counterrevolutionary Council Imperial Rule For A Brighter Tomorrow
Taking power from the people since 1974. "Where do you want to colonise today?"
-- http://www.imperial.uk/ ; e-mail over...@imperial.uk --
John Rowat
> Mani Annamalai <ma...@camtech.net.au> praised Shub-Internet thus:
>> (ObTAN: Down with the monarchy. Long live the Republic, if only to end
>> the the various pedantic debates about it over here).
> Thank you for reporting your seditious and treansonable thoughts,
> citizen. Your name also will be put on the list.
Nice, Alistair, but it would have so much more effect if you changed your
attribution line while doing it. This way ruins the illusion.
-John
--
"Enchained to a shadow of the past / He walks the paths of life
Carrying that old story like a cross / On which he will,
On which he may nail another star."
-Samael, "Moonskin"
Andrea Leistra
John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
>As roses wither, so does The Counterrevolutionary Council:
>> Mani Annamalai <ma...@camtech.net.au> praised Shub-Internet thus:
>
>>> (ObTAN: Down with the monarchy. Long live the Republic, if only to end
>>> the the various pedantic debates about it over here).
>
>> Thank you for reporting your seditious and treansonable thoughts,
>> citizen. Your name also will be put on the list.
>
>Nice, Alistair, but it would have so much more effect if you changed your
>attribution line while doing it. This way ruins the illusion.
What illusion? I didn't even realize Alistair wasn't posting as himself
until I hit the .sig, having skimmed over the attribution line.
--
Andrea Leistra
Alistair J. R. Young
John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> praised Shub-Internet thus:
> As roses wither, so does The Counterrevolutionary Council:
>> Thank you for reporting your seditious and treansonable thoughts,
>> citizen. Your name also will be put on the list.
> Nice, Alistair, but it would have so much more effect if you changed your
> attribution line while doing it. This way ruins the illusion.
Illusion? Don't we all know that I volunteer copious time and
charitable acts for the noble cause of Death, War and Slavery (STR)?
Alistair
--
Computational Thaumaturge, Deus Machinarum. -- Cerebrate of the Silicon Swarm.
e-mail: avata...@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
"I will make the main entrance to my fortress standard-sized. While elaborate
60-foot high double-doors definitely impress the masses, they are hard to
close quickly in an emergency." -- #113, The Evil Overlord List
John Rowat
> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>Nice, Alistair, but it would have so much more effect if you changed your
>>attribution line while doing it. This way ruins the illusion.
> What illusion? I didn't even realize Alistair wasn't posting as himself
> until I hit the .sig, having skimmed over the attribution line.
Exactly. Presumably you're supposed to take a minute to realize who it
really is.
John Rowat
> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> praised Shub-Internet thus:
>> Nice, Alistair, but it would have so much more effect if you changed your
>> attribution line while doing it. This way ruins the illusion.
> Illusion? Don't we all know that I volunteer copious time and
> charitable acts for the noble cause of Death, War and Slavery (STR)?
Wrong newsgroup. s/(STR)/[2 pts]/
-John (Why 2? because I don't get
it, so it MUST be obscure. So
there.)
Andrea Leistra
John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
>As roses wither, so does Andrea Leistra:
>> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>>>attribution line while doing it. This way ruins the illusion.
>
>> until I hit the .sig, having skimmed over the attribution line.
>
>Exactly. Presumably you're supposed to take a minute to realize who it
>really is.
I'm _disagreeing_ with you.
The attribution line was not what tipped me off -- as I said, I'd skimmed
over it. The tone did that all by itself.
--
Andrea Leistra
Jeff Huo
> I'm confused. So, learned ones (in relevant areas at least), kindly
> illuminate me on the various areas of this debate.
(Tan: Just how many biology/medical people
do we have on this newsgroup? We got a whole
brace of physicists, a gaggle of EECS people, a fair
sprinkling of lawyers and associated folk, etc. but aside
from Chris Kollmann at Harvard Med I don't recall
any other Biomed people.)
Not sure if I would qualify under Learned One, but I'll give it a shot.
First, Obdisclaimer; I'm a molecular biologist-in-training, so
obviously I don't think that genetic modification is completely evil.
Those having been said, what scares many people about genetically
modified food is that you can do a lot of s**t to lifeforms
not previously possible. To wit, genetic modification has
been happening in one form or another since agriculture
began. Breeding specific plants or animals together to
enhance certain traits is modification --you control which
genes get passed to the next generation, and attempt
some level of control over the recombinants. The
problem is that this is governed very much by probability
--as each child has a finite percentage of inheriting from
either one parent or the other, and presumably only one
or a few of the possible combinations are desired, this
makes breeding a hit-or-miss proposition.
However, genetic technology lets you dispense with the
randomness of breeding and simply insert the gene you
want directly into the offspring, thus bypassing reproduction
alltogether. But in doing so, you also bypass species barriers
--it is no longer relevant whether the two species between
which you want to combine genes are capable of reproduction,
as long as the biochemistry of the resultant genes works out.
So, for example, you could transfer the gene coding for Green
Flourecent Protein, which originally came from a particular
species of jellyfish, into the skin cells of a mouse and get a
mouse that glows under the right kind of light. (This has been
done.) You can take disease resistance genes from one
species of plant and stick them in another; you can get
cows that expresss hard-to-make human proteins in their
milk; you can make pigs whose organs are
immunologically indistinguishable from people.
The fear among activists and scientists alike is that, given
our barely rudimentary knowledge of genetics, moving
these genes around may have unforseen consequences.
For example, when a gene is inserted into an organism's
genome, very often the insertion is random. Gene insertion
is a tricky enterprise --it is difficult enough to get the gene
to successfully integrate -anywhere-, let alone in a specific
location, so usually if the insertion doesn't kill the organism
by disrupting a major gene, the biologists run with it. But
noone knows everything about the genome, and noone
can guarantee that the so-called empty region doesn't in fact
control something important --like anti-cancer functions or
developmental systems--and that the gene insertion has in
fact caused more damage.
Also, many genes either have multiple functions, or carry
ancient leftover pieces which, in context, might cause
unforseen consequences. The upshot is that all this genetic
modification --and the not-strictly-genetic-modification but
equally uncomfortable practicies of mass hormone use,
antibiotic use, etc. for increase of food yields-- has so many
unknowns that it scares people.
Scientists know of all these dangers. But most, including
myself, have concluded that we really don't have all that
much choice left. Resource wise, our back as a species is
against the wall; population is exploding, while available
agricultural land, even with expansion to less-productive
areas and/or the seas, is finite. For all the cry-out over
birth control, the fact is high population growth rates and
large family sizes are fairly strongly inversely correlated
with life-span and wealth. People in countries who expect
to lose 1/2 or 2/3 of the children they give birth to tend to
have more kids to cover the possiblity; likewise, people
in areas where they reasonably expect their children to
survive have fewer kids. This is a, IIRC, well accepted
demographic trend. If people think the next downturn
could cause food shortages that might cost them half
their kids --or if they think the only way to insure having
enough to eat is to field a large enough family to work
the fields for it--then population will increase, only further
taxing resources, evened out only by periodic famines/wars/etc,
which almost everyone will agree is a fairly unsatisfactory
way to correct the balances. The only way out many see
is to increase productivity, either by creating crops that give better
yields on existing land, or new crops that can grown in
previously unculturable land, or even in completely
artifical enviroments, a la Asimov's Caves of Steel
and give people another form of security on their future
besides having large families.
Does that help? Anyone more qualified like to help?
-Jeff
---
Jeff Huo | je...@nospam.starfall.com
U. Michigan Med | http://www.starfall.com/~jeff
Alistair J. R. Young
>> Illusion? Don't we all know that I volunteer copious time and
>> charitable acts for the noble cause of Death, War and Slavery (STR)?
> Wrong newsgroup. s/(STR)/[2 pts]/
> -John (Why 2? because I don't get
> it, so it MUST be obscure. So
> there.)
"Araminta Station", Jack Vance, and someone's comment on who the
opponents of the Life, Peace and Freedom faction obviously must be...
Alistair
--
Computational Thaumaturge, Deus Machinarum. -- Cerebrate of the Silicon Swarm.
e-mail: avata...@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
"They're going for the kernel!" "Colonel who?"
-- _Hackers_
Chris Kollmann
> (Tan: Just how many biology/medical people
> do we have on this newsgroup? We got a whole
> brace of physicists, a gaggle of EECS people, a fair
> sprinkling of lawyers and associated folk, etc. but aside
> from Chris Kollmann at Harvard Med I don't recall
> any other Biomed people.)
I think we're it, unless (until?) Amy Gray comes back.
<snip Jeff's explanation of why people fear GM foods, which sounded
pretty good to me>
The only other objection I've seen people make to GM foods is to the
use of terminator genes (which prevent the modified crops from
breeding true). I've seen people complain that this keeps the
oppressed third world farmers down by making them buy more seed the
next year. Interestingly, these are usually the same people worried
that the inserted genes will spread out of control (which is the other
thing the terminator genes are supposed to help prevent).
At least the questions surrounding GM foods have some scientific
grounding. Can anyone explain to me what exactly makes people so
afraid of irradiated food? Seriously, I must be missing something.
--
Christopher S. Kollmann
Virology G2 HMS
Jim Hill
>At least the questions surrounding GM foods have some scientific
>grounding. Can anyone explain to me what exactly makes people so
>afraid of irradiated food?
People are stupid. As much as I'd like to be wrong, my cynicism and
contempt for the mass of humanity grows deeper with each passing year.
Mention the words "nuclear" or "irradiated" and most folks conjure up
images of zapped Japanese and the people Beneath the Planet of the Apes.
Until we hammer a little basic science into the brainpans of the herd,
until your average Joe knows which one of proton, neutron, electron, or
crouton is not a subatomic particle, until we mock people's unfounded
fears so relentlessly that they become unwilling to express an opinion
which deviates from what their betters tell them, we're just going to
have to live with the risk of food pizenin' because Janet "I just love
that Ricki Lake" Housewife is afraid that her ninth brat will have three
eyes due to them there nucular strawberries.
Jim, just a _little_ bitter
--
If you want I can even get my friend Steve to detail your car...
...for like twenty bucks.
Jim Hill
>jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>
>> [...] until we mock people's unfounded
>>fears so relentlessly that they become unwilling to express an opinion
>
>Ah hell, I just love a straight shot of unadulterated techno-elitism
>now and again. A delightful rant, sir.
It was necessary after spending a good ninety minutes this afternoon
listening to the FBI's Chief Polygrapher explain that while it would be
as effective to slaughter a sheep and examine its viscera to determine
which of the cleared LANL folks are Commie Infiltrators as it would be
to use a polygraph machine and a testing schema which has never been
validated outside the law enforcement community, they'll be choosing the
latter course of action, and that while taking the said polygraph is
voluntary, those who do not volunteer will have their clearances
suspended and their job descriptions changed from "Design Physicist" to
"Post-It(tm) Counter". Your national security is to be protected by
pseudo-science at a cost of millions of dollars and as-yet unknown
numbers of false positives and principled resignations.
