Bizarre definition of "bad language"

[Paul Epstein]

I've just been listening to Tom Robinson's famous song from 1983:
Listen To The Radio.

I find it utterly bizarre and utterly reprehensible that then (and this
is probably true to some extent now), the lyrics *********"Smoke another
cigarette"********* were considered absolutely fine but words like
"fuck", "wank", "shit" etc. which denote perfectly normal and healthy
human activities were/are severely restricted, and perhaps banned
entirely.

Totally outrageous.

Paul Epstein

[Peter T. Daniels]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

No one Over Here would have a problem with "wank." Does it appear
in many songs that have had to be edited for broadcast?

BTW you can say all the dirty words you want in non-broadcast
media (such as cable tV), because they don't fall under the purview
of the FCC.

1983 is pretty early for widespread social disapproval of smoking.

[Jerry Friedman]

It was also commonly remarked at the time that you could show a
murder but not a married couple having joyous sex.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Quinn C]

* Jerry Friedman:

To this day, the same amount of sex or (cross-thread alert) even just
nudity will result in a higher rating in the US compared to many
European countries or Canada, whereas the same amount of violence will
drive them further up in Europe.

--
- You all packed?
- Vagabond shoes and all. And pepper spray. For if we run into
that Trump character.
-- Veronica Mars, S02E22 (2006)

[Peter Moylan]

There were many complaints at the time about excessive sex and violence
in movies. The response was to ban the sex and increase the violence.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Paul Carmichael]

Sometimes I felt that it would have been better to show the results of
wanton violence. I'm thinking particularly of "The A Team". They
regularly sprayed bullets all over the place and not one person got
injured.


--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Hibou]

Am I right in thinking that was D.H. Lawrence's position? I seem to
recall he deliberately used the word 'fuck' in 'Lady Chatterley' because
it's the only straightforward English word for the act.

(It's decades since I read it.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:39:39 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Jerry Friedman:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:06:18 AM UTC-6, Paul Epstein wrote:

> >> I've just been listening to Tom Robinson's famous song from 1983:
> >> Listen To The Radio.
> >> I find it utterly bizarre and utterly reprehensible that then (and this
> >> is probably true to some extent now), the lyrics *********"Smoke another
> >> cigarette"********* were considered absolutely fine but words like
> >> "fuck", "wank", "shit" etc. which denote perfectly normal and healthy
> >> human activities were/are severely restricted, and perhaps banned
> >> entirely.
> >> Totally outrageous.
> > It was also commonly remarked at the time that you could show a
> > murder but not a married couple having joyous sex.
>
> To this day, the same amount of sex or (cross-thread alert) even just
> nudity will result in a higher rating in the US compared to many
> European countries or Canada, whereas the same amount of violence will
> drive them further up in Europe.

In the mid 1980s (before NPR had invented Weekend Edition Sunday),
WBEZ in Chicago carried the CBC's Sunday morning program. The word
"fuck" was heard on that program from time to time.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Sam Peckinpah achieved notoriety for doing so in his films. Wasn't
*The Wild Bunch* the extremest of them? And *Bonnie and Clyde*
was shocking in the degree of shooting-aftermath that was shown.
And that was a long time ago.

[S K]

Megyn Kelly the dyed plastic surgerized "nordic blonde" REVELS in saying "fuck" on her podcast these days.

[bruce bowser]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:39:39 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> * Jerry Friedman:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:06:18 AM UTC-6, Paul Epstein wrote:
> >> I've just been listening to Tom Robinson's famous song from 1983:
> >> Listen To The Radio.
> >>
> >> I find it utterly bizarre and utterly reprehensible that then (and this
> >> is probably true to some extent now), the lyrics *********"Smoke another
> >> cigarette"********* were considered absolutely fine but words like
> >> "fuck", "wank", "shit" etc. which denote perfectly normal and healthy
> >> human activities were/are severely restricted, and perhaps banned
> >> entirely.
> >>
> >> Totally outrageous.
> >
> > It was also commonly remarked at the time that you could show a
> > murder but not a married couple having joyous sex.
> To this day, the same amount of sex or (cross-thread alert) even just
> nudity will result in a higher rating in the US compared to many
> European countries or Canada, whereas the same amount of violence will
> drive them further up in Europe.

Sounds like a trust between Hollywood and where? London or Amsterdam?

