Arithmetic carrots

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Desmond Mottram

unread,
May 12, 1992, 12:27:19 PM5/12/92
to
Ask someone ten simple arithmetic questions, eg 3+5, 11-4, etc. Do this
quietly and seriously, then ask them to name a vegetable. They will look
stunned for a moment, then answer...

I have done this with several individuals and a few classes of school-
children. The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
Why is this?

(You can tell posy or uncooperative b*****s because they will say something
like "globe artichoke").
--
Desmond Mottram, ..!uunet!ingr!swindon!d_mottram
Intergraph, Swindon, UK. d_mo...@swindon.ingr.com

Wayne Jefferson Doust

unread,
May 13, 1992, 4:23:28 AM5/13/92
to
d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:

>Ask someone ten simple arithmetic questions, eg 3+5, 11-4, etc. Do this
>quietly and seriously, then ask them to name a vegetable. They will look
>stunned for a moment, then answer...

>I have done this with several individuals and a few classes of school-
>children. The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
>Why is this?

I don't know but I can confirm that this DOES work. With the exception
of one person I have tried this on they all mentioned carrot.
As to why, I don't know. A friend of mine who studied psychology
claimed that mentally-stable people will answer carrot when asked
this question. But for some reason when I was asked this the first
time I answered potatoe. 8-}

Wayne

snopes

unread,
May 13, 1992, 4:32:11 AM5/13/92
to

d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:

>Ask someone ten simple arithmetic questions, eg 3+5, 11-4, etc. Do this
>quietly and seriously, then ask them to name a vegetable. They will look
>stunned for a moment, then answer...

>I have done this with several individuals and a few classes of school-
>children. The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.

Just respond to this by replying "tomato". The ensuing debate will
make everyone forget about the silly math questions.

- snopes

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|"[Disney's machine] has placed a Mickey Mouse hat on every little developing |
| personality in America. As capitalism, it is a work of genius; as culture, |
| it is mostly a horror." -- Richard Schickel, "The Disney Version" |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David P. Mikkelson Digital Equipment Corporation Culver City, CA USA |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

HYuNoHoo

unread,
May 13, 1992, 3:31:53 PM5/13/92
to
In article <1992May12.1...@swindon.ingr.com>, d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:
|> Ask someone ten simple arithmetic questions, eg 3+5, 11-4, etc. Do this
|> quietly and seriously, then ask them to name a vegetable. They will look
|> stunned for a moment, then answer...
|>
|> I have done this with several individuals and a few classes of school-
|> children. The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
|> Why is this?
|>
|> (You can tell posy or uncooperative b*****s because they will say something
|> like "globe artichoke").

Would you be that math teacher with the bright vegetable-colored tie?

---
YuNoHoo "First time I heard it, it was pineapple - but, that was in Panama"

Dan Hoey

unread,
May 13, 1992, 6:25:32 PM5/13/92
to
d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:

> Ask someone ten simple arithmetic questions, eg 3+5, 11-4, etc. Do

> this quietly and seriously, then ask them to name a vegetable....

> The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
> Why is this?

> (You can tell posy or uncooperative b*****s because they will say
> something like "globe artichoke").

I always used to answer ``Karen Ann Quinlan'' but I think she's
shuffled off the mortal respirator. Do we have a new contender for
canonical flatliner? (and no, I don't want to hear about your Uncle
Frank, I'm looking for a *famous* gozer.)

ObUL: The mentalist lobby made the government insert subliminal
carrots into all the math lessons so this trick would work.
Have you ever found yourself gnawing on a pencil while solving a
hard problem? Now you know why!

Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil

Stephanie da Silva

unread,
May 13, 1992, 3:22:03 PM5/13/92
to
In article <1992May12.1...@swindon.ingr.com>, d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:
> Ask someone ten simple arithmetic questions, eg 3+5, 11-4, etc. Do this
> quietly and seriously, then ask them to name a vegetable. They will look
> stunned for a moment, then answer...

I'm sorry. AFU rarely makes me laugh, but I laughed out loud at this post,
because I read the above part and thought "artichoke."


> (You can tell posy or uncooperative b*****s because they will say something
> like "globe artichoke").

THEN I read this part....
--
Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park * Houston, Texas
ari...@taronga.com 568-0480 568-1032

Phil Gustafson

unread,
May 13, 1992, 9:29:26 PM5/13/92
to
How many answer "carrot" even if they aren't asked the arithmetic questions?

It _is_ a pretty ubiqiutous root.

Phil

|play: ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG; {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil |
|work: phil@gsi; sgi!gsi!phil | Phil Gustafson |
| Widely recognized as a thoughtful debunker of vegetable canards since 1992|

Warren Burstein

unread,
May 13, 1992, 5:37:23 PM5/13/92
to

>The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.

The correct AFU answer is "tomato".
--
/|/-\/-\ The entire *** Jerusalem
|__/__/_/ is a very narrow carrot.
|warren@ But the chef
/ nysernet.org is not paranoid at all.

Ted Frank

unread,
May 14, 1992, 1:54:27 PM5/14/92
to
In article <19...@israel.nysernet.org> war...@nysernet.org writes:
>In <1992May12.1...@swindon.ingr.com> d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:
>
>>The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
>
>The correct AFU answer is "tomato".

But tomatoes aren't vegetables.
--
....................................
ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu
the university of chicago law school
so i quoted mu'min v virginia,sue me

Terry Carroll

unread,
May 14, 1992, 6:54:40 PM5/14/92
to
In article <1992May14....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <19...@israel.nysernet.org> war...@nysernet.org writes:
>>In <1992May12.1...@swindon.ingr.com> d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:
>>
>>>The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
>>
>>The correct AFU answer is "tomato".
>
>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.

Ted, I'm surprised at you! Certainly tomatoes are vegetables. See
Nix v. Hedded, 149 US 304, 13 S.Ct. 881, 37. L.Ed. 745 (1893). Accord,
American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 US 1, 7, 51 S.Ct. 328,
329, 75 L.Ed. 801, ___ (1931).
--
The above is my thoughts, not Amdahl's; | Terry Carroll 408/992-2152
The above is not legal advice; | Senior Computer Architect
Contents sold by weight, not by volume; | Amdahl Corporation
Your mileage may vary. | tj...@juts.ccc.amdahl.com

Ted Frank

unread,
May 14, 1992, 7:32:15 PM5/14/92
to
In article <e5du02U...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tj...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.
>
>Ted, I'm surprised at you! Certainly tomatoes are vegetables. See
>Nix v. Hedded, 149 US 304, 13 S.Ct. 881, 37. L.Ed. 745 (1893). Accord,
>American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 US 1, 7, 51 S.Ct. 328,
>329, 75 L.Ed. 801, ___ (1931).