Goddammit all to hell, why, fucking WHY are we closing out the Twentieth
Century -- a century which has seen the sum of human knowledge explode
at an ever-expanding rate, a century which has seen the developed world
make education all but free to anyone who wants it, a century that started
with a couple of guys figuring out how to make their big glider-looking
thing fly across a field and will end with a trip to the (ObOnion) fucking
moon be something that people can nonchalantly refer to as happening "a
long time ago" -- with a mass reversion to fear, ignorance, superstition,
and a distrust of those skilled in the arcane arts of reading, writing,
and adding simple numbers?
Fuck it. Let's turn the planet over to the big-ass tortoises and the
myriad finches and see if they can become (except in Kansas) something
more befitting the title "Most highly evolved species on the planet"
than the sad and tattered remnant of Man. _Homo tremens_ reigns supreme.
Jim
Trent Goulding
> [...] until we mock people's unfounded
>fears so relentlessly that they become unwilling to express an opinion
>which deviates from what their betters tell them, [...]
Ah hell, I just love a straight shot of unadulterated techno-elitism
now and again. A delightful rant, sir.
--
Trent
P. Korda
Chris Kollmann <cskol...@erols.com> wrote:
>At least the questions surrounding GM foods have some scientific
>grounding. Can anyone explain to me what exactly makes people so
>afraid of irradiated food? Seriously, I must be missing something.
'Cos it's got RADIATION in it. It's scaaaary.
Same reason you go to the hospital for an MRI, not an NMRI.
-pam
Mike Kozlowski
>until we mock people's unfounded
>fears so relentlessly that they become unwilling to express an opinion
>which deviates from what their betters tell them,
It didn't work in Kansas...
--
Michael Kozlowski
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mkozlows/
Aaron Bergman
>In article <7r4lla$3...@llama.swcp.com>, Jim Hill <jim...@swcp.com> wrote:
>
>>until we mock people's unfounded
>>fears so relentlessly that they become unwilling to express an opinion
>>which deviates from what their betters tell them,
>
>It didn't work in Kansas...
Actually, it might have. It remains to be seen.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Ben Wolfson
>
> In article <7r4lla$3...@llama.swcp.com>, Jim Hill <jim...@swcp.com> wrote:
>
> >until we mock people's unfounded
> >fears so relentlessly that they become unwilling to express an opinion
> >which deviates from what their betters tell them,
>
> It didn't work in Kansas...
No, but the kind of attitude that philosophy engenders--going along with
whatever someone tells you--did, and it worked splendidly.
--
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
"I foresee that man will each day resign himself to new abominations,
and that soon only bandits and soldiers will be left"--Jorge Luis
Borges, "The Garden of the Forking Paths"
Cassandra
> Jeff Huo (je...@nospam.starfall.com) says...
>
> > (Tan: Just how many biology/medical people
> > do we have on this newsgroup? We got a whole
> > brace of physicists, a gaggle of EECS people, a fair
> > sprinkling of lawyers and associated folk, etc. but aside
> > from Chris Kollmann at Harvard Med I don't recall
> > any other Biomed people.)
>
> I think we're it, unless (until?) Amy Gray comes back.
I'm thinking about double-majoring in anthropology and microbiology,
but I haven't gotten my shit together and turned in the paperwork.
(Hell, I'm still trying to get my schedule worked out, and it's the
3rd week of classes.)
--
Cassandra/Amy fai...@yahoo.com
I will jump out the window if that's what it takes to satisfy you sexually,
but only if you live in the basement.
-Pedro Pietri
Mark Loy
(Trent Goulding) wrote:
> jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>
> > [...] until we mock people's unfounded
> >fears so relentlessly that they become unwilling to express an opinion
> >which deviates from what their betters tell them, [...]
>
> Ah hell, I just love a straight shot of unadulterated techno-elitism
> now and again. A delightful rant, sir.
ObAaron: <insert something Aaronesque which, essentially means, "me too", here>
ML
Aaron Bergman
>
>ObAaron: <insert something Aaronesque which, essentially means, "me too", here>
Mike Kozlowski
Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <mloy-08099...@134.68.134.43>, Mark Loy wrote:
>>
>>ObAaron: <insert something Aaronesque which, essentially means, "me too", here>
>
><twitch>
No, that doesn't mean "me, too" at all.
Mark Loy
aber...@princeton.edu wrote:
> In article <mloy-08099...@134.68.134.43>, Mark Loy wrote:
> >
> >ObAaron: <insert something Aaronesque which, essentially means, "me
too", here>
> <twitch>
Yeah, well...the ObAaron shit is probably overdone.
But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
point in the extreme.
Or was this the part that started you a twitchin'?
ML
Jim Hill
>
>Yeah, well...the ObAaron shit is probably overdone.
>
>But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
>point in the extreme.
Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
Aaron Bergman
>Mark Loy wrote:
>>
>>Yeah, well...the ObAaron shit is probably overdone.
>>
>>But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
>>point in the extreme.
>
>Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
Fuck you.
Really.
Aaron (grumbling off into the distance)
Troy Terry
>
> In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>
> > Mark Loy wrote:
> > >
> > >Yeah, well...the ObAaron shit is probably overdone.
> > >
> > >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
> > >point in the extreme.
> >
> >
> > Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
>
>
> Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
>
Is it ethical to make jokes like this? Or am
I just aaron on the side of caution?
Yours,
T. Terry
Jim Hill
>In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>
>> Mark Loy wrote:
>> >
>> >Yeah, well...the ObAaron shit is probably overdone.
>> >
>> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
>> >point in the extreme.
>>
>>
>> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
>
>Yep.
>
>Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
Robert Pfeifer
(Chris Kollmann) write:
}Jeff Huo (je...@nospam.starfall.com) says...
}
}> (Tan: Just how many biology/medical people
}> do we have on this newsgroup? We got a whole
}> brace of physicists, a gaggle of EECS people, a fair
}> sprinkling of lawyers and associated folk, etc. but aside
}> from Chris Kollmann at Harvard Med I don't recall
}> any other Biomed people.)
}
And me. I'm doing medicine at Nottingham University. I pick up my
Bacheoler of Medical Sciences at Christ(*look out! Incoming
thread!*)mas, and my BM BS (the clinical medical degree) in another
couple of years.
Just finished psychiatry [1]. Hope it doesn't show too much.
Rob
[1] _Fun_!
--
Reality v1.1: 15 totally new emotions! 7 extra laws of physics! 3 new ways to
achieve transcendence! Now with "Deja Vu" bug fixed and multiplayer support
for up to 8 billion people...
Robert Pfeifer E-mail: <rp @ i.am> WWW: http://i.am/the.god.of.hellfire
Mark Loy
> Mark Loy wrote:
> >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
> >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
> >> >point in the extreme.
> >>
> >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
> >
> >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
>
> Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
> Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
Or maybe not.
ML
Jim Hill
>In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>
>> Mark Loy wrote:
>> >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>> >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
>> >> >point in the extreme.
>> >>
>> >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
>> >
>> >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
>>
>> Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
>> Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
>
>
>
>How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
>
>Or maybe not.
No, as long as we shAaron share alike we should be OK. Just don't
bogart the cascade, dude.
Jasper Janssen
>Goddammit all to hell, why, fucking WHY are we closing out the Twentieth
>Century --
>a century which has seen the sum of human knowledge explode
>at an ever-expanding rate,
Exactly.
Jasper
Kenneth G. Cavness
to remain silent when posting...
> In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>
> > Mark Loy wrote:
> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
> > >> >point in the extreme.
> > >>
> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
> > >
> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
> >
> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
>
>
>
> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
>
> Or maybe not.
Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
--
Kenneth G. Cavness
http://conan.proxicom.com/~kcavness/
"A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of telling you to slow
down." -- Steve Monahan
Jim Hill
>Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu> foolishly gave up the right
> to remain silent when posting...
>> In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>>
>> > Mark Loy wrote:
>> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
>> > >> >point in the extreme.
>> > >>
>> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
>> > >
>> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
>> >
>> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
>> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
>>
>>
>>
>> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
>>
>> Or maybe not.
>
>Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
That's an Aaroneous assumption, pilgrim.
Kenneth G. Cavness
to remain silent when posting...
>
> >Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu> foolishly gave up the right
> > to remain silent when posting...
> >> In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mark Loy wrote:
> >> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
> >> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
> >> > >> >point in the extreme.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
> >> > >
> >> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
> >> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
> >>
> >> Or maybe not.
> >
> >Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
> >
This cascade is bAaron of all good taste.
--
Kenneth G. Cavness
http://conan.proxicom.com/~kcavness/
"(Go Vikes! Daddy needs a pair of knee pads and
some mouthwash for _momma_!)" -- Mark Loy, rasfwr-j
Ben Wolfson
>
> Kenneth G. Cavness wrote:
> >Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu> foolishly gave up the right
> > to remain silent when posting...
> >> In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mark Loy wrote:
> >> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
> >> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
> >> > >> >point in the extreme.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
> >> > >
> >> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
> >> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
> >>
> >> Or maybe not.
> >
> >Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
>
Indeed. Now that it's been started, we dAaron't stop.
Amelia Bradburn
>Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu> foolishly gave up the right
> to remain silent when posting...
>> In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>>
>> > Mark Loy wrote:
>> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
>> > >> >point in the extreme.
>> > >>
>> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
>> > >
>> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
>> >
>> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
>> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
>>
>>
>>
>> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
>>
>> Or maybe not.
>
>Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
>
Says who? We'll keep it up as if we haven't a cAaron the world.
--
Amelia Bradburn
ICQ: 33990873
Ben Wolfson
>
> Amelia Bradburn <a.bra...@sympatico.ca> foolishly gave up the right
> to remain silent when posting...
> > Who's in here? Why, it's Kenneth G. Cavness <kcav...@proxicom.com>!
> >
> > >Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu> foolishly gave up the right
> > > to remain silent when posting...
> > >> In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Mark Loy wrote:
> > >> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
> > >> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
> > >> > >> >point in the extreme.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
> > >> >
> > >> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
> > >> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
> > >>
> > >> Or maybe not.
> > >
> > >Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
> > >
> > Says who? We'll keep it up as if we haven't a cAaron the world.
>
I just can't stop stAaron' at the length of it in disbelief.
Paul Raj Khangure
:> > >> > Mark Loy wrote:
:> > >> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill)
:> > >> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
:> > >> > >> >point in the extreme.
:> > >> > >>
:> > >> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
:> > >> > >
:> > >> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
:> > >> >
:> > >> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
:> > >> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
:> > >>
:> > >> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
:> > >
:> > >Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
:> > >
:> > Says who? We'll keep it up as if we haven't a cAaron the world.
:>
:> This cascade is bAaron of all good taste.
: I just can't stop stAaron' at the length of it in disbelief.
I think he's gonna be tAaron' our heads of soon if we don't stop.
Paul Raj Khangure
--
I stayed up all last night playing poker with tarot cards.
I got a full house and four people died.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Jasper Janssen
>In an Age long past, an Age yet to come, Ben Wolfson wrote:
>: "Kenneth G. Cavness" wrote:
>:> Amelia Bradburn <a.bra...@sympatico.ca> foolishly gave up the right
>:> > Who's in here? Why, it's Kenneth G. Cavness <kcav...@proxicom.com>!