[bruce bowser]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:39:39 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> * Jerry Friedman:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:06:18 AM UTC-6, Paul Epstein wrote:
> >> I've just been listening to Tom Robinson's famous song from 1983:
> >> Listen To The Radio.
> >>
> >> I find it utterly bizarre and utterly reprehensible that then (and this
> >> is probably true to some extent now), the lyrics *********"Smoke another
> >> cigarette"********* were considered absolutely fine but words like
> >> "fuck", "wank", "shit" etc. which denote perfectly normal and healthy
> >> human activities were/are severely restricted, and perhaps banned
> >> entirely.
> >>
> >> Totally outrageous.
> >
> > It was also commonly remarked at the time that you could show a
> > murder but not a married couple having joyous sex.
> To this day, the same amount of sex or (cross-thread alert) even just
> nudity will result in a higher rating in the US compared to many
> European countries or Canada, whereas the same amount of violence will
> drive them further up in Europe.

It makes you wonder how the new military Ukrainian/Russian ultra-graphic-violence selfies and videos are going over in Western Europe.

[Hibou]

Le 05/10/2022 à 08:20, Paul Carmichael a écrit :
>
> Sometimes I felt that it would have been better to show the results of
> wanton violence. I'm thinking particularly of "The A Team". They
> regularly sprayed bullets all over the place and not one person got
> injured.

Yes, if it were more realistic, there would be less of it.

I haven't seen 'The A Team', but I do occasionally watch Bond films
(less often now they've grown more serious and removed the gratuitous
sex). If only people realised that even 'expendable' henchmen have
relatives, dependents, girlfriends, wives and kids!

[occam]

This sounds like the dietary battleground between 'fat' and 'sugar' in
the US. The FDA sided with sugar (encouraged by the sugar lobby) by
identifying fat as the culprit, back in the 1970s.

The result was an increase of sugar consumption in a lot of foodstuff,
due to industry-wide uptake. The 41% obesity rate in the US speaks for
itself.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On the *Hawaii Five-O* reboot (I didn't watch the original), it was
remarkable how the good guys' aim was always perfect but the
bad guys couldn't hit the side of a barn (if they had barns in Hawai`i).

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 4:34:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:

> This sounds like the dietary battleground between 'fat' and 'sugar' in
> the US. The FDA sided with sugar (encouraged by the sugar lobby) by
> identifying fat as the culprit, back in the 1970s.

If there's a "sugar lobby," they're a conspicuous failure. Just about every
commercial product uses "high-fructose corn syrup" rather than sugar.

Apparently it's possible to find imported Mexican Coca-Cola made with
sugar not HFCS, but I've been using diet sodas for a very long time.

> The result was an increase of sugar consumption in a lot of foodstuff,
> due to industry-wide uptake. The 41% obesity rate in the US speaks for
> itself.

Can hardly be attributed to sugar.

[occam]

On 06/10/2022 15:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 4:34:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
>
>> This sounds like the dietary battleground between 'fat' and 'sugar' in
>> the US. The FDA sided with sugar (encouraged by the sugar lobby) by
>> identifying fat as the culprit, back in the 1970s.
>
> If there's a "sugar lobby," they're a conspicuous failure. Just about every
> commercial product uses "high-fructose corn syrup" rather than sugar.
>

Nincompoop. 'High-Fructose corn syrup' is but one name for sugar. I
counted 25 on the list.

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/food-recipes/healthy/a18910/types-of-sugar-0921/

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 9:29:15 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> On 06/10/2022 15:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 4:34:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> >
> >> This sounds like the dietary battleground between 'fat' and 'sugar' in
> >> the US. The FDA sided with sugar (encouraged by the sugar lobby) by
> >> identifying fat as the culprit, back in the 1970s.
> >
> > If there's a "sugar lobby," they're a conspicuous failure. Just about every
> > commercial product uses "high-fructose corn syrup" rather than sugar.
> >
> Nincompoop. 'High-Fructose corn syrup' is but one name for sugar. I
> counted 25 on the list.

"Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."

Fructose is one of the several sugars, chemicals named with "-ose,"
but it's not "sugar" _tout court_.

Nincompoop.