Counselor, are you saying Plessy-era decisions have validity in the
rough-and-tumble world of the 1990's?

-- Ted "straight man to the Terries of the world" Frank

Caroline E. Bryan

unread,
May 14, 1992, 1:18:11 PM5/14/92
to

Don't worry about it. I heard twice, from different psychologists, in diff-
erent decades, that only mentally *un*stable people like solitude; that men-
tally stable people will constantly seek society. I concluded both times not
that mentally stable people are so insecure that they need constant rein-
forcement of self from others, but that the psychologist with this opinion is
so insecure that s/he needs constant reinforcement of self from others. I
would assume that the psychologist who said that mentally stable people will
say "carrot" first says so because *he* said "carrot" first.


Carrie c...@dbrus.unify.com x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ferengi: any senate subcommittee - Susan Atwater (Star Trek crew from Hell) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Chris Keane

unread,
May 14, 1992, 10:43:57 PM5/14/92
to
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <19...@israel.nysernet.org> war...@nysernet.org writes:
>>In <1992May12.1...@swindon.ingr.com> d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:
>>
>>>The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
>>
>>The correct AFU answer is "tomato".

>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.

Haven't we already had this argument?


regards...
Chris Keane. State Bank NSW ph. +61 2 259 4459
Unix Systems Administrator (Group Treasury) ch...@rufus.state.COM.AU
Disclaimer: These are my own opinions, but I'm insane. What's your excuse?

JOSEPH T CHEW

unread,
May 15, 1992, 12:14:56 PM5/15/92
to
>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.

One of the few things I recall from my one and only botany course is
that "vegetable" is strictly a marketing term with no scientific
meaning. No kidding. What we consumers think of as a "vegetable"
is generally a fruit, sometimes a tuber or other such plant part.

So it's proper to let the law students fight this one out. Which they
undoubtedly shall, since these matters are deeply rooted in the natural
desire of participants in a regulated market to proliferate and twist the
laws and regulations in order to cut themselves a special deal. This
all gets much too byzantine for me.

Joe "Unfortunately, we DO get all the government we pay for" Chew

Charles Lasner

unread,
May 15, 1992, 11:03:24 AM5/15/92
to
In article <chris.705897837@rufus> ch...@state.COM.AU (Chris Keane) writes:
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>In article <19...@israel.nysernet.org> war...@nysernet.org writes:
>>>In <1992May12.1...@swindon.ingr.com> d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:
>>>
>>>>The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
>>>
>>>The correct AFU answer is "tomato".
>
>>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.
>
>Haven't we already had this argument?

Tomatoes are sentient beings. Large ones have been known to be involved with
snuff films (the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes et al.).

cjl (don't call me shoreleave)

Larry M Headlund

unread,
May 15, 1992, 11:10:46 AM5/15/92
to
In article <chris.705897837@rufus> ch...@state.COM.AU (Chris Keane) writes:
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>In article <19...@israel.nysernet.org> war...@nysernet.org writes:
>>>In <1992May12.1...@swindon.ingr.com> d...@swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram) writes:
>>>
>>>>The score for carrots beats all other vegetables about 60%-40%.
>>>
>>>The correct AFU answer is "tomato".
>
>>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.
>
>Haven't we already had this argument?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A new candidate for official AFU motto?

Larry "Let's snuff this out while we still can" Headlund

--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345

Terry Carroll

unread,
May 15, 1992, 12:26:20 PM5/15/92
to
In article <1992May14.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <e5du02U...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tj...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.
>>
>>Ted, I'm surprised at you! Certainly tomatoes are vegetables. See
>>Nix v. Hedded, 149 US 304, 13 S.Ct. 881, 37. L.Ed. 745 (1893). Accord,
>>American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 US 1, 7, 51 S.Ct. 328,
>>329, 75 L.Ed. 801, ___ (1931).
>
>Counselor, are you saying Plessy-era decisions have validity in the
>rough-and-tumble world of the 1990's?

Hey, just because a case is old doesn't mean it isn't still good! We'll
talk to you after 50 years of practice and see if you're still good!

For recent citaions of _Nix_ with approval, see JSG Trading v. Tray-Wrap,
917 F.2d 75, 76 (1990); Hayes Freight LInes v. US, 163 Ct. Cl. 265 (1963)
(calling a JATO (jet-assisted-takeoff-and-landing) rocket motor a "high
explosive" rather than a rocket motor for tarriff purposes is as
legitimate as calling a tomato a vegetable).

Most recently, it was cited in Headly v. Chrysler (No. Civ. A. 88-1642-MA),
___ F.R.D. ___, 1991 WL 328035 (D. Mass., 12/18/91), explaining why "truth
in law" need not correspond to "actual truth" (I thought in first year law
school everyone took a pledge never to reveal that!), right after
characterizing the plaintiff's arguement with that of "a child, having
just been convicted of matricide and patricide, [seeking] mercy from the
court for the reason that he was then an orphan." (oh, those whacky,
flakey District Court judges!)

See also Godwin v. Carroll, 653 USnet 835 (1992), holding that a judge had
no duty to instruct the jury of its perogative to judge the vegatation as
well as the facts, given that ... Oh, sorry. Wrong thread.

Chuck Jordan

unread,
May 15, 1992, 1:16:28 PM5/15/92
to
In article <23...@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtc...@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.
>
>One of the few things I recall from my one and only botany course is
>that "vegetable" is strictly a marketing term with no scientific
>meaning. No kidding. What we consumers think of as a "vegetable"
>is generally a fruit, sometimes a tuber or other such plant part.
>
God forbid I should let this pass without adding my $.02 worth. Here's what
I picked up from my one and only botany course. "Vegetable" refers to the
vegetative part of a plant; "Fruit" refers to part of the reproductive part.

So, celery and broccoli, for example, are vegetables, a tomato is a fruit.
(To be absolutely precise, a tomato is a berry.)

Chuck "I was told there wouldn't be any botany in this newsgroup" Jordan


--
Chuck Jordan | jor...@castor.cs.uga.edu
"You don't necessarily have to be swallowed up by a black hole..."
"But it helps!" -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

Phil Gustafson

unread,
May 15, 1992, 9:48:37 PM5/15/92
to
>In article <e5du02U...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tj...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>>>But tomatoes aren't vegetables.
>>
>>Ted, I'm surprised at you! Certainly tomatoes are vegetables. See
>>[1893 legal decison]

>
>Counselor, are you saying Plessy-era decisions have validity in the
>rough-and-tumble world of the 1990's?