>:> > >Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu> foolishly gave up the right
>:> > >> In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill)
>:> > >> > Mark Loy wrote:
>:> > >> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill)
>
>:> > >> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
>:> > >> > >> >point in the extreme.
>:> > >> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
>:> > >> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
>:> > >> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
>:> > >> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
>:> > >> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
>:> > >Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
>:> > Says who? We'll keep it up as if we haven't a cAaron the world.
>:> This cascade is bAaron of all good taste.
>: I just can't stop stAaron' at the length of it in disbelief.
>I think he's gonna be tAaron' our heads of soon if we don't stop.
These stupid puns Aaron't even fit to be in Sluggy..
Jasper
Maggie
proclaimed...
I'm sure he can find a better way to discipline his Aaront fans...
--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://www.chocolatefiends.com/princessmoo/
"The mark of a true craftsman is knowing where to apply the duct tape."
Pat O'Connell
--
Patrick Aaron O'Connell
Betcha didn't know that!
John S. Novak, III
>'Cos it's got RADIATION in it. It's scaaaary.
>Same reason you go to the hospital for an MRI, not an NMRI.
<Twitch>
<Spasm>
<Convulse>
I fucking HATE that!
I'm pretty sure I drew blood during an argument in alt.tv.er when some
idiot kept telling me that, no, the term really _was_ MRI. "No, I
don't _care_ if you're a trained goddam operator. I don't care you
got your PhD in imaging techniques, it's an NFMRI-- A Nuclear Fucking
Magnetic Resonance Imager, goddammit. Get it fucking right, or get
out of my sight."
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Jim Hill
>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 04:00:40 GMT, P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>>'Cos it's got RADIATION in it. It's scaaaary.
>>Same reason you go to the hospital for an MRI, not an NMRI.
>
><Twitch>
><Spasm>
><Convulse>
>
>I fucking HATE that!
>
>I'm pretty sure I drew blood during an argument in alt.tv.er when some
>idiot kept telling me that, no, the term really _was_ MRI. "No, I
>don't _care_ if you're a trained goddam operator. I don't care you
>got your PhD in imaging techniques, it's an NFMRI-- A Nuclear Fucking
>Magnetic Resonance Imager, goddammit. Get it fucking right, or get
>out of my sight."
If memory serves, that'd be the fla^H^H^Hdiscussion in which you and I
were arguing with Rose Marie Holt that patients be damned, they can get
their fraidycat asses into the got-damned NMRI or they can take their
malignant tumors and go home.
Jordan S. Weber-Flink
<snip some of lines so client will post>
> > > : I just can't stop stAaron' at the length of it in disbelief.
> > >
> > > I think he's gonna be tAaron' our heads of soon if we don't stop.
> >
> > I'm sure he can find a better way to discipline his Aaront fans...
> He wants to Aaron the side of caution, I'm sure.
I think that from hAaron out we should stop cracking these jokes.
--
------------------------
Jordan Weber-Flink
j...@bu.edu
Sporadic Poster Extraordinaire
Warder to Trina Sedai
Pat O'Connell
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 04:00:40 GMT, P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> >'Cos it's got RADIATION in it. It's scaaaary.
> >Same reason you go to the hospital for an MRI, not an NMRI.
>
> <Twitch>
> <Spasm>
> <Convulse>
>
> I fucking HATE that!
>
> got your PhD in imaging techniques, it's an NFMRI-- A Nuclear Fucking
> Magnetic Resonance Imager, goddammit. Get it fucking right, or get
I doubt very much if there's room enough in one of those
contraptions for regular fucking, let alone nuclear fucking.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Jim Hill
><snip attribs>
><snip some of lines so client will post>
>> > > : I just can't stop stAaron' at the length of it in disbelief.
>> > >
>> > > I think he's gonna be tAaron' our heads of soon if we don't stop.
>> >
>> > I'm sure he can find a better way to discipline his Aaront fans...
>> He wants to Aaron the side of caution, I'm sure.
>
>I think that from hAaron out we should stop cracking these jokes.
I think that's fAaronuff.
Ben Wolfson
>
> Jordan S. Weber-Flink wrote:
> ><snip attribs>
> ><snip some of lines so client will post>
> >> > > : I just can't stop stAaron' at the length of it in disbelief.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think he's gonna be tAaron' our heads of soon if we don't stop.
> >> >
> >> > I'm sure he can find a better way to discipline his Aaront fans...
> >> He wants to Aaron the side of caution, I'm sure.
> >
> >I think that from hAaron out we should stop cracking these jokes.
>
> I think that's fAaronuff.
The list of puns isn't bAaron yet!
Paul Raj Khangure
: On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 04:00:40 GMT, P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
: I'm pretty sure I drew blood during an argument in alt.tv.er when some
: idiot kept telling me that, no, the term really _was_ MRI. "No, I
: don't _care_ if you're a trained goddam operator. I don't care you
: got your PhD in imaging techniques, it's an NFMRI-- A Nuclear Fucking
: Magnetic Resonance Imager, goddammit. Get it fucking right, or get
: out of my sight."
Incorrect.
The term is MRI.
Magnetic Resonance Imager.
It doesn't matter that it's based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, the
correct term for the machine is an MRI.
Yes, it should be called an NMRI for accuracy's sake, but accuracy often
gets dropped for public digestibilty. If the designers and manufacturers
of the machine call it an MRI, then it's an MRI by definition.
Jordan S. Weber-Flink
> Jim Hill wrote:
> >
> > Jordan S. Weber-Flink wrote:
> > ><snip attribs>
> > ><snip some of lines so client will post>
> > >> > > : I just can't stop stAaron' at the length of it in disbelief.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I think he's gonna be tAaron' our heads of soon if we don't stop.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm sure he can find a better way to discipline his Aaront fans...
> > >> He wants to Aaron the side of caution, I'm sure.
> > >
> > >I think that from hAaron out we should stop cracking these jokes.
> >
> > I think that's fAaronuff.
>
> The list of puns isn't bAaron yet!
Look, we have to stop this! It just isn't fAaron Aaron.
-Jordan
John Dilick
<p...@sweet-thang.digitaljunkie.net> proclaimed to the teeming masses:
>The term is MRI.
>
>Magnetic Resonance Imager.
>
>It doesn't matter that it's based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, the
>correct term for the machine is an MRI.
>
>Yes, it should be called an NMRI for accuracy's sake, but accuracy often
>gets dropped for public digestibilty. If the designers and manufacturers
>of the machine call it an MRI, then it's an MRI by definition.
OK, I guess it's time for a history lesson.
The first NMRI machine was developed by one Dr. Davadian in the late
1970's, as an outgrowth of the NMR spectroscopy work he had done
previously. He started a firm, Fonar, to build and market the suckers.
Enter General Electric, a company with inordinately deep pockets and
landsharks.
They licensed the technology from Fonar (and then turned and broke damn
near every clause of the license, which eventually cost them about 70
million dollars) and built the first *mobile* NMRI. They discovered
something, though.
The mobile was built in Waukesha, WI, and had to travel to somewhere in
Ohio. For me, the trip would take roughly 10 hours. It took them over
*three days*. The mere *sight* of the word 'Nuclear' emblazoned on the
side of the trailer caused enormous delays at every single weigh station.
It did not matter that there was no radiation present. It did not matter
that there wasn't going to *be* any radiation present. These people
*knew*, by God, that nukular was EVIL and that they weren't gonna have none
of that there raideoaktivity on their highways.
GE promptly painted over the word Nuclear on the mobile, removed it from
all of their literature and has never looked back. All the other OEMs
followed suit, though Fonar didn't stop using it until almost '91.
So, Paul, the lack of the appropriate word 'Nuclear' is nothing more than a
marketing ploy. The name of the scanner was originally NMRI.
--
John Dilick dili...@home.com
If at first you don't succeed, cheat. Cheat until caught, then lie.
Jasper Janssen
>So, Paul, the lack of the appropriate word 'Nuclear' is nothing more than a
>marketing ploy. The name of the scanner was originally NMRI.
So what? The implied "cocaine" in "Coca Cola" is just a marketing ploy
as well.
Do you insist that, by God, it's not Coca Cola, it's "overhyped
carbonated soft-drink"?
Jasper
Paul Raj Khangure
: GE promptly painted over the word Nuclear on the mobile, removed it from
: all of their literature and has never looked back. All the other OEMs
: followed suit, though Fonar didn't stop using it until almost '91.
: So, Paul, the lack of the appropriate word 'Nuclear' is nothing more than a
: marketing ploy. The name of the scanner was originally NMRI.
Yes.
However they're MRIs now.
No matter what the original term was, nor the reasons behind changing
it, nor the method that they use to operate, they are now MRIs.
No matter how much anyone protests that they should be called NMRIs or
BFTTs [1], the correct term for the machines these days, are MRIs.
I'm not arguing about the appropriateness of the name, based on the
function it performs, I'm simply stating the name as it is.
In Novak's orginal post, he was saying he drew blood against an operator
who insisted the name of the machine was an MRI. IMO, based on that
article by Novak, the operator was correct. Whether or not the operator
knew about the history, or the fact that the machine operates based on
nuclear magentic resonance is irrelevant. He was correct in stating that
the machines are currently called MRIs.
[1]Big Fucking Tubular Things
Maggie
> John Dilick <dili...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >So, Paul, the lack of the appropriate word 'Nuclear' is nothing more than a
> >marketing ploy. The name of the scanner was originally NMRI.
>
> as well.
Um. No. Until the 20's(?), Coca Cola really did contain coca extract.
> Do you insist that, by God, it's not Coca Cola, it's "overhyped
> carbonated soft-drink"?
Settle down, Jasper. In Marketing, name recognition is everything.
Why drop a well known name because an ingredient was dropped?
Robert Pfeifer
princ...@accesstoledo.com (Maggie ) write:
}Paul Raj Khangure < p...@sweet-thang.digitaljunkie.net> merrily
}proclaimed...
}> In an Age long past, an Age yet to come, Ben Wolfson wrote:
}> : "Kenneth G. Cavness" wrote:
}> :> Amelia Bradburn <a.bra...@sympatico.ca> foolishly gave up the right
}> :> > Who's in here? Why, it's Kenneth G. Cavness <kcav...@proxicom.com>!
}> :> > >Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu> foolishly gave up the right
}> :> > >> In article <7r6dqa$c...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill)
}> :> > >> > Mark Loy wrote:
}> :> > >> > >In article <7r65nv$b...@boofura.swcp.com>, jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill)
}>
}> :> > >> > >> >But I do sorta like the term "Aaronesque", meaning succinct and to the
}> :> > >> > >> >point in the extreme.
}> :> > >> > >>
}> :> > >> > >> Isn't it Aaronic? Doncha think?
}> :> > >> > >Fuckin' guAaronteed, it is.
}> :> > >> > Wow, that's bad. Wait, I can do better:
}> :> > >> > Even if it weren't, I think it's better to Aaron the side of caution.
}> :> > >> How sAarondipitous for us to have discovered this marvelous game, doncha think?
}> :> > >Aaron't we going just a little bit too far with this?