> https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/food-recipes/healthy/a18910/types-of-sugar-0921/

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-10-06, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 9:29:15 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
>> On 06/10/2022 15:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 4:34:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
>> >
>> >> This sounds like the dietary battleground between 'fat' and 'sugar' in
>> >> the US. The FDA sided with sugar (encouraged by the sugar lobby) by
>> >> identifying fat as the culprit, back in the 1970s.
>> >
>> > If there's a "sugar lobby," they're a conspicuous failure. Just about every
>> > commercial product uses "high-fructose corn syrup" rather than sugar.
>> >
>> Nincompoop. 'High-Fructose corn syrup' is but one name for sugar. I
>> counted 25 on the list.
>
> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
> Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."

Only if you're buying a bag of it.

Not if you're talking about nutrition.

> Fructose is one of the several sugars, chemicals named with "-ose,"
> but it's not "sugar" _tout court_.
>
> Nincompoop.
>
>> https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/food-recipes/healthy/a18910/types-of-sugar-0921/

--
it's the nexus of the crisis
and the origin of storms

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2022-10-06, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 9:29:15 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> >> On 06/10/2022 15:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 4:34:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:

> >> >> This sounds like the dietary battleground between 'fat' and 'sugar' in
> >> >> the US. The FDA sided with sugar (encouraged by the sugar lobby) by
> >> >> identifying fat as the culprit, back in the 1970s.
> >> > If there's a "sugar lobby," they're a conspicuous failure. Just about every
> >> > commercial product uses "high-fructose corn syrup" rather than sugar.
> >> Nincompoop. 'High-Fructose corn syrup' is but one name for sugar. I
> >> counted 25 on the list.
> > "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
> > Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>
> Only if you're buying a bag of it.
>
> Not if you're talking about nutrition.

But we're talking about a "sugar lobby," That wouldn't be the corn
industry of Iowa and environs.

[Tony Cooper]

Floridians would scoff at the denial of a "sugar lobby", but we refer
to it as "Big Sugar".

Big Sugar made over $11 million in poltical donations to Florida
legislators in the 2020 cycle. The sore points in Florida are the
effect of sugar cane growers polluting the Everglades with chemical
run-off, the burning of cane fields after the harvest and the
resulting air pollution, and the employment of undocumented workers.

But, yes, I know you are referring to lobbying at the federal level.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[CDB]

On 10/6/2022 9:29 AM, occam wrote:

> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> occam wrote:

>>> This sounds like the dietary battleground between 'fat' and
>>> 'sugar' in the US. The FDA sided with sugar (encouraged by the
>>> sugar lobby) by identifying fat as the culprit, back in the
>>> 1970s.

>> If there's a "sugar lobby," they're a conspicuous failure. Just
>> about every commercial product uses "high-fructose corn syrup"
>> rather than sugar.

The sugar lobby has been pumping the stuff out since American
politicians decided to punish Cuba.

> Nincompoop. 'High-Fructose corn syrup' is but one name for sugar. I
> counted 25 on the list.

> https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/food-recipes/healthy/a18910/types-of-sugar-0921/

It's worse for you if it has a higher fructose content. That stuff
messes up your liver, in large amounts.

[Peter Moylan]

If you are a sugar addict, sucrose is less unhealthy for you than that
corn syrup stuff, which is evil.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
> Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."

Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?):
In Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas
the stuff from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".

Of course, beet sugar refineries are a fairly major Danish industry,
and canes do not grow here at all.

/Anders, Denmark

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 11:58:32 +0200
"Anders D. Nygaard" <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> > "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
> > Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."

'Sugar', to me unless the context is more refined(!) means Sucrose.

In other contexts it covers Lactose, Glucose, Dextrose (checks wikipedia
for others) Fructose and seemingly Galactose.

Ah, I see Dextrous *is* Glucose.

>
> Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?):
> In Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas
> the stuff from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".
>
> Of course, beet sugar refineries are a fairly major Danish industry,
> and canes do not grow here at all.

It gets confusing in the UK, as we [have?] had a history of owning cane
plantations. So Tate & Lyle can claim to be 'British' with a product (cane
sugar) that is unlikely to be homegrown. British Sugar claims to be that
thing, from sugar beet.