Perhaps between the two budding barristers we can answer a question:
What does one call a legal decision that is palpably incorrect as a matter
of fact? IN this case, our biological consultants have verified that
tomatoes are berries, which Mr. Cosentino (my produce man) assures me
are fruit.

I don't mean a popular word, like "bullshit". I mean a proper legal
term that says, "We are engaging in willing suspension of disbelief
here".

The former California law that declared draw poker a game of skill, and
thus legal, but stud poker a game of chance, and thus a nono, comes to
mind.

Phil "But Mr. Cosentino thinks tomatoes are vegetables, even if some
biologist calls them berries. 'They go in salad, not dessert', he said"
Gustafson


|play: ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG; {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil |
|work: phil@gsi; sgi!gsi!phil | Phil Gustafson |

| Widely recognized as a thoughtful harasser of the legal profession
since Hector was a pup. |

Kevin W. Plaxco

unread,
May 15, 1992, 5:12:52 PM5/15/92
to
In article <1992May14.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>How many answer "carrot" even if they aren't asked the arithmetic questions?

>It _is_ a pretty ubiqiutous root.
>

Yes, exactly.

We answer "carrot" because carrot is the 7.345th root of 5.

The answer tomato has no arithmatic significance what so ever.

-Kevin (Who got a C in math but an A in home ec.) Plaxco

Ted Frank

unread,
May 16, 1992, 11:07:19 AM5/16/92
to
In article <1992May16.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>Perhaps between the two budding barristers we can answer a question:
>What does one call a legal decision that is palpably incorrect as a matter
>of fact? IN this case, our biological consultants have verified that
>tomatoes are berries, which Mr. Cosentino (my produce man) assures me
>are fruit.
>
>I don't mean a popular word, like "bullshit". I mean a proper legal
>term that says, "We are engaging in willing suspension of disbelief
>here".

A "legal fiction." Richard Posner writes a bit about this in his "Law
and Literature" book, but examples abound. Law students everywhere
are painfully familiar with the fertile octagenarian, the magic gravel
pits, and the unborn widow of the Rule Against Perpetuities cases.
Motions for dismissal for failure to state a claim assume that the
non-mover's claim is factually correct, so we see appellate court judges
discussing the First Amendment rights of talking cats. And so on.

Warren Burstein

unread,
May 16, 1992, 7:41:41 PM5/16/92
to

>We answer "carrot" because carrot is the 7.345th root of 5.
>The answer tomato has no arithmatic significance what so ever.

We answer tomato because they are good for throwing.

Warren "Ouch! I didn't say CANNED!" Burstein
--
/|/-\/-\ The entire world Jerusalem
|__/__/_/ is a very bitter carrot.
|warren@ But the ***
/ nysernet.org is hungry.

ethyl bourn cell

unread,
May 18, 1992, 1:31:24 PM5/18/92
to

>God forbid I should let this pass without adding my $.02 worth. Here's what
>I picked up from my one and only botany course. "Vegetable" refers to the
>vegetative part of a plant; "Fruit" refers to part of the reproductive part.
>
>So, celery and broccoli, for example, are vegetables, a tomato is a fruit.

^^^^^^^^


>(To be absolutely precise, a tomato is a berry.)
>
>Chuck "I was told there wouldn't be any botany in this newsgroup" Jordan


but broccoli is the flower, and flowers are the reproductive parts
of plants, therefore broccoli is a fruit. but actually, you eat
not only the flowers (the little tiny darker green spheroids) but
also the stems, so broccoli is a fruit AND a vegetable.

-r
--
I worship the God of Formula One Motor Racing in a very ritualistic way
together with millions of zealous converts at vast open air rituals.
However worshipping the spirit of cat-kind can best be accomplished by
an informal tickle of my pet cat's ears. -Leo Smith

Terry Carroll

unread,
May 18, 1992, 5:25:32 PM5/18/92
to
In article <1992May16.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

> In article <1992May16.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
> (Phil Gustafson) writes:
> >Perhaps between the two budding barristers we can answer a question:
> >What does one call a legal decision that is palpably incorrect as a matter
> >of fact? IN this case, our biological consultants have verified that
> >tomatoes are berries, which Mr. Cosentino (my produce man) assures me
> >are fruit.
> >
> >I don't mean a popular word, like "bullshit". I mean a proper legal
> >term that says, "We are engaging in willing suspension of disbelief
> >here".
>
> A "legal fiction." Richard Posner writes a bit about this in his "Law
> and Literature" book, but examples abound. Law students everywhere
> are painfully familiar with the fertile octagenarian, the magic gravel
> pits, and the unborn widow of the Rule Against Perpetuities cases.
> Motions for dismissal for failure to state a claim assume that the
> non-mover's claim is factually correct, so we see appellate court judges
> discussing the First Amendment rights of talking cats. And so on.


I don't think that's _quite_ right, Ted, although I don't have a better
answer. A "legal fiction" is generally something that, technically, could
happen (fertile octagenarian, unborn widows, reasonable men; even the magic
gravel pits!). Phil's asking about judicial findings of fact (or fact/law)
that are clearly incorrect as applied to the real world, e.g., "a tomato is a
vegatable", when in fact, that can never be the case.

I like Phil's "bullshit" is the appropriate term.

-tc

Terry Carroll
Amdahl, Computer and Systems Architecture
"Chance favors the prepared mind" -Pasteur

Ted Frank

unread,
May 18, 1992, 6:34:09 PM5/18/92
to
In article <32JK02m...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tj...@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> >I don't mean a popular word, like "bullshit". I mean a proper legal
>> >term that says, "We are engaging in willing suspension of disbelief
>> >here".
>>
>> A "legal fiction." Richard Posner writes a bit about this in his "Law
>> and Literature" book, but examples abound.
>
>I don't think that's _quite_ right, Ted, although I don't have a better
>answer. A "legal fiction" is generally something that, technically, could
>happen (fertile octagenarian, unborn widows, reasonable men; even the magic
>gravel pits!). Phil's asking about judicial findings of fact (or fact/law)
>that are clearly incorrect as applied to the real world, e.g., "a tomato is a
>vegatable", when in fact, that can never be the case.