}> :> > Says who? We'll keep it up as if we haven't a cAaron the world.
}> :> This cascade is bAaron of all good taste.
}> I think he's gonna be tAaron' our heads of soon if we don't stop.
}I'm sure he can find a better way to discipline his Aaront fans...
Aaronder if we can get him to join in.
Rob
--
Reality v1.1: 15 totally new emotions! 7 extra laws of physics! 3 new ways to
achieve transcendence! Now with "Deja Vu" bug fixed and multiplayer support
for up to 8 billion people...
Robert Pfeifer E-mail: <rp @ i.am> WWW: http://i.am/the.god.of.hellfire
John S. Novak, III
>It doesn't matter that it's based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, the
>correct term for the machine is an MRI.
Fuck that bullshit.
I know how they work.
Your brain is not magnetic. The nuclei in your brain are.
I don't give a hopping kangaroo fuck if the manufacturer slaps a
bleahed wig on it and calls it the Orgasmatron Six Thousand(tm)-- it's
still a goddam NMRI.
Paul Raj Khangure
:>It doesn't matter that it's based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, the
:>correct term for the machine is an MRI.
: Fuck that bullshit.
: I know how they work.
Yeah, so do I.
But they way they work doesn't have to be represented in the name
they're given.
: I don't give a hopping kangaroo fuck if the manufacturer slaps a
: bleahed wig on it and calls it the Orgasmatron Six Thousand(tm)-- it's
: still a goddam NMRI.
Precision, John.
So long as you aren't confusing the name of the machine, and the way it
works, there's no problem.
But if you're insisting that the machine is _called_ an NMRI, rather
than _working_ as an NMRI, then you are mistaken.
I interpreted your article to state that you were chewing out an
operator for insisting the machine was called an MRI, and not called an
MRI. If that was not the correct interpretation, then I've wasted my
time in pointing out the difference between the name of a piece of
equipment, and the way it works.
John Dilick
proclaimed to the teeming masses:
>John Dilick <dili...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>So, Paul, the lack of the appropriate word 'Nuclear' is nothing more than a
>>marketing ploy. The name of the scanner was originally NMRI.
>
>So what? The implied "cocaine" in "Coca Cola" is just a marketing ploy
>as well.
"Coca Cola" has, TTBOMK, always been it's name.
MRI has not.
John Dilick
<p...@sweet-thang.digitaljunkie.net> proclaimed to the teeming masses:
>In an Age long past, an Age yet to come, John Dilick wrote:
>
>: GE promptly painted over the word Nuclear on the mobile, removed it from
>: all of their literature and has never looked back. All the other OEMs
>: followed suit, though Fonar didn't stop using it until almost '91.
>
>: So, Paul, the lack of the appropriate word 'Nuclear' is nothing more than a
>: marketing ploy. The name of the scanner was originally NMRI.
>
>Yes.
>
>However they're MRIs now.
>
>No matter what the original term was, nor the reasons behind changing
>it, nor the method that they use to operate, they are now MRIs.
Only to the unwashed masses.
The inventor *still* calls them NMRIs, though he no longer manufactures
them. All technical papers I've seen on the subject since The Great
Repainting refer to the process as "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
and the machines that perform said process as "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Imagers". Only the popular designation lacks the leading word.
>No matter how much anyone protests that they should be called NMRIs or
>BFTTs [1], the correct term for the machines these days, are MRIs.
Actually, no.
The *popular* term is MRI. The *correct* term is NMRI. Seriously.
I realize, however, that most people refer to them as simply "MRI". I also
realize that most people don't know the history of the term. That does not
change the correct name, though.
John S. Novak, III
<p...@sweet-thang.digitaljunkie.net> wrote:
>: I don't give a hopping kangaroo fuck if the manufacturer slaps a
>: bleahed wig on it and calls it the Orgasmatron Six Thousand(tm)-- it's
>: still a goddam NMRI.
>So long as you aren't confusing the name of the machine, and the way it
>works, there's no problem.
I'm not confusing it, because I hae knowledge that I'm not afraid to
face. Other people _do_ confuse it, and the way it works, because
they're being fed a line of bullshit "For their own good."
I will never be a part and parcel of this perfidious ballet of
ignorance. It is a self-perpetuating cycle, and I will not tolerate
it in my presence. It began when a bunch of empty-headed vacuous
hippies developed an irrational, uneducated fear of all things
nuclear. It continues now because everyone seems willing to pander to
these microcephalic morons, so they won't be upset when they run
across something else based on nuclear technology.
And if we can't figure out a way to rename it for them or disguise
theoperating principle, well then we just won't _have_ it. We can
call NMRI machines MRI machines, as a sop to stupid fucks everywhere,
and we can let them have the accurate diagnoses on the brain traumas.
But we never counteract the stupidity in the first place. We just
pander to it, and pretend that neither the stupidity nor the offending
nuclear technology is there in the first place.
And so we're left with dipshits protesting nuclear power, all the
while we spew hydrocarbon burn filth across the land so that these
aging hippies and boomers can live in air conditioned comfort and
complain about the environment. And we get dipshits quoting
Nostrodamous in reference to a harmless but scientifically important
piece of equipment like the Cassini. And we get dipshits whining and
complain about irradiation sterilization for food products. And the
growth of all these undeniably beneficial technologies is stunted
because most of the people are too goddam dumb to realize what they
are an how they work, and most of the rest lack the testicular
fortitude to tell the unwashed masses to shut the fuck up and let
those of us who know what we're doing make the decisions.
No, Paul.
I'm not buying.
You can give handjobs to the morons if you like.
But my hands are clean.
>But if you're insisting that the machine is _called_ an NMRI, rather
>than _working_ as an NMRI, then you are mistaken.
I chewed her out for being party to an intellectual charade designed
to let stupid people continue in their stupidity.
Paul Raj Khangure
: The inventor *still* calls them NMRIs, though he no longer manufactures
: them. All technical papers I've seen on the subject since The Great
: Repainting refer to the process as "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
: and the machines that perform said process as "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
: Imagers". Only the popular designation lacks the leading word.
: The *popular* term is MRI. The *correct* term is NMRI. Seriously.
Ok, then that's my fuckup. All the literature I'd come across, and the
two machines I've had a close up look at were all labeled as MRIs, even
though they were based on NMR.
Jeff Huo
In article <slrn7tla1...@ts003d13.per-
md.concentric.net>, j...@concentric.net says...
> I don't give a hopping kangaroo fuck if the manufacturer slaps a
> bleahed wig on it and calls it the Orgasmatron Six Thousand(tm)-- it's
> still a goddam NMRI.
"Don Corelone, as part of our routine follow-up for this
kind of cancer, the attending physican is going to use the
Orgamatron Six Thousand to examine your virgin daughter."
<mass violence ensues>
Hm...could be some marketing issues, tho.
----
Jeff Huo | je...@nospam.starfall.com
U. Michigan Med | http://www.starfall.com/~jeff
(Paging Dr. Mark Loy to Invasive Radiology....)
Jim Hill
[What we have here is a failure to educate.]
>And so we're left with dipshits protesting nuclear power, all the
>while we spew hydrocarbon burn filth across the land so that these
>aging hippies and boomers can live in air conditioned comfort and
>complain about the environment. And we get dipshits quoting
>Nostrodamous in reference to a harmless but scientifically important
>piece of equipment like the Cassini. And we get dipshits whining and
>complain about irradiation sterilization for food products. And the
>growth of all these undeniably beneficial technologies is stunted
>because most of the people are too goddam dumb to realize what they
>are an how they work, and most of the rest lack the testicular
>fortitude to tell the unwashed masses to shut the fuck up and let
>those of us who know what we're doing make the decisions.
Goddamn. I think I'm actually weeping from the crystalline purity of
the prose above. It's like a logical snowblind.
Jasper Janssen
Nice email address. (Yeah, so I'm bad at noticing new stuff..)
>Jasper Janssen < jas...@janssen.dynip.com> merrily proclaimed...
>> So what? The implied "cocaine" in "Coca Cola" is just a marketing ploy
>> as well.
>
>Um. No. Until the 20's(?), Coca Cola really did contain coca extract.
Well, yeah, but it is now. Those "Coca Cola - refreshes the mind!"
mirrors always make me laugh...
>> Do you insist that, by God, it's not Coca Cola, it's "overhyped
>> carbonated soft-drink"?
>
>Settle down, Jasper. In Marketing, name recognition is everything.
>Why drop a well known name because an ingredient was dropped?
For the benefit of truth in advertising? Call me idealist if you
want..
Jasper
Maggie
> princ...@accesstoledo.com (Maggie ) wrote:
>
> Nice email address. (Yeah, so I'm bad at noticing new stuff..)
Sheesh. Clean your glasses, darlin'! Thank my Warder for the nickname,
the dear!
> >Um. No. Until the 20's(?), Coca Cola really did contain coca extract.
> Well, yeah, but it is now. Those "Coca Cola - refreshes the mind!"
> mirrors always make me laugh...
You obviously aren't a regular Coke drinker, then! It may be coca free,
but it still packs a kick sufficient to jump start me.
> >> Do you insist that, by God, it's not Coca Cola, it's "overhyped
> >> carbonated soft-drink"?
> >Settle down, Jasper. In Marketing, name recognition is everything.
> >Why drop a well known name because an ingredient was dropped?
>
> For the benefit of truth in advertising? Call me idealist if you
> want..
Truth? Advertising? You're kidding, right?
Maggie
[...]
> And so we're left with dipshits protesting nuclear power, all the
> while we spew hydrocarbon burn filth across the land so that these
> aging hippies and boomers can live in air conditioned comfort and
> complain about the environment. And we get dipshits quoting
> Nostrodamous in reference to a harmless but scientifically important
> piece of equipment like the Cassini. And we get dipshits whining and
> complain about irradiation sterilization for food products.
What frightens me most is that so many of these whiners are supposedly
*educated* people. Doctors. Lawyers. Engineers. Professors.
I lost my job in a health food store[1] in college for blowing my stack
at one of these "educated" people that paraded by every day. "Organic
vegetables, soy milk, wheat free bread, acidophilus, golden seal
capsules, bee pollen, all natural kitty litter, *recycled paper*, *not*
plastic, thankyewverymuch, *I'm* environmentally conscious"...then they
would smugly totter off to their gas-guzzling Lexus to drive the four
blocks home.
Granola heads.
The proprietor of this shop was paranoid of thievery, and had one of
those systems installed, where, if your packages weren't demagnetized at
the register, you would set off an alarm at the door...lights, beeping,
the whole shot. Harmless enough, at least, I've always thought so.
Enter one of the neighborhood professors, an aging astronomer[2], known
for giving great lectures. She made her selections, placed them on the
checklane -- and nearly leapt over the counter to strangle me when I
passed the first bottle of vitamins over the electromagnetic pad! She
proceeded to rant about how such things are a government conspiracy to
give us all cancer by transmitting it into our foods. She ranted about
pollution. She ranted about the evil of radiation, medical technology
and nuclear energy.
I stared at her, stunned, throughout her rant. Then I lost my temper.
"Ma'am, do you use electricity?"
"Yes."