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Paul Wolff]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, at 11:29:56, Kerr-Mudd, John posted:

>"Anders D. Nygaard" <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>> > "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
>> > Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>
>'Sugar', to me unless the context is more refined(!) means Sucrose.
>
>In other contexts it covers Lactose, Glucose, Dextrose (checks wikipedia
>for others) Fructose and seemingly Galactose.
>
>Ah, I see Dextrous *is* Glucose.
>

Dextrose is /a/ glucose and I can't remember the various isomers. I'm
pretty sure dextrose is dextro-glucose (D-glucose) as opposed to
laevo-glucose (L-glucose). Those two are stereoisomers (hence right,
left) distinguished by a mirror-image conformation at a particular
asymmetric carbon atom in their molecules.

What I really wanted to add is that dextrose used to be sold in tablet
form in the UK as 'Dextrosol'. When taken orally in the pure form, it
gives a 'cool' mouth feel on dissolving, and it's less sweet than
sucrose (the generic exemplar of 'sugar'). I liked the taste of dextrose
enough to eat it out of the reagent bottle in the school chemistry lab
prep room, if no-one was looking as I passed.

--
Paul

[Peter Moylan]

As far as I know it's all cane sugar here. There is a region north of me
that has many canefields. It is, as far as I know, the only part of
Australia with a history of slavery.

I have no idea whether Australia grows sugar beets. Probably not.

[Quinn C]

* Paul Wolff:

I grew up with these:
<https://dextro-energy.com/en/products/wuerfel-classic>

Absolutely meant to be taken orally.

They used to be called "Dextro-Energen", as was the company, which is
German, but they have to style themselves English these days to be
fashionable.

--
I'm a character actor - which they call actors who are not gorgeous,
or young.
-- Saul Rubinek

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:45:00 +0100
Paul Wolff <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, at 11:29:56, Kerr-Mudd, John posted:
> >"Anders D. Nygaard" <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> >> > "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
> >> > Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
> >
> >'Sugar', to me unless the context is more refined(!) means Sucrose.
> >
> >In other contexts it covers Lactose, Glucose, Dextrose (checks wikipedia
> >for others) Fructose and seemingly Galactose.
> >
> >Ah, I see Dextrous *is* Glucose.
> >
> Dextrose is /a/ glucose and I can't remember the various isomers. I'm
> pretty sure dextrose is dextro-glucose (D-glucose) as opposed to
> laevo-glucose (L-glucose). Those two are stereoisomers (hence right,
> left) distinguished by a mirror-image conformation at a particular
> asymmetric carbon atom in their molecules.
>

OK, I just saw that Wikipedia redirects 'Dextrose' to 'Glucose'

the L-isomer by any other name tastes as sweet (but is inedible).

> What I really wanted to add is that dextrose used to be sold in tablet
> form in the UK as 'Dextrosol'. When taken orally in the pure form, it
> gives a 'cool' mouth feel on dissolving, and it's less sweet than
> sucrose (the generic exemplar of 'sugar'). I liked the taste of dextrose
> enough to eat it out of the reagent bottle in the school chemistry lab
> prep room, if no-one was looking as I passed.
>
> --
> Paul

[Peter T. Daniels]

This is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet#United_States

Sugar cane was one of the main reasons for importing slaves
to the Caribbean (though they were probably more interested in
rum than sweetener), and centuries later, sugar beet production
was attempted by abolitionists but took decades to become
profitable. So American English had centuries for "sugar" to
be associated with the cane.

In the Caribbean it goes all the way back to Columbus's
Second Voyage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#History
[needs subdividing!]

"France found its sugarcane islands so valuable that it effectively
traded its portion of Canada, famously dismissed by Voltaire as
"a few acres of snow", to Britain for their return of Guadeloupe,
Martinique, and St. Lucia at the end of the Seven Years' War. The
Dutch similarly kept Suriname, a sugar colony in South America,
instead of seeking the return of the New Netherlands (New York)."

But beet sugar wasn't even discovered (in Germany, as it
happens) until 1747, and the industry didn't take hold until
Napoleon. (See preceding sections of Wikiparticle.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 7:48:44 AM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, at 11:29:56, Kerr-Mudd, John posted:

> >> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:

> >> > "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
> >> > Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
> >'Sugar', to me unless the context is more refined(!) means Sucrose.
> >In other contexts it covers Lactose, Glucose, Dextrose (checks wikipedia
> >for others) Fructose and seemingly Galactose.
> >
> >Ah, I see Dextrous *is* Glucose.
>
> Dextrose is /a/ glucose and I can't remember the various isomers. I'm
> pretty sure dextrose is dextro-glucose (D-glucose) as opposed to
> laevo-glucose (L-glucose). Those two are stereoisomers (hence right,
> left) distinguished by a mirror-image conformation at a particular
> asymmetric carbon atom in their molecules.