Often a court will engage in legal fictions that it knows not to be true,
however. They're less common now that civil procedure has moved beyond the
writ system, but "legal fiction" is the proper term, even if I haven't
come up with the most brilliant of examples.

Next time I see Posner's book in the library, I'll see if there's a quote
I can pull.


--
....................................
ted frank | th...@midway.uchicago.edu
the university of chicago law school

saw her walk in through the out door

Dave Manley

unread,
May 18, 1992, 8:25:10 PM5/18/92
to
In article <1992May16.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:

>...Mr. Cosentino (my produce man) assures me are fruit.
^^^^^

>Phil "...Mr. Cosentino thinks tomatoes are vegetables..." Gustafson
^^^^^^^^^^

So which is it?

Dave "Phil's produce man seems to go both ways" Manley

A.T. Fear

unread,
May 19, 1992, 6:46:56 AM5/19/92
to
Well the Oxford Dictionary defines a tomato as a fruit, and this is what
I was taught at school too. It doesn't seem right though does it,
imagine tomatoes and cream, yuk

Andy Fear cl...@uk.ac.Keele

Caroline E. Bryan

unread,
May 19, 1992, 8:24:01 PM5/19/92
to
In article <1992May18.1...@sco.com> calyxa @misco.UUCP (ethyl bourn cell) writes:
>
>In article <1992May15.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> jor...@castor.cs.uga.edu (Chuck Jordan) writes:
>
>> ... "Vegetable" refers to the vegetative part of a plant; "Fruit" refers

>> to part of the reproductive part. So, celery and broccoli, for example,
>> are vegetables, a tomato is a fruit.
>
> but broccoli is the flower, and flowers are the reproductive parts of
> plants, therefore broccoli is a fruit. but actually, you eat not only the
> flowers (the little tiny darker green spheroids) but also the stems, so
> broccoli is a fruit AND a vegetable.

Actually, the dictionary defines "vegetative" as "capable of growth". This
means that every part of a plant is "vegetable", including the reproductive
parts. Only when a part of a plant is dead does it cease being vegetable.

And a fruit is not just the reproductive part, but the reproductive part after
it has been fertilized and has grown a protective, potentially edible coating
over the new seed. So broccoli is NOT a fruit, because it hasn't gone to seed
yet. Nor are cauliflower, artichokes, or capers, all also somewhat commonly
eaten flowers. Likewise, almonds, corn, and rice are seeds, not fruit, be-
cause the covering (the shell or husk) is not edible.

This means that not only tomatoes, but also zucchini, okra, cucumbers, avo-
cados, and olives are all fruit; before they are harvested they are also all
vegetables.

Culinarily speaking, however, whether something is a fruit or a vegetable
depends solely on its general use. Generally speaking, if a part of a plant
is or accompanies the main course and is flavored with salt, savory herbs and
spices, or vinegar, it's a vegetable. Generally speaking, if a part of a
plant is eaten alone or for dessert or appetizer, and is sweetened and/or
made more tart using citrus juices -- but is NOT salted or made savory -- it
is a fruit. Of course, there are always exceptions, like duck l'orange and
peanut brittle, but they are known to be exceptions. In addition, what may
be considered a culinary vegetable in one culture may be considered a culi-
nary fruit in another, and vice versa.

While we're on the subject:

Can anyone figure out which vegetable (culinary!) this is?
You throw away the outside and cook the inside,
then you eat the outside and throw away the inside.


Carrie "from the sunny fruit and nut state" Bryan c...@dbrus.unify.com x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "There is no smaller package than a man wrapped up in himself" -- Anon. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Carrie c...@dbrus.unify.com x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "There is no smaller package than a man wrapped up in himself" -- Anon. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Phil Gustafson

unread,
May 19, 1992, 10:18:48 PM5/19/92
to
In article <10...@optilink.UUCP> man...@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>In article <1992May16.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>>...Mr. Cosentino (my produce man) assures me are fruit.
>>Phil "...Mr. Cosentino thinks tomatoes are vegetables..." Gustafson
>So which is it?
>Dave "Phil's produce man seems to go both ways" Manley

You seem to have eliminated rather a lot of carefully constructed context.
The root (sorry) of the matter that although Mr. C. admited that tomatoes
were berries, and berries were fruit, but insisted that they were vegetables
for pragmatic reasons.

In fact, although my produce does often come from Cosentino's, I used
the honored Lindenesque technique of Making Up That Part Out Of Whole
Cloth.

Phil "Perhaps I was a lawyer in a worse life" Gustafson

|play: ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG; {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil |
|work: phil@gsi; sgi!gsi!phil | Phil Gustafson |

| Widely recognized as a creator of a canard or two of my own since 1983 |

Arthur S. Kamlet

unread,
May 20, 1992, 12:38:51 AM5/20/92
to
In article <1992May18.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>> A "legal fiction." Richard Posner writes a bit about this in his "Law
>>> and Literature" book, but examples abound.
>>
>>I don't think that's _quite_ right, Ted, although I don't have a better
>>answer. A "legal fiction" is generally something that, technically, could
>>happen (fertile octagenarian, unborn widows, reasonable men; even the magic
>>gravel pits!). Phil's asking about judicial findings of fact (or fact/law)
>>that are clearly incorrect as applied to the real world, e.g., "a tomato is a
>>vegatable", when in fact, that can never be the case.
>
>Often a court will engage in legal fictions that it knows not to be true,
>however. They're less common now that civil procedure has moved beyond the
>writ system, but "legal fiction" is the proper term, even if I haven't
>come up with the most brilliant of examples.

I thought most criminal law was based on legal fiction.

If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, I have committed a
crime against the state, and a state prosecutor will bring charges,
on behalf of the state, not on your behalf.

Isn't this really a legal fiction?
--
Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus

Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)

unread,
May 20, 1992, 12:42:05 AM5/20/92
to
In article <1992May20.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>
>You seem to have eliminated rather a lot of carefully constructed context.
>The root (sorry) of the matter that although Mr. C. admited that tomatoes
>were berries, and berries were fruit, but insisted that they were vegetables
>for pragmatic reasons.