"You realize a good portion of our energy comes from the Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Plant, yes?"
"I didn't know that."
"Do you watch TV?"
"Yes."
"Do you have magnets on your fridge?"
"Yes. Why?"
"Because this little pad here isn't any more harmful than any of those,
the government doesn't give a damn about your vitamins, and I'm ready to
go home, so will you kindly shut the *fuck* up and let me do my job?"
I was fired on the spot. Not for telling the professor to shut the fuck
up, either. For telling her that part of our power is supplied by a
nuclear facility. Apparently, her fear of nuclear *anything* was well
known, and I violated some "mollycoddle the kooks" protocol by clueing
her in.
How the hell can you miss that behemoth on the horizon when heading out
towards Oak Harbor? What did she think it was? A marshmallow?
> And the
> growth of all these undeniably beneficial technologies is stunted
> because most of the people are too goddam dumb to realize what they
> are an how they work, and most of the rest lack the testicular
> fortitude to tell the unwashed masses to shut the fuck up and let
> those of us who know what we're doing make the decisions.
<*sigh*>
Fear of scientific progress is the height of idiocy.
[1] Yes, a health food store. It was two blocks from home, paid fairly
well for what I had to do, and I got a discount on goodies like
organically grown coffees and wonderfully fresh vegetables. And Power
Bars. Mmmmmm....
[2] Yes, a scientist. What the hell is up with that?
Bunnythor
>jas...@janssen.dynip.com (Jasper Janssen)
>proclaimed to the teeming masses:
>>>So, Paul, the lack of the appropriate word 'Nuclear' is nothing more than a
>>>marketing ploy. The name of the scanner was originally NMRI.
>>So what? The implied "cocaine" in "Coca Cola" is just a marketing ploy
>>as well.
>"Coca Cola" has, TTBOMK, always been it's name.
>MRI has not.
You are referring to "Coca-Cola Classic", yes?
--Tshen
Qodaxti Institute, 87th stratum
Pat O'Connell
>
> In article <37dc488e...@news.chc.ihug.co.nz>, Jon Travaglia wrote:
> >
> >Related Peeve: 'Organically grown produce' I crack up every time I
> >hear someone talk about this on the news. How the hell else to they
> >plan to grow it? Surely the cancer-causing pesticides are organically
> >grown too?
AFAIK almost all food (except for a few inorganic things like
salt) is by definition organic.
> I want my food with pesticides, thank you very much. I don't like
> bugs and worms.
There's more to the term "organic" than "pesticide free." The
"organic" farmer is supposed to use only things like compost,
manure, and fish emulsion to fertilize his crops, and use only
"natural" pesticides (nicotine derived from tobacco is considered
"natural").
While, as a half-assed gardener, I will agree that compost and
manure are good soil builders (I make compost to try to turn this
sand we call "soil" into something that will hold water), they
don't contain enough N, P, and K to get the job done. Hence the
inorganic fertilizers. The plants don't care about where the
nutrients come from. OTOH over fertilization causes bad things to
happen in streams that receive the excess in runoff, etc.
Jon Travaglia
(Maggie ) wrote:
>[1] Yes, a health food store. It was two blocks from home, paid fairly
>well for what I had to do, and I got a discount on goodies like
>organically grown coffees and wonderfully fresh vegetables.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Related Peeve: 'Organically grown produce' I crack up every time I
hear someone talk about this on the news. How the hell else to they
plan to grow it? Surely the cancer-causing pesticides are organically
grown too?
Does this bother you people in the same way as 'MRI'?
--
Jon Travaglia
Aaron Bergman
>hear someone talk about this on the news. How the hell else to they
>plan to grow it? Surely the cancer-causing pesticides are organically
>grown too?
I want my food with pesticides, thank you very much. I don't like
bugs and worms.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Amelia Bradburn
>In article <37dc488e...@news.chc.ihug.co.nz>, Jon Travaglia wrote:
>>
>>Related Peeve: 'Organically grown produce' I crack up every time I
>>hear someone talk about this on the news. How the hell else to they
>>plan to grow it? Surely the cancer-causing pesticides are organically
>>grown too?
>
>I want my food with pesticides, thank you very much. I don't like
>bugs and worms.
>
Not to mention paying four times as much at the grocery for those
little extras.
--
Amelia Bradburn
ICQ: 33990873
Maggie
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:04:33 -0400, princ...@accesstoledo.com
> (Maggie ) wrote:
>
> >[1] Yes, a health food store. It was two blocks from home, paid fairly
> >well for what I had to do, and I got a discount on goodies like
> >organically grown coffees and wonderfully fresh vegetables.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> hear someone talk about this on the news. How the hell else to they
> plan to grow it? Surely the cancer-causing pesticides are organically
> grown too?
<*grin*> It is giggle inducing to hear the way people jump and yell over
the label. "Organically grown" is supposed to indicate that the soil in
which the crop is grown has been free of artificial pesticides for "X"
years ( I don't know what the standard is, I never paid attention.)
I don't personally make a big fuss about it, but I *do* notice a
difference in the taste of "organic" coffee vs. "regular" coffee.
It's...crisper. A nice treat, something I'll buy if I'm able, but won't
go out of my way for.
I miss that discount.
> Does this bother you people in the same way as 'MRI'?
Our phone book lists both MRI and NMRI services. I find that rather
amusing.
Gabriel Wright
(And yes, I know it was a long time ago...)
> First, Obdisclaimer; I'm a molecular biologist-in-training, so
> obviously I don't think that genetic modification is completely evil.
Not in itself. Technology itself is not inherently evil. It is the
uses, or rather abuses, to which it is put that are.
[...]
> But in doing so, you also bypass species barriers
> --it is no longer relevant whether the two species between
> which you want to combine genes are capable of reproduction,
I hear that D.O. Inc is hiring in this field. Unfortunatly despite the
renumberation and job security[1], the social life and housing at Shayol
Ghul (Population: 40284) sucks.
> The fear among activists and scientists alike is that, given
> our barely rudimentary knowledge of genetics, moving
> these genes around may have unforseen consequences.
[...]
[many function/ unknown function genes]
This is an area where I am am concerned. This is not a hippy-style 'the
mother earth must be pure' type concern. I try to maintain a healthy
scientific 'are we sure that this is not going to have a [unspecified
length of time] pay back[2]' concern/curiousity.
> Scientists know of all these dangers. But most, including
> myself, have concluded that we really don't have all that
> much choice left. Resource wise, our back as a species is
> against the wall;
Seconded, as things stand at the moment. But we can not afford to try
and go on as we are. We do need fresh thinking, and that does (amoung
other things) include GM.
[number of kids related to life expectancy]
I can see the connection there from what little history that I know, but
I have never seen it conculsively shown. Any chance of a reference
(just out of interest)?
[...]
[security]
> a la Asimov's Caves of Steel
I am glad that you mentioned Asimov before I did. But my take home is
different. Stagnation. Throughout his books, Asimov points out the
dangers of (mainly) social stagnation.
There is an ancient Greek saying (which to transliterate) 'panta rhei',
'everything flows'. When you stop moving (and one hopes that one moves
forward) you are dead. I would argue that this would apply to species
as well as societies and individuals, albeit at different levels.
Once we start tampering - and who is to say what we are actually
tampering with - can we be sure that what we have created is going to
stagnate, while everything else moves along around it [5], forcing us to
meddle more and more. Adding to the whole problem rather than
alieviating it.
Despite my personal concerns, I still find it very hard to fathom why
'activists' continue to trash GM trials in this country. Yes, it might
not be completely beneficial, but we need to have Scientific data about
what goes on around fields of these crops [4] inorder to make any sort
of scientifically rational conclusion, otherwise we are working off a
statistical sample of 0. If cavemen had decided that making a fire
might not be a good idea as the greenhouse gases will harm the planet,
then we would not be here now. One does what one must at the time, and
at some point the baliffs come knocking.
Mind you, once genetic tampering[3] become acceptable on crops, how long
before it become acceptable on animals, and eventually humans.
Say good bye to the 'lucky sperm club'.
Say hello to Alistair's eugenic statutes.
> Anyone more qualified like to help?
Almost certainly not I.
--
Gabriel
[1] It's a job for life.
[2] Are you _sure_ that feeding cows to cows is a good idea?
[3] Some would argue that it was improvement.
[4] I hope that they are taking enough of the right sort of reading.
[5] Except in the State of Kansas.
Dorit
> Jeff Huo (je...@nospam.starfall.com) says...
>
> > (Tan: Just how many biology/medical people
> > do we have on this newsgroup? We got a whole
> > brace of physicists, a gaggle of EECS people, a fair
> > sprinkling of lawyers and associated folk, etc. but aside
> > from Chris Kollmann at Harvard Med I don't recall
> > any other Biomed people.)
>
> I think we're it, unless (until?) Amy Gray comes back.
There's me, over at Case Western Med. Not that I've posted much in the
past few months, but I still lurk. Anyone else out there?
Dorit.
Steven M. Ginter
thus:
Noell? Just what do you do again?
--
Steve G.
Wandering Gaidin
"Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't
well-connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, _Slaughterhouse_Five_
John Sutherland
: Aaron Bergman wrote:
: >
: > In article <37dc488e...@news.chc.ihug.co.nz>, Jon Travaglia wrote:
: > >
: > >Related Peeve: 'Organically grown produce' I crack up every time I
: > >hear someone talk about this on the news. How the hell else to they
: > >plan to grow it? Surely the cancer-causing pesticides are organically
: > >grown too?
: AFAIK almost all food (except for a few inorganic things like
: salt) is by definition organic.
: > I want my food with pesticides, thank you very much. I don't like
: > bugs and worms.
: There's more to the term "organic" than "pesticide free." The
: "organic" farmer is supposed to use only things like compost,
: manure, and fish emulsion to fertilize his crops, and use only
: "natural" pesticides (nicotine derived from tobacco is considered
: "natural").
Again, that depends on the grower's and buyer's definition of
organic. The strictest rules are ones such as the Oregon-Tilth agreement
for tree fruit growers. Some organic brokers/grower's associations are
exceptionally lax, up to and including using some 'artificial' sprays but
not others, depending on the needs of the local area. Unfortunately, the
consumer rarely knows the difference and the marketers will rarely explain
them. Don't expect that because something is marketed organic and is at
some health food store that it will be chemical/pesticide free. It may
not be. It's just more expensive than others...
Drew
=========================================================
+ "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
+ arrogance successfully!" +
+ -Drew Sutherland +
+ <jsut...@ualberta.ca> +
+ <http://www.ualberta.ca/~jsutherl> +
=========================================================
John Sutherland
: On 11 Sep 1999 09:53:39 GMT, Paul Raj Khangure
: <p...@sweet-thang.digitaljunkie.net> wrote:
: >It doesn't matter that it's based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, the
: >correct term for the machine is an MRI.
: Fuck that bullshit.
: I know how they work.
: Your brain is not magnetic. The nuclei in your brain are.
Actually, the nuclei in your brain are clusters of neurons so
interconnected for a specific purpose that they are considered to be one
group.
The nuclei in the cells in your brain however...
John Sutherland
: Chris Kollmann wrote:
: > Jeff Huo (je...@nospam.starfall.com) says...