Didn't Asimov teach me, long, long ago, that we can't assimilate the
"wrong" isomers of things? I don't remember whether they'd be
harmful, or just pass through the gut.

[Paul Wolff]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, at 11:58:32, Anders D. Nygaard posted:

>Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
>> Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>
>Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?):
>In Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas
>the stuff from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".

I guess that could be translated into English as 'tube sugar' as well as
cane sugar, a cane being an essentially hollow woody stem.

>
>Of course, beet sugar refineries are a fairly major Danish industry,
>and canes do not grow here at all.

--
Paul

[Peter Moylan]

On 09/10/22 01:55, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 7:48:44 AM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, at 11:29:56, Kerr-Mudd, John posted:
>>>> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>
>>>>> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
>>>>> Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>>> 'Sugar', to me unless the context is more refined(!) means Sucrose.
>>> In other contexts it covers Lactose, Glucose, Dextrose (checks wikipedia
>>> for others) Fructose and seemingly Galactose.
>>>
>>> Ah, I see Dextrous *is* Glucose.
>>
>> Dextrose is /a/ glucose and I can't remember the various isomers. I'm
>> pretty sure dextrose is dextro-glucose (D-glucose) as opposed to
>> laevo-glucose (L-glucose). Those two are stereoisomers (hence right,
>> left) distinguished by a mirror-image conformation at a particular
>> asymmetric carbon atom in their molecules.
>
> Didn't Asimov teach me, long, long ago, that we can't assimilate the
> "wrong" isomers of things? I don't remember whether they'd be
> harmful, or just pass through the gut.

They just pass through. A benefit to dieters.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

No point, really, in a country where sugar cane grows well.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Janet]

In article <ths1a8$6v58$1...@dont-email.me>,
pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid says...

Less than 100 years ago, cane toads were introduced to
Australia in an attempt to control native insects that
threaten sugar cane production. Another example of a
novel-species live introduction didn't have the intended
benefit and created worse problems.



Janet

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

There is also the little matter of price: few dieters can afford $190/g.

[Peter Moylan]

Those cane toads were originally a problem only in the canefields in the
north. By now they have hitched rides on southbound trucks. Now they're
as big a problem as the rabbits.

Gradually we're learning that those biological controls are not all that
they're cracked up to be.

(I heard recently that all of Australia's rabbits are descended from a
batch of 24 that some idiot imported for hunting.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-10-08 15:07:58 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

It's not as simple as that. Some, like L-glucose, just pass through;
some, like L- and D-lactic acid, are pretty much interchangeable; some,
like L- and D-carnitine, differ a lot in toxicity, and D-carnitine, for
example, should not be used as a medicine.

> A benefit to dieters.


--

[Peter T. Daniels]

And all of America's starlings from one pair that some idiot imported
because he thought every bird mentioned by Shakespeare should be
in Central Park.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

It was just in the news that likely, all blue-eyed people go back to a
single ancestor with that one mutation. Not that I want to compare
blue-eyed people to invasive species.

--
Who would know aught of art must learn and then take his ease.

[Quinn C]

* Anders D. Nygaard:

It's more related to colonial history. Germany pushed the production of
beet sugar so it wouldn't have to buy sugar from the English or French.

--
Learning the rules that govern intelligible speech is an
inculcation into normalized language, where the price of not
conforming is the loss of intelligibility itself.
-- Judith Butler

[Peter T. Daniels]

Right -- it's recessive.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 17:47:15 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-10-08 15:07:58 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> On 09/10/22 01:55, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>> Didn't Asimov teach me, long, long ago, that we can't assimilate the
>>> "wrong" isomers of things? I don't remember whether they'd be
>>> harmful, or just pass through the gut.
>>
>> They just pass through.
>
>It's not as simple as that. Some, like L-glucose, just pass through;
>some, like L- and D-lactic acid, are pretty much interchangeable; some,
>like L- and D-carnitine, differ a lot in toxicity, and D-carnitine, for
>example, should not be used as a medicine.
>
>> A benefit to dieters.

There was at least one psychoactive medicine for which one
isomer had the expected benefit, and the other lacked the
effectiveness and resulted in "side-effects" instead.
(It might have been chlorpromazine but I couldn't confirm that
with a few minutes of Googling.)