Ah, but being fruits they are therefore vegetables. If it comes from
a plant and you can eat it, it's a vegetable. Trust me - I'm a vegetarian B->.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/t...@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
"An independant reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be
ascribed to the phenomenon nor to the agencies of observation."
-- Niels Bohr

Stephanie da Silva

unread,
May 20, 1992, 12:14:52 AM5/20/92
to
In article <15...@necis.UUCP>, dly...@necis.UUCP (Dave Lyons) writes:
>
> Fruits are vegetables that have the seeds inside and pulp on the outside:

You mean like strawberries?
--
Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park * Houston, Texas
ari...@taronga.com 568-0480 568-1032

Margaret Hudacko

unread,
May 20, 1992, 10:24:43 AM5/20/92
to
In article <uu7...@Unify.Com> c...@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>
>While we're on the subject:
>
>Can anyone figure out which vegetable (culinary!) this is?
> You throw away the outside and cook the inside,
> then you eat the outside and throw away the inside.

Geez, what a CORNY question. <GRIN>

Margaret Hudacko
marg...@ecesis.ncsu.edu

Margaret E. H. Hudacko
marg...@ecebucolix.ncsu.edu
Carpe Diem

Seth Breidbart

unread,
May 20, 1992, 12:56:25 PM5/20/92
to
Isn't a better example of a legal fiction the story of the haunted
house (that was posted a few months ago): The seller had previously
claimed the house was haunted, the buyer rescinded the contract on the
grounds that the house was haunted and he hadn't been informed by the
seller.

The judge ruled that since both buyer and seller agreed that the house
was haunted, it would be assumed to be haunted, and then went on to
rule based on the applicable law.

Seth "many legal rulings are too unbelievable to be folklore" Breidbart

Glen Ecklund

unread,
May 20, 1992, 12:49:38 PM5/20/92
to
In <uu7...@Unify.Com> c...@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:


>Can anyone figure out which vegetable (culinary!) this is?
> You throw away the outside and cook the inside,
> then you eat the outside and throw away the inside.


Corn (maize)

I heard that botanically, a fruit is a certain part of the reproductive
system (the ovary?) after the seeds have developed and it contains them.
The twist is that in peas, the pod is the fruit, and in apples, the core
is the fruit.
--
Every child shall be treated with complete respect.

Glen Ecklund gl...@cs.wisc.edu (608) 262-5084
Department of Computer Sciences 1210 W. Dayton St.
University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, Wis. 53706 U.S.A.

clayton EDward LEIHY iii

unread,
May 20, 1992, 12:06:24 PM5/20/92
to
In article <uu7...@Unify.Com> c...@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992May18.1...@sco.com> calyxa @misco.UUCP (ethyl bourn cell) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992May15.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> jor...@castor.cs.uga.edu (Chuck Jordan) writes:
>>
>>> ... "Vegetable" refers to . . .
>>
>> plants, therefore broccoli is a fruit. . . .

>>
>> broccoli is a fruit AND a vegetable.
>
>Actually, the dictionary defines "vegetative" as "capable of growth".

Say, anyone else remember the old guessing game *Twenty Questions*??

As I recall, one of the guesses was always

"Animal, Mineral, or Vegetable?"

(supposedly covering everything which exists on this planet)

I suppose, taken in this context, of course (as has been pointed out)
all Fruits are Vegetables.

And we are all Animals...

>Can anyone figure out which vegetable (culinary!) this is?
> You throw away the outside and cook the inside,
> then you eat the outside and throw away the inside.


Corn on the Cob??

Do I Win???


Eduardo

ethyl bourn cell

unread,
May 20, 1992, 11:55:57 AM5/20/92
to

In article <uu7...@Unify.Com> c...@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992May18.1...@sco.com> calyxa @misco.UUCP (ethyl bourn cell) writes:
>>In article <1992May15.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> jor...@castor.cs.uga.edu (Chuck Jordan) writes:
>>> ... "Vegetable" refers to the vegetative part of a plant; "Fruit" refers
>>> to part of the reproductive part. So, celery and broccoli, for example,
>>> are vegetables, a tomato is a fruit.

>> but broccoli is the flower, and flowers are the reproductive parts of
>> plants, therefore broccoli is a fruit. but actually, you eat not only the
>> flowers (the little tiny darker green spheroids) but also the stems, so
>> broccoli is a fruit AND a vegetable.

>Actually, the dictionary defines "vegetative" as "capable of growth". This
>means that every part of a plant is "vegetable", including the reproductive
>parts. Only when a part of a plant is dead does it cease being vegetable.

so everything we call "vegetables" aren't really, 'cuz they're all
incapable of growth by the time we get them... well, a potato will
sprout, but the thing we call a potato isn't growing anymore.

we should really be telling our children to "eat your various plant bits".

>And a fruit is not just the reproductive part, but the reproductive part after
>it has been fertilized and has grown a protective, potentially edible coating
>over the new seed. So broccoli is NOT a fruit, because it hasn't gone to seed
>yet. Nor are cauliflower, artichokes, or capers, all also somewhat commonly
>eaten flowers. Likewise, almonds, corn, and rice are seeds, not fruit, be-
>cause the covering (the shell or husk) is not edible.

ok, that makes sense.

>This means that not only tomatoes, but also zucchini, okra, cucumbers, avo-
>cados, and olives are all fruit; before they are harvested they are also all
>vegetables.

does this mean that *everything* we call "fruit" can be considered
"vegetable" because they grow?

[ culinary stuff deleted ]


>While we're on the subject:
>Can anyone figure out which vegetable (culinary!) this is?
> You throw away the outside and cook the inside,
> then you eat the outside and throw away the inside.

corn on the cob.

Terry Carroll

unread,
May 20, 1992, 9:53:12 PM5/20/92
to
In article <1992May20....@fid.morgan.com>, se...@fid.morgan.com (Seth
Breidbart) writes:

> Isn't a better example of a legal fiction the story of the haunted
> house (that was posted a few months ago): The seller had previously
> claimed the house was haunted, the buyer rescinded the contract on the
> grounds that the house was haunted and he hadn't been informed by the
> seller.
>
> The judge ruled that since both buyer and seller agreed that the house
> was haunted, it would be assumed to be haunted, and then went on to
> rule based on the applicable law.

Good case. The defendant offered the house for sale after having made money
by giving tours of it as a "haunted house". The court ruled that, since the
defendant had all along asserted that the house was haunted, except when he
sold it to an unsuspecting individual, he was not permitted to (in legal
terms, he was "estopped from") now asserting that it was not haunted.

So the plaintiff said "it's haunted", and the defendant was not able to
assert otherwise. Since this was a set of facts on which the parties
"agreed", the court took it into consideration as a real fact.