: >
: > > (Tan: Just how many biology/medical people
: > > do we have on this newsgroup? We got a whole
: > > brace of physicists, a gaggle of EECS people, a fair
: > > sprinkling of lawyers and associated folk, etc. but aside
: > > from Chris Kollmann at Harvard Med I don't recall
: > > any other Biomed people.)
: >
: > I think we're it, unless (until?) Amy Gray comes back.
: There's me, over at Case Western Med. Not that I've posted much in the
: past few months, but I still lurk. Anyone else out there?
I'm finishing my last year here in medicine at the U of Alberta.
I'm not that surprised at the paucity of biomed people, however. I just
got an e-mail from a classmate who is doing an elective rotation in South
Africa, where, he was surprised to find out, there was this funny policy
called apartheid up until recently. I'm thinking that if he didn't get
out enough to hear about apartheid, time for reading fantasy like RJ would
be impossible.
Mike Kozlowski
John Sutherland <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>I'm not that surprised at the paucity of biomed people, however. I just
>got an e-mail from a classmate who is doing an elective rotation in South
>Africa, where, he was surprised to find out, there was this funny policy
>called apartheid up until recently. I'm thinking that if he didn't get
>out enough to hear about apartheid, time for reading fantasy like RJ would
>be impossible.
What is it about medicine that attracts these single-minded,
one-dimensional people? Every pre-med I ever knew was so intently focused
on medicine that they barely had an external life.
--
Michael Kozlowski
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mkozlows/
Jeff Huo
mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu says...
Well, while I would agree with Mike's sentiment, I'm not
sure the apartheid example is a good illustration, as if you
asked any random group of more relaxed people, most probably
wouldn't have a clue, either. History isn't something the
average North American has a good grip on.
But to Mike's point; success --survival-- in medicine
requires command of a large number of indisputable facts.
There are no partial credit, multiple interpetations,
alternate readings in biochemistry. :-) For my first
National Board exam, I was responsible for knowing
everything in a stack of 8x11 paper, single spaced, two-
sided, four and a half-feet thick. [It's doable. Talk to
anyone whose sat for the Bar. :-) ] It's like the EIT or the
Bar --except I will have to do it at least twice more (Step
II and III) for my MD, plus the Board for my particular
field, plus re-certification every seven to ten years.
Imagine having to take a half-Bar exam to get -into- law
school, then taking the Bar three times to get out, then re-
taking the Bar repeatedly.
Science has it's GRE's and the thesis candidacy exams. But
science also rewards creativity, productivity, etc. As does
engineering. Medicine has such a sheer number of facts
required that it is extremely late in training before any of
those things count. Before then it is mastery of volumes of
material. You need to learn an incredible load so that you
don't kill anyone. Nothing else is rewarded. So naturally
you create people with mono-maniacal focuses. Which in a
sense is good, in so far as when the surgeon has you under
the blade or the interist under the needle, your probably
not caring about how much he knows about South Africa,
you're probably hoping like hell he remembers which two
drugs combined will stop your heart inside of two beats and
-not- to use them. You have to be competent before you can
be compassionate.
It's like a good friend of mine once said --life is not a
journey, it's an auction. Whomever is willing to pay the
highest price for something --be it blood, pain, or even
death-- will get it. So the question isn't whether you have
what it takes to win --you probably do. The real question is
whether what you want is worth the price you must pay to get
it.
Thoughts?
-Jeff
Mike Kozlowski
Jeff Huo <je...@nospam.starfall.com> wrote:
>mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu says...
[A doctor never heard of Apartheid]
>> What is it about medicine that attracts these single-minded,
>> one-dimensional people? Every pre-med I ever knew was so intently focused
>> on medicine that they barely had an external life.
>
>Well, while I would agree with Mike's sentiment, I'm not
>sure the apartheid example is a good illustration, as if you
>asked any random group of more relaxed people, most probably
>wouldn't have a clue, either.
I don't believe that for a minute.
>History isn't something the
>average North American has a good grip on.
Apartheid isn't history, it's current events, like the fall of the Berlin
Wall. And Nelson Mandela's still something of a celebrity.
You need to learn an incredible load so that you
>don't kill anyone. Nothing else is rewarded. So naturally
>you create people with mono-maniacal focuses.
It seems to me like the people with mono-maniacal focuses go into
medicine, not the other way around.
Fred Van_Keuls
> You need to learn an incredible load so that you
> >don't kill anyone. Nothing else is rewarded. So naturally
> >you create people with mono-maniacal focuses.
>
> It seems to me like the people with mono-maniacal focuses go into
> medicine, not the other way around.
There is some weeding too. Those who dislike it enough, leave. Those who can't
do it, fail.
-Fred
--
...
Icarus
biomedical. Especially since I have genetically engineered some yeasts cells
so they have rpb1 gene modifications!!! Muuaaahhahhahhahha! Me and my mutant
yeast will take over the world!!!
Icarus
Dorit
> In article <7s6bh7$7r2$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca>,
> John Sutherland <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
> >I'm not that surprised at the paucity of biomed people, however. I just
> >got an e-mail from a classmate who is doing an elective rotation in South
> >Africa, where, he was surprised to find out, there was this funny policy
> >called apartheid up until recently. I'm thinking that if he didn't get
> >out enough to hear about apartheid, time for reading fantasy like RJ would
> >be impossible.
Not know what _apartheid_ is? That's incredible! I thought med school
admissions comittees expected all applicants to have a significant Clue about
world events. Every interviewer certainly asked me something about current
events!
>
> What is it about medicine that attracts these single-minded,
> one-dimensional people? Every pre-med I ever knew was so intently focused
> on medicine that they barely had an external life.
You must have known the wrong pre-meds. Honestly - most of my close friends in
college weren't premed, but they _all_ had something in their lives besides
studying and research and clinical experiences - singing, dancing, Tae Kwon Do,
an interesting major, _something_. Hell, unless you're a bloody genius, I
don't think it's possible to get into med school without having something on
your resume besides "I studied a lot and got great grades and MCAT scores".
That's certainly the case in my class! A former programmer or two, former
screenwriter in Hollywood, anthropology majors, a religion major...you get the
idea. Of course, there are lots of science majors too - but even they had
lives in college! And (obWoT) many of the science majors in college were
really into sci-fi and fantasy. (Lots of them were musicians, too.)
Dorit.
evolution
high capacity to perform rote memorization. Ask a med student to apply
those facts that they memorized and usually you will get a blank stare.
Personally, seeing the quality of people in med school has removed any
respect that I had for physicians. If it weren't for a government enforced
monopoly on services (ie prescribing medication), 80% of physicians would be
out of a job.
Chad R Orzel
{Medical type was unaware of arpartheid}
>> What is it about medicine that attracts these single-minded,
>> one-dimensional people? Every pre-med I ever knew was so intently focused
>> on medicine that they barely had an external life.
>Well, while I would agree with Mike's sentiment, I'm not
>sure the apartheid example is a good illustration, as if you
>asked any random group of more relaxed people, most probably
>wouldn't have a clue, either. History isn't something the
>average North American has a good grip on.
Most of them have, however, seen _Lethal Weapon 2_...
>But to Mike's point; success --survival-- in medicine
>requires command of a large number of indisputable facts.
>There are no partial credit, multiple interpetations,
>alternate readings in biochemistry. :-)
That, and it requires enough preparation that it's more or less necessary
to start preparing early on- most pre-med types are pre-med from Day One
in college. And the subset of people who actually know what they want to
do when they first set foot on campus, and follow through with that plan,
will tend to overlap very well with the subset of people who are
seriously monomaniacal.
(This isn't completely restricted to medicine, btw. People who know
exactly where they're going and never deviate from that course tend to be
a bit on the "painfully focussed" side. For those who've seen
_Election,_ think Tracy Flick...)
There's also some serious weeding out done- only the most dedicated
pre-meds will suffer through the curricular hoops set up for them
("Physics for Pre-meds" washed a smallish fraction of people right out of
the program, and Organic Chemistry, I'm told, removes a huge chunk of the
would-be doctors). So, in the end, only the most psychotically driven of
the monomaniacal freaks make it through.
Plenty of people sort of blunder their way into law school, for lack of a
better plan. Almost nobody hits junior year in college, and says "What
the Hell, I'll take the MCAT's..."
Later,
OilCan
Jeff Huo
evoluti...@email.msn.com says...
> Basically med school gets the not so bright not so original folks with a
> high capacity to perform rote memorization. Ask a med student to apply
> those facts that they memorized and usually you will get a blank stare.
> Personally, seeing the quality of people in med school has removed any
> respect that I had for physicians.
Interesting....
Haven't decided whether this is an obvious troll yet or not.
Assuming that the author really -belives- what he/she is
saying, it's time to lock and load...
Point the first: I'm interested in seeing how a medical
student with an inability to apply facts survives National
Boards --both of them prior to graduation-- which is all
freaking clinical apply-the-facts, stupid [1] vignettes, or
third/fourth year, where every morning you march into a
patients room and are somewhat expected to be able to pull
some kind of diagnosis out when you come out. Granted, most
of the time early on you're wrong, but that's why you're
being -trained-.
I'm assuming that the author is -at- a medical school, or
works in one, because she/he claims with some certainty the
points made, and thus they can explain to me how a medical
school can presumably continue to graduate students who
can't think their way out of a paper bag. Note the author
didn't say "Ask a beginning med student", he/she generalized
to -all- med students. That would presumably include those
about to graduate. And again, I'd like to see how a medical
student could pass -two- boards, treat patients for two
years, and still respond with blank stares to application
questions.
Much as my school pride would like to assert itself, I'm
absolutely certain things are not dramatically different at
the other 120+ medical schools in this country or that the
standard of training is so dramatically much behind U.
Michigan. (And if the author is here at U. Michigan, I would
respectfully ask what she/he is smoking, or what color is
the sky in their world.) It's a bit hard to be a doctor
incapable of carrying out a diagnosis, and a diagnosis is a
bit hard to do without thinking. Blank stares don't get you
far on wards --at least on wards as I am familiar.
Point the second: The basic issue that sets medicine apart
from engineering and most sciences, and sets it similar to
law, is that the raw materials upon which all conjectures
are built is far greater in quantity. In math or physics,
there are a few fundamental axioms, from which most
everything else can be derived. That's obviously not to
belittle the amount of work --certainly it is as much, if
not more-- but it introduces the critical thinking bit far
earlier in the process. In medicine, there are whole reams
of axiomatic, non-derivable material --about four years
worth. There is nothing inherently derivable about why a
particular bug is named what it is and not something else,
or why that name corresponds to a certain set of symptoms
and is treated by a drug that also has a certain name. There
is a logic to why the drug works for the disease, but not
why it's called what it is. (Contrast to chemistry, with the
IUPAC system to name most resulting products. Even there,
always still annoying exceptions to the rule...) It's
memorizing -those- details --the freaking names of
everything-- that consumes the time. That requires the
nearly mono-manical focus to ingest it all before you go up
onto the floors and kill someone out of ignorance grabbing
the drug that differs by one letter in name but utterly in
character.
As mentioned, I'm guessing it's like law --you can't put
together a logical argument to defend a case unless you
actually know the names of the cases upon which you're
building the current case. So you have to spend three years
memorizing the vast reams of case names so that you can
actually function, or so my friends down south in the Law
Quad tell me.
Point the third: It's like the friends of mine in the Law
school who always get intensely angry at people who say,
"Law school is easy --all you have to do is memorize a
buncha books. Any schmuck with enough time can be a lawyer."
Bull. Fricking. Shoit. It's easy to talk out of your arse if
you don't actually do it and don't care about introducing
evidence or logical facts to support yourself --and until
you do, it's wise to be circumspect in your observations,
like Mike Kozlowski was in the origin of this thread, and
this author clearly isn't.
(Yes, I'm referring to you in the third person. I'm guessing
fairly heavily it doesn't say "evolution_prod" on your
driver's license, and I'm guessing you have a last or first
name to go with "evolution". It's one thing not to have a
name in the from: but it's a whole different ball game not
to -sign- your gerd-dinged message. I mean, do you not
sign your memos? Do you not sign letters? When you call
someone, do you not introduce yourself? So where's your name
on your post?
I'll swing the clue-by-four at an anonymous shadow if I have
to, but next time, if you want to be communicated with like
a person rather than a computer-figment, give a name.)
> If it weren't for a government enforced
> monopoly on services (ie prescribing medication), 80% of physicians would be
> out of a job.
Let's see if I get this straight here; if everyone were
allowed to take whatever drugs they wanted, get whatever
drugs they wanted, without seeing a doctor first, people
would be so successful in curing themselves most doctors
would have no work? Or that there's some cadre of people
being prevented from giving out drugs --pharmacists, nurses,
whatnot-- that could successfully replace most doctors?
You got a source and some evidence for that 80% number, or
did it just sound good to you? And if so, tell me, if you
gauge safe minimum distances on the highway the same way,
could you please tell me what state you live in so I can
avoid the hell out of it?
Does this remind anyone of the stupidity of people saying
"It's unfair the sys-admins don't let us install our own
software on the network computers without their approval--
they're just a bunch of control freaks" ?
Let's come around this another way. No doctor in his right
mind will belittle what a pharmacist does. Pharmacists are -
not-, notnotnotnotNOT! people-too-stupid-to-get-into-med-
school. Pharmacists spend nearly four years learning how
drugs work and how they interact and many other things.
Physicans lean heavily on their skills and abilities. You
don't belittle what you don't understand totally --not
without proof.
Likewise, dentists are not, notnotnotnotNOT! medical school
rejects. They do not just tap and drill teeth. -You- try
doing a root canal without bleeding out the patient or
giving them osteomyelitis --clearing an abcess so the
patient doesn't lose the whole jaw -- -then- come back and
tell me how -easy- it is to be a dentist.
There -are- cases where non-physicans can perscribe. We've
been over the regulation of medicine/science/engineering is
a dynamic process bit, but to rehash, Nurse-Practitioners,
for example, have the right to perscribe certain classes of
drugs. States and Medical Boards periodically look over how
much training they get, the previous record of patient
outcomes, and make choices about what is and is not in the
patient interest. And when the evidence suggests something
new, the rules change.
Evidence. The name of the game. And I don't bloody see any
coming from your side of the line. So when you come out and
say that the only thing keeping doctors in business is a
government conspiracy to do their work, I have to sit here
and wonder about where exactly you're coming from, and
whether evolution is moving at the same pace there. You got
proof with that?
Rebuttal?
<holsters the LART and waits for a reply>
-Jeff
[1] Typical question on the boards presents a patient and
his/her symptoms. You (a) figure out what the patient
probably has, (b) figure out what drug most commonly treats
it, and (c) the question itself -actually- asks which side
effect might be most common. Of course, if the person is
pregnant, that precludes some...and if the patient has renal
failure...
You get the idea. The questions are the make-three-logical-
jumps variety. You don't get far without being able to make
the connections --unless you're going to tell me it's
possible to memorize every possible variant of question and
knee-jerk your way through.
It's like the difference between trying to pass Physics by
doing lots of example questions and actually -understanding-
and applying it.
Jeff Huo
says...
> Plenty of people sort of blunder their way into law school, for lack of a
> better plan. Almost nobody hits junior year in college, and says "What
> the Hell, I'll take the MCAT's..."
>
Well, I don't know about the law school bit --plenty of
other people can comment better, but I would suspect law
school isn't something you can just blunder into.
But I mean, somebody can't just decide Junior year, "What
the hell, I want to get my Ph.D. in Physics or EE or
whatnot," either. I mean, if you want to go to graduate
school in physics, you have to have a fairly extreme level
of competence in the subject --not something you can just
toss off and do.
Actually, I am surprised that the physicists and the
engineers on this group have, apparently, considered pre-med
much more mono-manical than their two professions. At UM, at
MIT, at Northwestern, the three places I have most
familiarity with, engineers and physicists were at least as
driven-by-the-need-to-survive into hard-coredom bordering on
mono-mania. You all -must- have been through the weeks-of-
alternating-all-nighters, sixty-page lab reports, ten-page-
a-problem-single-spaced-formulae problem sets, weeks on end
on end of work and work and work.
I -know- you guys have --unless you are utterly brilliant
geniuses, which could also be the case. But barring true
genius, most people have to gut their way through a sea
of work to get out with a science or engineering B.S. Work
that will, if you want to get out with a high GPA, be
tremendous. And who the heck plunks down 20K a year and -
doesn't- work as dammed hard as they can to make that money
worth it?
In fact, largely the sciences and engineering were -worse-
on workload than pre-med. Many premeds were humanities
people, for which an entire course would be a major paper a
month. I mean, everyone knows these people --who arrange a
whole course schedule of powder-puff classes. If you want to
really challenge yourself in the humanities, like most
people on this group do, if you really want to -learn-
something, you can do it --but to a greater extent than is
possible in engineering/sciences, it is possible in the
humanities to cakewalk your way through. Not so in the
sciences --you either can either do linear algebra or you
can't. If you're EE, you either can do circuits or not. You
get the idea. So how come nobody seems to have commented on
this? If you went through it and say you had a "life", what
exactly do you mean, and what does it mean when you say pre-
meds as a group tend not to?
Am I missing something?
-Jeff
--
Jeff Huo
mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu says...
>
> Sure, a pre-med could squeak in an English major, too -- the one I lived
> with double-majored in biochemistry and poli sci -- but they'd have to
> work at it not to major in a hard science, given all the science that they
> have to take as a prerequisite to med school.
>
But that's just it there -isn't- much science required for
medical school. You need
1 yr. General Chem
1 yr. Organic Chem
1 yr. Physics
1 yr. General Biology
-Maybe- a 1/2 year biochemistry, 1/2 year math, and 1 year
english.
Altogether, at Northwestern, this is 17 units out of 48
over four years. Match the fact that for virtually all
majors, at least half of this is in the distribution
requirements somewhere, and much of the rest is electives,
and you've got 20 odd some units to make a major. Perhaps
Northwestern had more flexibility than most colleges, but
pre-med requirements as a deciding factor for a major wasn't
really an issue.
In fact, if you were pre-med, you would -avoid- hard science
and engineering, as the GPA's there tended to be lower and
the workload harder (there are no powder-puff basic or
advanced engineering courses you can balance against Orgo).
(Ironically, med schools -do- jack up GPA's by difficulty of
major --engineers often got between 0.25 and 0.5 +, so I've
been told. If you look at the top medical schools, the
median GPA's are still only in the 3.6-3.7 ranges --meaning
over half the class was under the line. This wouldn't seem
to make sense with the preponderance of 3.8-3.9 pre-med
types, but makes more sense if you take major and research
experience into mind. As others previously mentioned,
ultimately, it's hard to get into med school if -all- you
have is grades and MCAT.)
John S. Novak, III
>But I mean, somebody can't just decide Junior year, "What
>the hell, I want to get my Ph.D. in Physics or EE or
>whatnot," either. I mean, if you want to go to graduate
>school in physics, you have to have a fairly extreme level
>of competence in the subject --not something you can just
>toss off and do.
...No you don't.
Granted, I'm generalizing on my experiences as a grad student in
engineering, but the competence level required there was surprisingly
low, in my opinion.
An anecdote:
When I was a grad student, there was another grad student we called
Smokin' Joe. (SubAnecdote: We called him Smokin' Joe because he
seemed to smoke about eleven packs a fucking day. You could tell
when he entered the building, three floors down, because the dead
smoke particles just rolled off his body. He could not go longer than
one class session without two or three cigs. He was always late for
some classes, because he'd have to go down from the ourth floor, out
of the building, smoke his cigs, then come back up to the fourth floor
(usually passing out in the stairwell because of his lung cancer).
This was so common we actually instituted a betting pool during one
class, to determine what time he'd stumble in.)
Smokin' Joe was, in actual point of fact, a certified fucking moron.
Smokin' Joe was a foreign student, but he did his four years undergrad
at the same school, then stayed to do his grad work, just like I and
some of my friends. One day, about two years into our grad work, I
came upon him as his smokey ass was perched in front of one of the
Sparc workstations.
For those who have never used one, Sparcs usually come equpped with
laser mice. These are computer mice that have no moving parts but
depend on optical effects, laser diodes, and the like. They're very
neat-- they almost never break, and they never need to get cleaned.
But they require a special mouse pad with an optical grating, and this
mouse pad must be oriented correctly, or close to it. Tis is
something that every Sparc user figures out about three seconds after
the first time the pad gets mis-aligned. It is Completely Obvious.
And just to make it moreso, the pads have the same aspect ratio as the
monitors, so it is natural to orient the pads correctly.
Now, as I saw Smokin' Joe, I heard <scuff scuff scuff scuff scuff> and
saw him furiously working the mouse pad. I tried to ignore him, sat
at the next station, and began work. And still I heard, <scuff
scuff scuff scuff scuff> from Smokin' Joe. After about five minutes,
I just _had_ to look. Yes, he had the pad oriente 90 degrees out of
phase, rendering the mouse almost completely non-functional. Each
<scuff> was him moving the mouse the entire diagonal distance of the
pad, during which the cursor moved about a tenth of an inch.
<Scuff scuff scuff scuff scuff>
He saw me looking over and said, (after <scuffing> again) "The mouse is
slow, today."
<Scuff scuff scuff scuff scuff>
I bit my tongue, painfully, and replied, "Yes. Yes it is."
Five more minutes of <scuffing> ensued. I could take it no longer.
So I leaned over again and said, "If you hit this button, you get the
help and orientation screens. Maybe it will tell you what's wrong."
Of course, the orientation screens were graphical, and mouse operated.
And the contol buttons were always on opposite ends of the screen.
<Scuff scuff scuff scuff scuff> <Scuff scuff scuff scuff scuff>
<Scuff scuff scuff scuff scuff> <Scuff scuff scuff scuff scuff>
After another five minutes, I just had to leave the lab, go
downstairs, leave the building, get some fresh air as I walked halfway
across campus, and proceeded to laugh my ass off.
So, no, in the engineering departments, just being a grad student is
no gaurantee of higher cognitive functions. I have bunches of stories
about dumbshit grad students.
>Actually, I am surprised that the physicists and the
>engineers on this group have, apparently, considered pre-med
>much more mono-manical than their two professions. At UM, at
>MIT, at Northwestern, the three places I have most
>familiarity with, engineers and physicists were at least as
>driven-by-the-need-to-survive into hard-coredom bordering on
>mono-mania. You all -must- have been through the weeks-of-
>alternating-all-nighters, sixty-page lab reports, ten-page-
>a-problem-single-spaced-formulae problem sets, weeks on end
>on end of work and work and work.
Some of us knowhow to budget our time, and study.
And really, most engineers I know had those incredible cram sessions
because they spent the first 75% of the semester partying and blowing
off the optional assignments.
>And who the heck plunks down 20K a year and -
>doesn't- work as dammed hard as they can to make that money
>worth it?
What world do you live in?
>Not so in the
>sciences --you either can either do linear algebra or you
>can't. If you're EE, you either can do circuits or not. You
>get the idea. So how come nobody seems to have commented on
>this? If you went through it and say you had a "life", what
>exactly do you mean, and what does it mean when you say pre-
>meds as a group tend not to?
We're smarter than you?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak, III
>Yes, you can. The LSAT doesn't test any specific knowledge--it's just
>reading comprehension and some logic games--so it's quite easy to just
>walk in and take it (it's not recommended, because unless you're good at
>doing logic puzzles at speed, you'll probably bomb the games part, but
>you can do it, certainly). There's no set curriculum for law school,
>either.
Well geeze.
Now you've gotten my arrogance circuits trying to subvery the curiosiy
modules. How much does it cost to take the LSAT?
Cassandra
<quick! must leave subject line!>
> When I was a grad student, there was another grad student we called
> Smokin' Joe. (SubAnecdote: We called him Smokin' Joe because he
> seemed to smoke about eleven packs a fucking day. You could tell
> when he entered the building, three floors down, because the dead
> smoke particles just rolled off his body. He could not go longer than
> one class session without two or three cigs. He was always late for
> some classes, because he'd have to go down from the ourth floor, out
> of the building, smoke his cigs, then come back up to the fourth floor
> (usually passing out in the stairwell because of his lung cancer).
> This was so common we actually instituted a betting pool during one
> class, to determine what time he'd stumble in.)
Along the same lines...We get a 5 minute break in the middle of band
rehearsal specifically so our band director (who is quite a cool guy)
can go do some high-impact smoking. You wouldn't think we would get a
smoke break, seeing as it's a _band_, which requires playing wind
instruments, which require lung capacity, but you never know.
--
Amy Yost (Cassandra) fai...@yahoo.com
Oh, horrible - worst of all - worse than death, when you have made a little
clearing in the wilderness, planted your little garden, let in your sunlight,
and then the weeds creep in again! -E.M. Forster
Aaron Bergman
>
>Actually, I am surprised that the physicists and the
>engineers on this group have, apparently, considered pre-med
>much more mono-manical than their two professions.
The usual dig at pre-meds is their monomaniacal obsession with
grades, not medicine.
Mike Kozlowski
Jeff Huo <je...@nospam.starfall.com> wrote:
>In article <7sba8c$8...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, oil...@wam.umd.edu
>says...
>> Plenty of people sort of blunder their way into law school, for lack of a
>> better plan. Almost nobody hits junior year in college, and says "What
>> the Hell, I'll take the MCAT's..."
>
>Well, I don't know about the law school bit --plenty of
>other people can comment better, but I would suspect law
>school isn't something you can just blunder into.
Yeah, it is. I have a couple of friends with undergrad degrees in the
social sciences; as they neared graduation and realized that a) no jobs
were forthcoming, and b) going to grad school for a Sociology Ph.D.
wouldn't rectify that point, they decided that law school might be a good
idea.
>Actually, I am surprised that the physicists and the
>engineers on this group have, apparently, considered pre-med
>much more mono-manical than their two professions.
Most physics geeks are, well... geeks. They actually _like_ physics and
they read this stuff for fun in their spare time.
Most pre-med people that I've known do not like biochemistry anywhere near
that much, but they grit their teeth and plod through it, because
eventually they'll be Saving. People's. Lives. (and/or making a shitload
of cash, depending on their personal motivations).
And most physics people don't have a single-minded dedication toward
getting a 4.0.
>tremendous. And who the heck plunks down 20K a year and -
>doesn't- work as dammed hard as they can to make that money
>worth it?
Lots of people, apparently. (Well, okay, I can only vouch for people
plunking down $5K a year, but even so.)
>In fact, largely the sciences and engineering were -worse-
>on workload than pre-med. Many premeds were humanities
>people,
Huh? Every pre-med I've ever seen has basically been loaded up on biochem
stuff. In fact, the UW has a "Biocore" program, which is basically
accelerated/advanced biology and chemistry specifically for pre-meds.
Sure, a pre-med could squeak in an English major, too -- the one I lived
with double-majored in biochemistry and poli sci -- but they'd have to
work at it not to major in a hard science, given all the science that they
have to take as a prerequisite to med school.
--
Michael Kozlowski
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mkozlows/
Kate Nepveu
> In article <#gQlxcSB$GA.187@cpmsnbbsa02>,
> evoluti...@email.msn.com says...
> > Basically med school gets the not so bright not so original folks with a
> > high capacity to perform rote memorization. Ask a med student to apply
> > those facts that they memorized and usually you will get a blank stare.
> > Personally, seeing the quality of people in med school has removed any
> > respect that I had for physicians.
[...]
> As mentioned, I'm guessing it's like law --you can't put
> together a logical argument to defend a case unless you
> actually know the names of the cases upon which you're
> building the current case. So you have to spend three years
> memorizing the vast reams of case names so that you can
> actually function, or so my friends down south in the Law
> Quad tell me.
[...]
(Being up to my ears in the still-novel study of law at the moment, I
had to comment on this. [I shall try not to be monomaniacal about the
topic.] The rest of your post I completely agree with.)
*shrug* Philosophies vary on this. Here, we learn via cases,
certainly, but (as the fact that just about all tests are open-book
suggests) the focus is more learning to build arguments from cases, not
necessarily memorize all the names. Yale is widely known for being on
one end of the theory/specifics continuum, though.
Personally, I figure 1) learning concepts and how to apply them is more
useful that recalling that _Sullivan v. O'Connor_ was about a botched
nose job; and 2) that's what databases and keyword indexes are for...
I fully agree that the situation is much different for medicine, where
often you don't have the leisure to retire to the library and ponder,
and people in the medical profession that I know focus equally on
getting the book knowledge down and being able to apply it in Real Life.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion about medical
school.
Kate
--
http://lynx.neu.edu/k/knepveu/ -- The Paired Reading Page; Reviews
"Truth won't always out, the wages of sin are | # 8/16: Review, #
bankable, and those who live by the sword | # _Starlight 2_ #
perish mostly of syphilis." --John M. Ford, "Erase/Record/Play"
Kate Nepveu
> In article <7sba8c$8...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, oil...@wam.umd.edu
> says...
> > Plenty of people sort of blunder their way into law school, for lack of a
> > better plan. Almost nobody hits junior year in college, and says "What
> > the Hell, I'll take the MCAT's..."
> Well, I don't know about the law school bit --plenty of
> other people can comment better, but I would suspect law
> school isn't something you can just blunder into.
Yes, you can. The LSAT doesn't test any specific knowledge--it's just
reading comprehension and some logic games--so it's quite easy to just
walk in and take it (it's not recommended, because unless you're good at
doing logic puzzles at speed, you'll probably bomb the games part, but
you can do it, certainly). There's no set curriculum for law school,
either.
It is eminently suited for blundering into. The pre-law society used to
have speakers who emphasized over and over again, "Don't go to law
school unless you're _sure_ you want to practice law," which leads me to
believe it's actually an issue. (Exceptions are made for teachers,
journalists, etc., but I'm pretty sure they were speaking to the "hey,
_Law & Order_ is a cool show" crowd...)
Kate Nepveu
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:16:37 GMT, Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
> >reading comprehension and some logic games--so it's quite easy to just
> >walk in and take it (it's not recommended, because unless you're good at
> >doing logic puzzles at speed, you'll probably bomb the games part, but
> >you can do it, certainly). There's no set curriculum for law school,
> >either.
> Now you've gotten my arrogance circuits trying to subvery the curiosiy
> modules. How much does it cost to take the LSAT?
70-odd bucks.
And hey, there's one coming up right at the start of October...
Kate Nepveu
> > How much does it cost to take the LSAT?
> 70-odd bucks.
> And hey, there's one coming up right at the start of October...
Except that you can't register for it anymore. (It's late. I forgot.)
The next one is in December.
Trent Goulding
>je...@nospam.starfall.com (Jeff Huo) wrote:
>[...]
>> As mentioned, I'm guessing it's like law --you can't put
>> together a logical argument to defend a case unless you
>> actually know the names of the cases upon which you're
>> building the current case. So you have to spend three years
>> memorizing the vast reams of case names so that you can
>> actually function, or so my friends down south in the Law
>> Quad tell me.
>[...]
They're either exagerating for affect, or they do things differently
there. (great building, though--I think the law quad is the coolest
part of Michigan's campus. Although the stretch from Rackham to
Hatcher is nice, too).
>*shrug* Philosophies vary on this. Here, we learn via cases,
>certainly, but (as the fact that just about all tests are open-book
>suggests) the focus is more learning to build arguments from cases, not
>necessarily memorize all the names. Yale is widely known for being on
>one end of the theory/specifics continuum, though.
I was going to comment along these lines, but thought I'd wait to
see if you would do my work for me...
Anyway, I second what you say. We don't memorize any case names,
really--not intentionally, at least. It's hard not to remember the
more important ones, particularly in Conlaw, but what the professors
want is an understanding of the principles the case stands for or
purports to explicate, and then a demonstrated ability to
distinguish or analogize to a fresh fact pattern.
Lawyers who have been practicing for years still go and look up the
case law in a particular area as new situations arise that they
haven't seen before (or more likely, have their new associates go do
it for them).
>Personally, I figure 1) learning concepts and how to apply them is more
>useful that recalling that _Sullivan v. O'Connor_ was about a botched
>nose job; and 2) that's what databases and keyword indexes are for...
Heh. You're starting off with remedies first in Contracts? (so did
we, fwiw). I didn't remember that name, but as soon as I looked it
up in the casebook, I recalled the fact pattern of the case...
From my first year classes, I remember _by name_, for example,
_Hadley v. Baxendale_ from Contracts, _Palzgraf_ from Torts, _Int'l
Shoe_ from Civ Pro, and _Regina v. Cunningham_ from Crim; but it's
far more important to remember that they stood for, respectively,
the notice rule in consequential damages, Cardozo's formulation on
proximate causation, the modern doctrinal statement of Personal
Jurisdiction requirements, and the principle that (as Rich so
memorably put it) if you ever find yourself shipwrecked, *don't eat
the cabin boy* (i.e. murder is murder).
>We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion about medical
>school.
Oops. Is that what we were talking about? Sorry...
--
Trent