As I recall it, the original manufacturer used a method that
produced (as it happened) only a single isomer, and that was
what was proved good in clincal trials, and no one had paid
much attention to chirality (right word?). When the patent
expired, another manufacturer produced its version differently,
and both isomers resulted. The new product was less effective
and had new side effects. I think that they were more surprised
by the side effects than by the lowered effectiveness -- being
potent-but-bad is more complicated than just-passing-through.

In the short run, this encouraged manufacturers to /discourage/
customers from buying off-brand versions of their once-proprietary
drugs: "You don't know, for sure, that it is exactly the same thing."
In the longer run, the FDA had to adapt to the more complicated
reality. I don't remember details of that.


--
Rich Ulrich

[Sam Plusnet]

It is most likely that PTD's statement is valid throughout the US.
It isn't safe to assume his comments on common usage hold true -
especially when he is engaged in his favourite occupation of disputing
anything Tony Cooper says.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Snidely]

After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :

I live in an area of America that until around WWII (and lots of
aircraft factories, and housing for workers) was sugar beet farming.

One of our big sugar companies (on this side of the Rockies, at least)
is C&H (California and Hawaii), which presumably used both sugar beets
and sugar cane.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

[Snidely]

On Saturday, Paul Wolff yelped out that:

Grassy ass for that explanation.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[Sam Plusnet]

How did the letters "un" get removed from "likely" in that first sentence??

--
Sam Plusnet

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-10-08 04:29, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 11:58:32 +0200
> "Anders D. Nygaard" <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>>> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
>>> Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>
> 'Sugar', to me unless the context is more refined(!) means Sucrose.
>
> In other contexts it covers Lactose, Glucose, Dextrose (checks wikipedia
> for others) Fructose and seemingly Galactose.
>
> Ah, I see Dextrous *is* Glucose.

From Wikipedia:

A chemical compound that causes dextrorotation is called dextrorotatory
or dextrorotary, while a compound that causes laevorotation is called
laevorotatory or laevorotary.

Dextrose was so named because its crystals causes linearly polarized
light to rotate to the right (dexter).

n a similar manner, levulose, more commonly known as fructose, causes
the plane of polarization to rotate to the left. Fructose is even more
strongly levorotatory than glucose is dextrorotatory. Invert sugar
syrup, commercially formed by the hydrolysis of sucrose syrup to a
mixture of the component simple sugars, fructose, and glucose, gets its
name from the fact that the conversion causes the direction of rotation
to "invert" from right to left.

>> Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?):
>> In Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas
>> the stuff from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".
>>
>> Of course, beet sugar refineries are a fairly major Danish industry,
>> and canes do not grow here at all.
>
> It gets confusing in the UK, as we [have?] had a history of owning cane
> plantations. So Tate & Lyle can claim to be 'British' with a product (cane
> sugar) that is unlikely to be homegrown. British Sugar claims to be that
> thing, from sugar beet.
>
>

--

Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
–Mark Twain

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-10-08 19:13:47 +0000, Snidely said:

> After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
>> On 08/10/22 20:58, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>>> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>>> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar
>>>> cane. Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>>>
>>> Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?): In
>>> Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas the stuff
>>> from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".
>>>
>>> Of course, beet sugar refineries are a fairly major Danish industry,
>>> and canes do not grow here at all.
>>
>> As far as I know it's all cane sugar here. There is a region north of me
>> that has many canefields. It is, as far as I know, the only part of
>> Australia with a history of slavery.
>>
>> I have no idea whether Australia grows sugar beets. Probably not.
>
> I live in an area of America that until around WWII (and lots of
> aircraft factories, and housing for workers) was sugar beet farming.

Yes. One of my daughters lives in Tracy, once one of Spreckels's main
centres. It never occurred to me to enquire what they made their sugar
from, but the web informs me that they used beets. Certainly I've never
seen cane growing there or around Manteca.

>
> One of our big sugar companies (on this side of the Rockies, at least)
> is C&H (California and Hawaii), which presumably used both sugar beets
> and sugar cane.
>
> /dps


--

[David Kleinecke]

Before WW II they raised a lot of sugar beets in northern Santa Barbara
County (California). This was odd (seemed odd to me at the time) because
this involved some of best cropland in the world and sugar beets are a
junk crop. The more obvious crop being grown was cut flowers and seed
flowers. I think no beets since the war and all flowers these days.