It was a real cool opinion. The judge writing the opinion made all sorts of
puns ("in the spirit of the contract"; "the defendant hasn't a ghost of a
chance", etc.). The judge writing the dissent clearly had no sense of humor,
and made no jokes, ending the opinion with a phrase like "If New York is to
abandon the doctrine of caveat emptor, it should be for more substantial
reasons than a poltergeist."

The neat thing is that, prior to this case, NY was pretty much a caveat
emptor jurisdiction, so scores of cases in the future will be referring to
this ghost case as legal precedent (if it was the NY Court of Appeals
(equivalent of most states "Supreme Court", which is what NY calls its lower
courts, where cases are tried)), of course; something in my memory makes me
think it may have been a decision of the more mere Appellate Division
(equivalent to most states' court of appeals)).

Terry Carroll

unread,
May 20, 1992, 9:44:01 PM5/20/92
to
In article <1992May20.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com>, a...@cbnews.cb.att.com
(Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:

> I thought most criminal law was based on legal fiction.
>
> If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, I have committed a
> crime against the state, and a state prosecutor will bring charges,
> on behalf of the state, not on your behalf.
>
> Isn't this really a legal fiction?

No, not at all. The state has an interest in keeping the peace, so the state
interest is in reducing crime; a very real interest.

btw, I'm directing followups to misc.legal to keep from annoying the good,
but long-suffering, folks in alt.folklore.urban.

-tc

Cyndi Cuppernell

unread,
May 21, 1992, 12:11:51 AM5/21/92
to
c...@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:


>While we're on the subject:

>Can anyone figure out which vegetable (culinary!) this is?
> You throw away the outside and cook the inside,
> then you eat the outside and throw away the inside.

Corn on the cob.

Cyndi Cuppernell

Phil Gustafson

unread,
May 20, 1992, 10:12:59 PM5/20/92
to
In article <uu7...@Unify.Com> c...@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>Culinarily speaking, however, whether something is a fruit or a vegetable
>depends solely on its general use.

Exactly. Vegetables go well with garlic; fruits go well with chocolate.
We don't worry about botany when we're going to dine.

Phil "There are two basic food groups: the garlic group and the
chocolate group" Gustafson

|play: ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG; {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil |
|work: phil@gsi; sgi!gsi!phil | Phil Gustafson |

| Widely recognized as a thoughtful debunker of gastronimic
canards since 1985 |

Cyndi Cuppernell

unread,
May 21, 1992, 1:20:37 AM5/21/92
to
ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:

>In article <uu7...@Unify.Com> c...@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E.
Bryan) writes:
>>Culinarily speaking, however, whether something is a fruit or a
vegetable
>>depends solely on its general use.

I also heard that there is a legal definition in the US. Tomatoes
are legally a vegetable, so my source says. This definition
decided which tarif would be used when importing tomatoes from
Mexico.

>Exactly. Vegetables go well with garlic; fruits go well with
chocolate.
>We don't worry about botany when we're going to dine.

>Phil "There are two basic food groups: the garlic group and the
>chocolate group" Gustafson

I couldn't have said it better.

Cyndi Cuppernell

read...@vax.oxford.ac.uk

unread,
May 20, 1992, 5:03:03 PM5/20/92
to

Believe it!!! Believe it!!! Tomatoes were originally eaten as sweet fruit in
Britain. Try a sweet variety with cream and sugar - just as good as
strawberries.


Ian Johnston
i_johnston @ uk.ac.open.acs.vax

Jeff Davis

unread,
May 21, 1992, 9:14:41 AM5/21/92
to
Phil Gustafson writes:
>
>Phil "There are two basic food groups: the garlic group and the
>chocolate group" Gustafson
>
No. For what I hope will be the last time. There are 4 basic food groups:

There's your carbonated beverages, your salted snacks, your fried
foods, and your chocolates. Very important to get these in the
proper balance, too.

Thanks, Cliff.

--
Jeff Davis <da...@keats.ca.uky.edu>

Michelle Clinard

unread,
May 21, 1992, 9:34:47 AM5/21/92
to
In article <1992May21.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>
>Exactly. Vegetables go well with garlic; fruits go well with chocolate.


Hate to throw a wrench into the works, but raw broccoli tastes great
when dipped in a chocolate fondue. Carrots are even better. Don't know
that I'd be willing to try strawberries with garlic, though. :-)

Michelle "everything goes good with chocolate" Clinard

YuNoHoo

unread,
May 21, 1992, 11:20:04 AM5/21/92
to
In article <1992May21....@ms.uky.edu>, fe...@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>Phil Gustafson writes:
>>
>>Phil "There are two basic food groups: the garlic group and the
>>chocolate group" Gustafson
>>
>No. For what I hope will be the last time. There are 4 basic food groups:
>
>There's your carbonated beverages, your salted snacks, your fried
>foods, and your chocolates. Very important to get these in the
>proper balance, too.

Shoot! What food group is Lutefisk?
Ok, it doesn't taste like chicken, and the smell's far from asparagus.
(But, I guess it stinks up pee. :-))

---
YuNoHoo "Hey! There's no kidney in my steak'n'kidney pie"

Dave Manley

unread,
May 21, 1992, 7:51:09 PM5/21/92
to
In article <1992May20.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>In article <10...@optilink.UUCP> man...@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>>In article <1992May16.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:

>>>...Mr. Cosentino (my produce man) assures me are fruit.

>>>Phil "...Mr. Cosentino thinks tomatoes are vegetables..." Gustafson

>>So which is it?

>>Dave "Phil's produce man seems to go both ways" Manley

>You seem to have eliminated rather a lot of carefully constructed context.

Dave "I was told we didn't have to keep carefully constructed context in this newsgroup" Manley

Michael Qvortrup

unread,
May 22, 1992, 9:15:16 AM5/22/92
to
In article <l1n9nn...@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> cli...@cs.utk.edu (Michelle Clinard) writes:
>In article <1992May21.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>>
>>Exactly. Vegetables go well with garlic; fruits go well with chocolate.
>
>
>Hate to throw a wrench into the works, but raw broccoli tastes great
>when dipped in a chocolate fondue. Carrots are even better. Don't know
>that I'd be willing to try strawberries with garlic, though. :-)

Chocolate fundue?

Are you serious or is it just part of `nouvelle cuisine Americaine'?

(Pst :-))

Greetings,
--Mike "who never signs using his last name"

--
#include <std-disclm.h>--"... and there is a small flaw in my character."---
Real Life: Michael Christian Heide Qvortrup A Dane ETH, Zuerich
e-mail : qvor...@inf.ethz.ch abroad Switzerland
Institut fuer wissenschaftliches Rechnen / Inst. of Scientific Computation

Caroline E. Bryan

unread,
May 22, 1992, 1:23:42 PM5/22/92
to
In article <l1n9nn...@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> cli...@cs.utk.edu (Michelle Clinard) writes:
>In article <1992May21.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>>
>>Exactly. Vegetables go well with garlic; fruits go well with chocolate.
>
>Hate to throw a wrench into the works, but raw broccoli tastes great
>when dipped in a chocolate fondue. Carrots are even better. Don't know
>that I'd be willing to try strawberries with garlic, though. :-)

Not to mention the old Mexican recipe for chicken with chocolate sauce.
Yum!

"chicken-fruit bush off the kitchen steps"
Carrie c...@dbrus.unify.com x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "With the force of ten billion butterfly sneezes" - The Moody Blues |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Charles Lasner

unread,
May 23, 1992, 3:41:13 AM5/23/92
to
In article <ju4...@Unify.Com> c...@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <l1n9nn...@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> cli...@cs.utk.edu (Michelle Clinard) writes:
>>In article <1992May21.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>>>
>>>Exactly. Vegetables go well with garlic; fruits go well with chocolate.
>>
>>Hate to throw a wrench into the works, but raw broccoli tastes great
>>when dipped in a chocolate fondue. Carrots are even better. Don't know
>>that I'd be willing to try strawberries with garlic, though. :-)
>
>Not to mention the old Mexican recipe for chicken with chocolate sauce.
>Yum!

Before they get you, I'll point out that Chicken Brown Mole has to taste
like chicken (not 'gator, hamster (with or without duct tape), gerbil,
or molemeat for that matter) because it *IS* chicken. A little bitter due
to the unsweetened chocolate, but none-the-less chicken. (Not Mexican
Chiuahuah Rat either.) And there are places where you can get it for
less than two-fifty, but most charge more this side of the Baja. (And
they don't use asparagus with it either, so no pee-stink references either,
please :-).)

Since this is a rather spicy dish, it is possible that Churchill (or
Disraeli for that matter) might have thrown up on someone's shoes after
eating it, but I doubt that you can can pay the restauranteur with can tabs.
However, you should probably collect the restaurant's business card just
in case it might help someone in need of breaking some record. Then again,
some pilots may have eaten there without mentioning either their altitude or
ground speed.

cjl (Does Richard Gere like Mexican food?)

Cindy Kandolf

unread,
May 23, 1992, 8:43:35 AM5/23/92
to
AFUs favorite Norskie, YuNoHoo, writes:
>Shoot! What food group is Lutefisk?

Lutefisk cannot belong to any food group because it is not food.

>Ok, it doesn't taste like chicken, and the smell's far from asparagus.
>(But, I guess it stinks up pee. :-))

And anything else it gets anywhere near ;-)

-Cindy Kandolf
ci...@solan.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway

HYuNoHoo

unread,
May 23, 1992, 12:45:11 PM5/23/92
to
Twice this week, Cindy writes

>
>AFUs favorite Norskie, YuNoHoo, writes:

Do I see another AFU Europe coming up...

---
YuNoHoo "my place or your place"

Cindy Kandolf

unread,
May 24, 1992, 4:41:08 PM5/24/92
to
>Twice this week, Cindy writes
>>
>>AFUs favorite Norskie, YuNoHoo, writes:
>
>Do I see another AFU Europe coming up...

I dunno, Yu. Last time we tried that, you left the pickles outside
to freeze.

Hey! Picklesicles! Something to go with a McLutefisk sandwich!

>YuNoHoo "my place or your place"

ObUL: Dandelion leaves may be used in salad, but the rest of the plant
is toxic.

-Cindy Kandolf
ci...@solan.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway

I think that's enough cullinary commentary for one day...


YuNoHoo

unread,
May 25, 1992, 4:48:47 AM5/25/92
to
In article <CINDY.92M...@solan.unit.no>, Cindy Kandolf writes:
>
>>Do I see another AFU Europe coming up...
>
>I dunno, Yu. Last time we tried that, you left the pickles outside
>to freeze.

I see, first I'll go to the US to buy more pickles, then it's AFU Europe time...

>ObUL: Dandelion leaves may be used in salad, but the rest of the plant
>is toxic.

Guess I'll stop drinking that dandelion wine... :-)

---
YuNoHoo

Nick Gibbins

unread,
May 25, 1992, 5:48:32 AM5/25/92
to
In article <CINDY.92M...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>ObUL: Dandelion leaves may be used in salad, but the rest of the plant
>is toxic.
>
Dandelions are toxic? Does this mean that drinking dandelion (mock)
coffee is bad for you? Or what about dandelion and burdock (yeecch!)?

ObUL: Dandelion coffee is a lie - even when you roast the roots, it _still_
tastes _nothing_ like coffee.

ObUL2: Dandelions are not actually toxic, however dandelion sap is a mild
diuretic and purgative. ( Yes, and no doubt it _does_ stink up pee *8-)

- Nick

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Gibbins | "I would despair, but the situation is too
ngib...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk | hopeless even for such a minimally positive
cs...@csv.warwick.ac.uk | action. I shall stay in bed."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Price

unread,
May 26, 1992, 2:14:49 PM5/26/92
to

>In article <CINDY.92M...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>>ObUL: Dandelion leaves may be used in salad, but the rest of the plant
>>is toxic.

This may account for the heaviness of post-dandelion wine hangovers
:(

> Dandelions are toxic? Does this mean that drinking dandelion (mock)
>coffee is bad for you? Or what about dandelion and burdock (yeecch!)?

>ObUL: Dandelion coffee is a lie - even when you roast the roots, it _still_
> tastes _nothing_ like coffee.

>ObUL2: Dandelions are not actually toxic, however dandelion sap is a mild
> diuretic and purgative. ( Yes, and no doubt it _does_ stink up pee *8-)

> - Nick
Ohhhh, is this why picking dandelions is supposed to make you wet
the bed? (I always thought any effect was the result of self-fulfilling
prophecy).

MP

Cynthia Kandolf

unread,
May 26, 1992, 5:26:12 PM5/26/92
to
A bit of clarification:

I don't believe dandelions are toxic, even "except for the leaves".
Myself, i regard this as yet another slander against dandelions.
Some people just can't stand it when Mamma Nature manages to grow
prettier flowers without even trying than they can in their garden
after spending mucho mula on fertilizers and fancy equipment.