Which brings us to one of my more extreme eccentricities - I object to cut
flowers. I think flowers belong on flowering, living, plants. But I seem to
be very far out in left field on this one.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 09/10/2022 7:59 am, David Kleinecke wrote:

<snip>

> Which brings us to one of my more extreme eccentricities - I object to cut
> flowers. I think flowers belong on flowering, living, plants. But I seem to
> be very far out in left field on this one.

And until you're picked, very far out in left field is exactly
where you'll stay.

(Bloom where you're planted.)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[CDB]

On 10/8/2022 10:50 AM, Paul Wolff wrote:
> Anders D. Nygaard posted:

>> Peter T. Daniels:

>>> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar
>>> cane. Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet
>>> sugar."

>> Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?): In
>> Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas the stuff
>> from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".

> I guess that could be translated into English as 'tube sugar' as
> well as cane sugar, a cane being an essentially hollow woody stem.

Not the kind I used to get occasionally in Haiti. The cane was solid
all the way through, although soft enough to be chewed if you had good
teeth. It's true that the outer surface was harder; we had to slice
that off first.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 12:59:22 AM UTC-6, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:

[sugar beets out, cut flowers in]

> Which brings us to one of my more extreme eccentricities - I object to cut
> flowers. I think flowers belong on flowering, living, plants. But I seem to
> be very far out in left field on this one.

I've seen that elsewhere. This isn't the one I've seen, but it's the first one I
found at GB.

"But up in her quiet room Diana sat sadly and ate her frugal meal, the dying
flowers beside her on a little table, their withering beauty seeming to mock
her..."

Grace Livingston Hill, /Mystery Flowers/ (2019)

There are probably also people who object to using good farmland for
flowers instead of food, or any land for flowers instead of wilderness,
but as you note, the flowers are economically beneficial to the farmers and
their employees.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

You must have not looked at any of the rest of the thread.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Um, because it changed a false statement to a true one?

[Quinn C]

* David Kleinecke:

> Before WW II they raised a lot of sugar beets in northern Santa Barbara
> County (California). This was odd (seemed odd to me at the time) because
> this involved some of best cropland in the world and sugar beets are a
> junk crop. The more obvious crop being grown was cut flowers and seed
> flowers. I think no beets since the war and all flowers these days.
>
> Which brings us to one of my more extreme eccentricities - I object to cut
> flowers. I think flowers belong on flowering, living, plants. But I seem to
> be very far out in left field on this one.

You're with my ex-wife, for one. It's harder to convince people that a
woman doesn't want to be given dead flowers.

--
CW: Historical misogyny
... gurve nirentr fvmr erznvaf fb zhpu fznyyre; fb gung gur fhz
gbgny bs sbbq pbairegrq vagb gubhtug ol jbzra pna arire rdhny
[gung bs] zra. Vg sbyybjf gurersber, gung zra jvyy nyjnlf guvax
zber guna jbzra. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 08-10-2022 kl. 16:50 skrev Paul Wolff:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, at 11:58:32, Anders D. Nygaard posted:
>> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>>> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
>>> Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>>
>> Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?):
>> In Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas
>> the stuff from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".
>
> I guess that could be translated into English as 'tube sugar'

Yes, that would a direct translation.

Sugar cane in Danish is "sukkerrør" (whereas cane is "stok";
"sukkerstok" is not really a word I use, but would interpret
to be a candy cane)

/Anders, Denmark

[Paul Wolff]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022, at 11:23:47, Quinn C posted:

>* David Kleinecke:
>
>> Before WW II they raised a lot of sugar beets in northern Santa Barbara
>> County (California). This was odd (seemed odd to me at the time) because
>> this involved some of best cropland in the world and sugar beets are a
>> junk crop. The more obvious crop being grown was cut flowers and seed
>> flowers. I think no beets since the war and all flowers these days.
>>
>> Which brings us to one of my more extreme eccentricities - I object to cut
>> flowers. I think flowers belong on flowering, living, plants. But I seem to
>> be very far out in left field on this one.
>
>You're with my ex-wife, for one. It's harder to convince people that a
>woman doesn't want to be given dead flowers.
>

I'd call that use of 'dead' the deployment of a weasel word. Cut flower
stems aren't dead until they're dead. At first, they continue to have an
active metabolism. I can't say if bearing a flower head inevitably
prevents root growth, but I do know that some stems in water in a vase
will produce rootlets, and can be replanted, and then take, and grow
again into full plants.