My family used to have a Chihuahua (honest!) who liked going for
walks. However, when we'd take her on a walk, she would pull on her
leash the whole time, until we came to either a place where other
dogs had left their bodily wastes (SNFSNFSNFSNFSNF) or a dandelion.
She would try to eat the dandelion. The neighbors would always warn
me not to let her eat the dandelion: "It's poisonous!" When i'd say
that my great-grandmother sometimes put dandelion leaves in her
salad, and she lived to be ninety-something, they would correct
themselves: "Except for the leaves."

The Chihuahua died of complications from diabetes, not from dandelion
munching, by the way.

I don't think anyone in the area made dandelion wine - this was a
rather religious area - but the fact that some people do shows that
if the sap is poisonous, it must be a pretty mild toxin!

Michael Meissner

unread,
May 26, 1992, 11:18:03 PM5/26/92
to
In article <CINDY.92M...@solan10.solan.unit.no>
ci...@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

| A bit of clarification:
|
| I don't believe dandelions are toxic, even "except for the leaves".
| Myself, i regard this as yet another slander against dandelions.
| Some people just can't stand it when Mamma Nature manages to grow
| prettier flowers without even trying than they can in their garden
| after spending mucho mula on fertilizers and fancy equipment.

After watching my 4 1/2 year old daughter, I've come to the
conclusion, that while some plants need honeybees to reproduce,
dandelions just need little girls and boys to continue their life
cycle.
--
Michael Meissner email: meis...@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861
Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142

You are in a twisty little passage of standards, all conflicting.

Stirling Westrup

unread,
May 26, 1992, 6:48:21 PM5/26/92
to
c...@nsscmail.att.com (clayton EDward LEIHY iii) writes

>
>Say, anyone else remember the old guessing game *Twenty Questions*??
>
>As I recall, one of the guesses was always
>
> "Animal, Mineral, or Vegetable?"
>
>(supposedly covering everything which exists on this planet)

I remember when we were playing this in Elementary school, and I was the
person that had to think up an item for the class to guess. I chose fire,
and the teacher got upset when I claimed it was neither animal, vegetable,
nor mineral. She said I should have claimed it was mineral, and I felt
that to be a truely stupid idea. On the other hand, she was right about
Kiwi's having feathers. I'd only seen pictures of them, and had somehow
gotten the idea that the Kiwi was the worlds only bird with fur...

--
Please excuse any errors in the | Stirling G. Westrup
above post. Occasional lapses of| BIX : swestrup
omniscience is the price I pay | UUCP: stir...@ozrout.uucp
for being implementable. | INET: stirling%ozrou...@netserv.sobeco.com

Henry Troup

unread,
May 27, 1992, 9:24:22 AM5/27/92
to
Botanically, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, eggplants, and everything else that
develops from a flower and has seeds is a fruit.

Henry Troup - H...@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
origamicartophobia - fear of having to refold the road map

Mark Eckenwiler

unread,
May 27, 1992, 9:57:37 AM5/27/92
to
>In article <CINDY.92M...@solan10.solan.unit.no>
>ci...@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>
>| A bit of clarification:
>|
>| I don't believe dandelions are toxic, even "except for the leaves".

While they aren't toxic, they are a diuretic. As a recent letter in
the NYTimes observed, that's why the _dent de lion_ has also been
called "pissenlit" (piss the bed) for centuries. (The writer did not
mention whether they cause your pee to stink.)


Mark "Dandelions and candiru *don't* mix" Eckenwiler

--
Apres moi, Les Etooges.

Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Chris.Hilker

unread,
May 27, 1992, 11:03:21 PM5/27/92
to

In article <phil.70...@adam.adelaide.edu.au> ph...@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick) writes:
>Fire is definitely mineral. It is a cloud (ok you come up with a better
>word) of red hot particles.

But those particles are most often organic, no? Does burning wood
make it non-vegetable?

C.
--
They have corrupted themselves, |
their spot is not the spot of his children: | Chris.Hilker
they are a perverse and crooked generation. | cs...@cats.ucsc.edu

Phil Kernick

unread,
May 27, 1992, 10:09:28 PM5/27/92
to
stir...@ozrout.uucp (Stirling Westrup) writes:
>c...@nsscmail.att.com (clayton EDward LEIHY iii) writes
>> "Animal, Mineral, or Vegetable?"

>I chose fire,
>and the teacher got upset when I claimed it was neither animal, vegetable,
>nor mineral.

Fire is definitely mineral. It is a cloud (ok you come up with a better


word) of red hot particles.

If you want one that really isn't Animal, Vegetable or Mineral, pick...

A Shadow.


Regards,
Phil.
--
_-_|\ Phil Kernick E-Mail: ph...@adam.adelaide.edu.au
/ \ Departmental Engineer Phone: +61 8 228 5914
\_.-*_/ Dept. of Psychology Fax: +61 8 224 0464
v University of Adelaide Mail: GPO Box 498 Adelaide SA 5001

bill nelson

unread,
May 28, 1992, 3:14:13 PM5/28/92
to
ph...@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick) writes:
:
: >I chose fire,

: >and the teacher got upset when I claimed it was neither animal, vegetable,
: >nor mineral.
:
: Fire is definitely mineral. It is a cloud (ok you come up with a better
: word) of red hot particles.

Oh? Would burning animal fat be mineral? How about burning broccoli - would
it stink up your urine, as well as the air?

Fire, itself, is a phenomenon of combustion, it is not a material. The
resultant products of the combustion are materials - solid particles, water
vapor (sometimes) and gases.

: If you want one that really isn't Animal, Vegetable or Mineral, pick...
:
: A Shadow.

Once again, a shadow is a phenomenon - not a material.

Bill

Stirling Westrup

unread,
May 28, 1992, 1:31:58 PM5/28/92
to
ph...@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick) writes

>stir...@ozrout.uucp (Stirling Westrup) writes:
>>c...@nsscmail.att.com (clayton EDward LEIHY iii) writes
>>> "Animal, Mineral, or Vegetable?"
>
>>I chose fire,
>>and the teacher got upset when I claimed it was neither animal, vegetable,
>>nor mineral.
>
>Fire is definitely mineral. It is a cloud (ok you come up with a better
>word) of red hot particles.
>
>If you want one that really isn't Animal, Vegetable or Mineral, pick...
>
> A Shadow.

True. Of course, in the 7th grade of elementary school, no one had
bothered to explain what caused the appearance of the flame. As far as I
was concerned fire was simply an exothermic transformation of materials.
It was a process, more than a thing.