Cut off a willow branch, stick the cut end into damp soil, and you'll
receive the gift of a new willow tree.
--
Paul

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-10-06, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2022-10-06, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 9:29:15 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
>> >> On 06/10/2022 15:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 4:34:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
>
>> >> >> This sounds like the dietary battleground between 'fat' and 'sugar' in
>> >> >> the US. The FDA sided with sugar (encouraged by the sugar lobby) by
>> >> >> identifying fat as the culprit, back in the 1970s.
>> >> > If there's a "sugar lobby," they're a conspicuous failure. Just about every
>> >> > commercial product uses "high-fructose corn syrup" rather than sugar.
>> >> Nincompoop. 'High-Fructose corn syrup' is but one name for sugar. I
>> >> counted 25 on the list.

>> > "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
>> > Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>>

>> Only if you're buying a bag of it.
>>
>> Not if you're talking about nutrition.
>
> But we're talking about a "sugar lobby," That wouldn't be the corn
> industry of Iowa and environs.

The sugar lobby that has a malign influence in the USA does include
corn producers as well as the companies that produce fructose syrup
from corn.



>
>> > Fructose is one of the several sugars, chemicals named with "-ose,"
>> > but it's not "sugar" _tout court_.
>> > Nincompoop.
>> >> https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/food-recipes/healthy/a18910/types-of-sugar-0921/


--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
try using more of it.

[Quinn C]

* Paul Wolff:

I don't know much about the subject, although my mother did that kind of
thing all the time. But I believe most of what we conventionally sell as
cut flowers is unsuitable for replanting.

Calling them "moribund" flowers rather than "dead" seems even more
morose. "Dead flowers" is not a weasel word to me, but an exaggeration
to make a point.

--
The universe hates you - deal with it.
-- Seamus Harper

[Tak To]

On 10/8/2022 10:50 AM, Paul Wolff wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, at 11:58:32, Anders D. Nygaard posted:
>> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:

>>> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
>>> Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>>

>> Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?):
>> In Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas
>> the stuff from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".
>

> I guess that could be translated into English as 'tube sugar' as well as
> cane sugar, a cane being an essentially hollow woody stem.

Except that sugar cane is not hollow...

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, at 13:14:33, Tak To posted:

>On 10/8/2022 10:50 AM, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, at 11:58:32, Anders D. Nygaard posted:
>>> Den 06-10-2022 kl. 15:42 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> "Sugar," not otherwise qualified, is the stuff made from sugar cane.
>>>> Even the same stuff from sugar beets is called "beet sugar."
>>>
>>> Interesting difference (cross-pondian, or more regional?):
>>> In Denmark, unqualified "sugar" is made from beets, whereas
>>> the stuff from canes needs qualification, and is called "rørsukker".
>>
>> I guess that could be translated into English as 'tube sugar' as well as
>> cane sugar, a cane being an essentially hollow woody stem.
>
>Except that sugar cane is not hollow...
>

That's a pithy.
--
Paul

[GordonD]

On 05/10/2022 00:39, Quinn C wrote:
> * Jerry Friedman:
>
>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7:06:18 AM UTC-6, Paul Epstein
>> wrote:
>>> I've just been listening to Tom Robinson's famous song from
>>> 1983: Listen To The Radio.
>>>
>>> I find it utterly bizarre and utterly reprehensible that then
>>> (and this is probably true to some extent now), the lyrics
>>> *********"Smoke another cigarette"********* were considered
>>> absolutely fine but words like "fuck", "wank", "shit" etc. which
>>> denote perfectly normal and healthy human activities were/are
>>> severely restricted, and perhaps banned entirely.
>>>
>>> Totally outrageous.
>>
>> It was also commonly remarked at the time that you could show a
>> murder but not a married couple having joyous sex.
>
> To this day, the same amount of sex or (cross-thread alert) even
> just nudity will result in a higher rating in the US compared to
> many European countries or Canada, whereas the same amount of
> violence will drive them further up in Europe.
>
An example which has always stuck in my mind was the version of the
first two Godfather films which were re-edited into chronological order
for US television. The scene where a man is shot in the eye was kept in;
the one where Michael's Sicilian bride removes her negligee and is seen
topless was not.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland