Handling the RW factor (my latest suggestion)
William M. Klein
might - while searching for some new "unsuspecting" employer), the following
is my current suggestion to others (and what I plan on following for a
while - to see how this works).
1) *NOT* respond to any of his notes that are responding to others comments
on his "opinions" (usually not identified as opinions)
2) Only respond to notes from him when they are responses to "new" members
of this group who may not know about his track record.
3) Like DD's standard "do your own homework" note, I will post a generic
"Check google for the accuracy track-record of this poster - and the
<lack> of regard with which his comments are viewed by many in this
newsgroup"
comments to his posts.
***
Others are certainly free to do whatever they think "best" (both for
visitors to C.L.C. and to the "ongoing health" of the NG, but it is my HOPE
that maybe this approach will work - where others have not).
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
JerryMouse
"William M. Klein" <wmk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bd2lmf$45n$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Bill, I hang out on newsgroups that can get pretty violent (tx.guns,
news.admin.net-abuse.email, alt.garden.gnomes, etc.) and RW is the only
direct poster I've ever killfiled.
His arrogance would be expected (and mild at that) on a politics-oriented
group; here, it is overboard.
I've always thought that programmers are like dentists: scientifically and
professionally trained, dedicated, diligent... but also artists. And, while
programmers may wear three-piece suits, all the stereotypical
characteristics of a hippie living in a garret in Greenwich Village hold
too.
One of these attributes of an artist is defensiveness about his work. Did
Reuben think his work better than Van Gogh? You bet (but of course
everybody's work is better than Van Gogh's)!
Most of us are willing to consider better ways of doing things, handle
well-meaning criticism tolerably, and give credit where due. Some are not.
They get blocked.
Peter E.C. Dashwood
I still think it is better to simply ignore his posts completely, but I
agree that doesn't help newcomers to the NG.
It is harsh, but fair.
Pete.
"William M. Klein" <wmk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bd2lmf$45n$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Robert Wagner
expelled. Reasonable people rebut the offender's errors with facts and logic ..
you know: argumentation.
If you continue using this 'spamming' solution, I too have developed a
poison-pill riposte (how appropriate: re-post). The two combined will destroy
CLC faster than you can say alt.scientology. The choice is yours.
Robert
Robert Wagner
>Given the fact that Mr. Wagner has *not* gone away (as I had hoped that he
>might - while searching for some new "unsuspecting" employer)
In re unsuspecting employer, my previous employer gave me high marks for work
ethic and contribution, offered to provide good references, INCLUDING the Bad
Programmer you seem to sympathize with and who kept trying to get me fired. I
feel vindicated by that. The code I wrote was excellent, among the best I've
done. You can see it on financial Web pages under First Call or RedBook.
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>Your solution is juvenile. If you tried it on J4 or in business, you'd be
>expelled. Reasonable people rebut the offender's errors with facts and logic ..
>you know: argumentation.
It is my experience, Mr Wagner, that 'reasonable people' modify their
behaviors based on rebuttals.
As a purely hypothetical example consider Person X. Person X makes an
assertion about a feature of a technology; when it is pointed out that
Person X is wrong s/he responds with 'Well, it was that way when I looked
at it (x) years ago.'
If Person X were 'reasonable' it might be concluded that in the future
s/he would make sure the feature of the technology about which s/he would
post was a current one.
>
>If you continue using this 'spamming' solution, I too have developed a
>poison-pill riposte (how appropriate: re-post). The two combined will destroy
>CLC faster than you can say alt.scientology. The choice is yours.
Mr Wagner, you are obviously ignorant of a Story from the Oldene Dayse:
A tyrant calls a holy man before him and says 'My hands are behind my
back. In one of my hands there is a baby bird. You claim your Deity is
omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenificent; as such have your Deity tell
you in which hand I hold the bird. If you cannot tell me correctly then I
will kill the bird and its death will be placed on your head by your
Deity.'
The holy man replies 'No matter what my Deity tells me or I tell you...
the bird's life is still in your hands.'
One might be able to learn interesting things about personal
responsibility from this anecdote, Mr Wagner... assuming that you have the
capability to learn such things then the choice to do so, it seems, is
yours.
DD
Donald Tees
Donald
"Robert Wagner" <rob...@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:3ef53276...@news.optonline.net...
Robert Wagner
>In article <3ef52792...@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>Your solution is juvenile. If you tried it on J4 or in business, you'd be
>>expelled. Reasonable people rebut the offender's errors with facts and logic
..
>>you know: argumentation.
>
>It is my experience, Mr Wagner, that 'reasonable people' modify their
>behaviors based on rebuttals.
>
>As a purely hypothetical example consider Person X. Person X makes an
>assertion about a feature of a technology; when it is pointed out that
>Person X is wrong s/he responds with 'Well, it was that way when I looked
>at it (x) years ago.'
That happened months ago, when I started posting. Since then, I've modified my
behavior to look things up.
>>If you continue using this 'spamming' solution, I too have developed a
>>poison-pill riposte (how appropriate: re-post). The two combined will destroy
>>CLC faster than you can say alt.scientology. The choice is yours.
>The holy man replies 'No matter what my Deity tells me or I tell you...
>the bird's life is still in your hands.'
>
>One might be able to learn interesting things about personal
>responsibility from this anecdote, Mr Wagner... assuming that you have the
>capability to learn such things then the choice to do so, it seems, is
>yours.
What would you do if someone posted depreciatory spam after every one of your
postings? If I left, I'd be setting a precedent which would encourage others to
use the same tactic. That's not responsible.
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <3ef52792...@news.optonline.net>,
>>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>Your solution is juvenile. If you tried it on J4 or in business, you'd be
>>>expelled. Reasonable people rebut the offender's errors with facts and logic
>..
>>>you know: argumentation.
>>
>>It is my experience, Mr Wagner, that 'reasonable people' modify their
>>behaviors based on rebuttals.
>>
>>As a purely hypothetical example consider Person X. Person X makes an
>>assertion about a feature of a technology; when it is pointed out that
>>Person X is wrong s/he responds with 'Well, it was that way when I looked
>>at it (x) years ago.'
>
>That happened months ago, when I started posting. Since then, I've modified my
>behavior to look things up.
I see... and that is how, say, you knew nothing about Google's
modifications and optimisations built into MySQL.
>
>>>If you continue using this 'spamming' solution, I too have developed a
>>>poison-pill riposte (how appropriate: re-post). The two combined will destroy
>>>CLC faster than you can say alt.scientology. The choice is yours.
>
>>The holy man replies 'No matter what my Deity tells me or I tell you...
>>the bird's life is still in your hands.'
>>
>>One might be able to learn interesting things about personal
>>responsibility from this anecdote, Mr Wagner... assuming that you have the
>>capability to learn such things then the choice to do so, it seems, is
>>yours.
>
>What would you do if someone posted depreciatory spam after every one of your
>postings?
When such things have happened to me in the past, Mr Wagner - as those who
have been here a while might be able to attest to - I have responded as I
saw fit and not-responded as I saw fit. When someone sent a series of
emails to the abuse@ address of my accounts I let the people there deal
with it, also.
>If I left, I'd be setting a precedent which would encourage others to
>use the same tactic. That's not responsible.
Anyone who decides to use your actions as precedent for their own, Mr
Wagner, would, it seems, get *exactly* what they deserve.
'Hey, I'll behave in this fashion... because I saw somebody on the UseNet
do so!'
'Now *that's* responsible!'
DD
Robert Wagner
>In article <3ef5bc40...@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3ef52792...@news.optonline.net>,
>>>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>Your solution is juvenile. If you tried it on J4 or in business, you'd be
>>>>expelled. Reasonable people rebut the offender's errors with facts and
logic
>>..
>>>>you know: argumentation.
>>>
>>>It is my experience, Mr Wagner, that 'reasonable people' modify their
>>>behaviors based on rebuttals.
>>>
>>>As a purely hypothetical example consider Person X. Person X makes an
>>>assertion about a feature of a technology; when it is pointed out that
>>>Person X is wrong s/he responds with 'Well, it was that way when I looked
>>>at it (x) years ago.'
>>
>>That happened months ago, when I started posting. Since then, I've modified my
>>behavior to look things up.
>
>I see... and that is how, say, you knew nothing about Google's
>modifications and optimisations built into MySQL.
I couldn't find a description of how Google works today. I did find the
founders' paper describing its internal structure when it started in 1997.
http://www7.scu.edu.au/programme/fullpapers/1921/com1921.htm
Back then they weren't using any database. They were doing everything with C
programs and ISAM files!! The paper mentions response time between one and ten
seconds .. for single-threaded queries. Now, I estimate they process 1,000
queries per second during peak times (50M/day). Obviously, the technology
changed in the last seven years.
Ironically, the founders complained about their competitors' secrecy: "Up until
now most search engine development has gone on at companies with little
publication of technical details. This causes search engine technology to remain
largely a black art and to be advertising oriented. With Google, we have a
strong goal to push more development and understanding into the academic realm."
Where is it?
>>>>If you continue using this 'spamming' solution, I too have developed a
>>>>poison-pill riposte (how appropriate: re-post). The two combined will
destroy
>>>>CLC faster than you can say alt.scientology. The choice is yours.
>>
>>>The holy man replies 'No matter what my Deity tells me or I tell you...
>>>the bird's life is still in your hands.'
>>>
>>>One might be able to learn interesting things about personal
>>>responsibility from this anecdote, Mr Wagner... assuming that you have the
>>>capability to learn such things then the choice to do so, it seems, is
>>>yours.
>>
>>What would you do if someone posted depreciatory spam after every one of your
>>postings?
>
>When such things have happened to me in the past, Mr Wagner - as those who
>have been here a while might be able to attest to - I have responded as I
>saw fit and not-responded as I saw fit.
There is nothing to respond to. The boilerplate doesn't rebut any of the points
I made. It's just noise.
> When someone sent a series of
>emails to the abuse@ address of my accounts I let the people there deal
>with it, also.
Complaining to ISPs doesn't work. There are many many ISPs who ignore abuse
complaints. Also, there's no way to block postings via Google.
>>If I left, I'd be setting a precedent which would encourage others to
>>use the same tactic. That's not responsible.
>
>Anyone who decides to use your actions as precedent for their own, Mr
>Wagner, would, it seems, get *exactly* what they deserve.
That's unresponsive. If the spamming tactic silences me, the next unpopular
poster will be hectored out the same way.
JerryMouse
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:bd4a07$662$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <3ef52792...@news.optonline.net>,
> Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
> >Your solution is juvenile. If you tried it on J4 or in business, you'd be
> >expelled. Reasonable people rebut the offender's errors with facts and
logic ..
> >you know: argumentation.
>
> It is my experience, Mr Wagner, that 'reasonable people' modify their
> behaviors based on rebuttals.
>
> As a purely hypothetical example consider Person X. Person X makes an
> assertion about a feature of a technology; when it is pointed out that
> Person X is wrong s/he responds with 'Well, it was that way when I looked
> at it (x) years ago.'
At a company I once worked for, a chap (whose job function was best
described as "Theoretical Mechanical Engineer") came to my office, sat down
dejectedly, and said: "Jerry, I've been fired."
"Why?" said I.
"Suppose you're a VP. You see something in a magazine. You ponder it awhile.
Then you burst into my office and say: "Drop everything and investigate
property 'X'."
And I say to the you, the Vice President of Research and Development: "I'll
make it my hourly duty. But what about 'Proposition 'Y'?"
And you, the VP, respond: "Hmm, yeah, let me think about it." And you go
back to your office and look up Proposition 'Y' which clearly holds that
property 'X' is impossible, the impossibility was reported by Georgia Normal
School in 1897, and has been confirmed experimentally and reported in
everything including "Meteorology Today" at least twelve times in the last
100 years. You'd feel pretty foolish. So, how do you keep from feeling
foolish at least once a week?"
I agreed with him and wished him well.
P.S.
Within a week, my friend was hired by the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia
at almost three times the salary.
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <3ef5bc40...@news.optonline.net>,
>>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3ef52792...@news.optonline.net>,
>>>>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>>Your solution is juvenile. If you tried it on J4 or in business, you'd be
>>>>>expelled. Reasonable people rebut the offender's errors with facts and logic..
>>>>>you know: argumentation.
>>>>
>>>>It is my experience, Mr Wagner, that 'reasonable people' modify their
>>>>behaviors based on rebuttals.
>>>>
>>>>As a purely hypothetical example consider Person X. Person X makes an
>>>>assertion about a feature of a technology; when it is pointed out that
>>>>Person X is wrong s/he responds with 'Well, it was that way when I looked
>>>>at it (x) years ago.'
>>>
>>>That happened months ago, when I started posting. Since then, I've modified my
>>>behavior to look things up.
>>
>>I see... and that is how, say, you knew nothing about Google's
>>modifications and optimisations built into MySQL.
>
>I couldn't find a description of how Google works today. I did find the
>founders' paper describing its internal structure when it started in 1997.
>
>http://www7.scu.edu.au/programme/fullpapers/1921/com1921.htm
That's nice... what comes next, appropriate documentation to show that
things burn because they are filled with phlogiston?
[snip]
>>>>>If you continue using this 'spamming' solution, I too have developed a
>>>>>poison-pill riposte (how appropriate: re-post). The two combined will destroy
>>>>>CLC faster than you can say alt.scientology. The choice is yours.
>>>
>>>>The holy man replies 'No matter what my Deity tells me or I tell you...
>>>>the bird's life is still in your hands.'
>>>>
>>>>One might be able to learn interesting things about personal
>>>>responsibility from this anecdote, Mr Wagner... assuming that you have the
>>>>capability to learn such things then the choice to do so, it seems, is
>>>>yours.
>>>
>>>What would you do if someone posted depreciatory spam after every one of your
>>>postings?
>>
>>When such things have happened to me in the past, Mr Wagner - as those who
>>have been here a while might be able to attest to - I have responded as I
>>saw fit and not-responded as I saw fit.
>
>There is nothing to respond to. The boilerplate doesn't rebut any of the points
>I made. It's just noise.
Reading what I wrote carefully, Mr Wagner, shows that I did not use
'responding' as my only suggestion. If something is 'just noise' then it
mighe be obvious that it is such.
>
>> When someone sent a series of
>>emails to the abuse@ address of my accounts I let the people there deal
>>with it, also.
>
>Complaining to ISPs doesn't work. There are many many ISPs who ignore abuse
>complaints. Also, there's no way to block postings via Google.
Complaining to my ISP worked in that the abuse@ guy (it was a male in all
cases) checked the newsgroup and posted that he saw nothing wrong. As for
Google... if you want it to contain a record of your responding to 'just
noise' then that is your concern.
>
>>>If I left, I'd be setting a precedent which would encourage others to
>>>use the same tactic. That's not responsible.
>>
>>Anyone who decides to use your actions as precedent for their own, Mr
>>Wagner, would, it seems, get *exactly* what they deserve.
>
>That's unresponsive.
If you are referring to my comment as being 'unresponsive' that is
incorrect; I am being quite quite responsive, Mr Wagner, as you posit your
actions as a precedent for those of others.
If you are referring to the fact that not everything on the UseNet is
worthy of a response and that acknowledging this unworthiness might cause
one to be unresponsive... my, my, you've come to such a *stunning*
conclusion!
>If the spamming tactic silences me, the next unpopular
>poster will be hectored out the same way.
There might possibly be a difference, Mr Wagner, between not responding to
'just noise' and 'being silenced'; using someone else's actions as
justification for your own can lead to what my Sainted Grandmother - may
she sleep with the angels! - used to invoke as the 'Brooklyn Bridge
Defense': 'So, someone else is jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge... you
should, too?'
DD
Donald Tees
> What would you do if someone posted depreciatory spam after every one of
your
> postings? If I left, I'd be setting a precedent which would encourage
others to
> use the same tactic. That's not responsible.
Relax Robert. Being a complete ass is not a civic duty on the internet
anymore. It is quite possible to act like a responsible, mature, polite
adult, without corrupting the entire world.
Donald
Robert Wagner
No, but I wouldn't explain fire as simple oxidation either. I'd explain that
fire is a complex chain reaction involving radical formation. I'd describe fire
as a low speed explosion. I'd support it by pointing out that Halon fire
extinguishers work by blocking radicals at the molecular level, not by depriving
the fire of fuel or air.
Know-nothings would say, 'RW is full of crap. I learned that fire is oxidation
in elementary school. Everyone with common sense knows it's true.'
Those are the kind of 'debates' we have on CLC.
>>>>>>If you continue using this 'spamming' solution, I too have developed a
>>>>>>poison-pill riposte (how appropriate: re-post). The two combined will
destroy
>>>>>>CLC faster than you can say alt.scientology. The choice is yours.
>>>>
>>>>>The holy man replies 'No matter what my Deity tells me or I tell you...
>>>>>the bird's life is still in your hands.'
>>>>>
>>>>>One might be able to learn interesting things about personal
>>>>>responsibility from this anecdote, Mr Wagner... assuming that you have the
>>>>>capability to learn such things then the choice to do so, it seems, is
>>>>>yours.
>>>>
>>>>What would you do if someone posted depreciatory spam after every one of
your
>>>>postings?
>>>
>>>When such things have happened to me in the past, Mr Wagner - as those who
>>>have been here a while might be able to attest to - I have responded as I
>>>saw fit and not-responded as I saw fit.
>>
>>There is nothing to respond to. The boilerplate doesn't rebut any of the
points
>>I made. It's just noise.
>
>Reading what I wrote carefully, Mr Wagner, shows that I did not use
>'responding' as my only suggestion. If something is 'just noise' then it
>might be obvious that it is such.
Some would see silence as complaisance. The best way of dealing with a
schoolyard bully is giving him a taste of his own medicine. I've found they
collapse quickly when confronted, keep pushing when not.
>>> When someone sent a series of
>>>emails to the abuse@ address of my accounts I let the people there deal
>>>with it, also.
>>
>>Complaining to ISPs doesn't work. There are many many ISPs who ignore abuse
>>complaints. Also, there's no way to block postings via Google.
>
>Complaining to my ISP worked in that the abuse@ guy (it was a male in all
>cases) checked the newsgroup and posted that he saw nothing wrong. As for
>Google... if you want it to contain a record of your responding to 'just
>noise' then that is your concern.
I doubt mindspring (where I happen to have a backup account) would find nothing
wrong with WMK's badgering and persistently annoying posts. After they cancelled
his account, he'd move to a more liberal ISP. There are hundreds with POPs in
the Chicago area. Problem not solved. <shrug>
>>>>If I left, I'd be setting a precedent which would encourage others to
>>>>use the same tactic. That's not responsible.
>>>
>>>Anyone who decides to use your actions as precedent for their own, Mr
>>>Wagner, would, it seems, get *exactly* what they deserve.
>>
>>That's unresponsive.
>
>If you are referring to my comment as being 'unresponsive' that is
>incorrect; I am being quite quite responsive, Mr Wagner, as you posit your
>actions as a precedent for those of others.
Forgive my conversational syntax, with its incomplete sentences.
>If you are referring to the fact that not everything on the UseNet is
>worthy of a response and that acknowledging this unworthiness might cause
>one to be unresponsive... my, my, you've come to such a *stunning*
>conclusion!
>
>>If the spamming tactic silences me, the next unpopular
>>poster will be hectored out the same way.
>
>There might possibly be a difference, Mr Wagner, between not responding to
>'just noise' and 'being silenced'; using someone else's actions as
>justification for your own can lead to what my Sainted Grandmother - may
>she sleep with the angels! - used to invoke as the 'Brooklyn Bridge
>Defense': 'So, someone else is jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge... you
>should, too?'
That's a poor analogy because everyone isn't jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge,
only WMK. Even if everyone were mechanically flaming my postings, you just
supported me. I'm not adopting their ideas no matter how widely held.
docd...@panix.com
For what reason would your behavior differ? You did the equivalent with
Google, it seems.
>I'd explain that
>fire is a complex chain reaction involving radical formation. I'd describe fire
>as a low speed explosion. I'd support it by pointing out that Halon fire
>extinguishers work by blocking radicals at the molecular level, not by depriving
>the fire of fuel or air.
Before you learned this, Mr Wagner, your explanation might have been a bit
different... just as your explanation of Google was a bit different.
>
>Know-nothings would say, 'RW is full of crap. I learned that fire is oxidation
>in elementary school. Everyone with common sense knows it's true.'
>
>Those are the kind of 'debates' we have on CLC.
Plural majestatus est, Mr Wagner; I have no such ''debates' on CLC'.
>
>>>>>>>If you continue using this 'spamming' solution, I too have developed a
>>>>>>>poison-pill riposte (how appropriate: re-post). The two combined will destroy
>>>>>>>CLC faster than you can say alt.scientology. The choice is yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>>The holy man replies 'No matter what my Deity tells me or I tell you...
>>>>>>the bird's life is still in your hands.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One might be able to learn interesting things about personal
>>>>>>responsibility from this anecdote, Mr Wagner... assuming that you have the
>>>>>>capability to learn such things then the choice to do so, it seems, is
>>>>>>yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>What would you do if someone posted depreciatory spam after every one of your
>>>>>postings?
>>>>
>>>>When such things have happened to me in the past, Mr Wagner - as those who
>>>>have been here a while might be able to attest to - I have responded as I
>>>>saw fit and not-responded as I saw fit.
>>>
>>>There is nothing to respond to. The boilerplate doesn't rebut any of the points
>>>I made. It's just noise.
>>
>>Reading what I wrote carefully, Mr Wagner, shows that I did not use
>>'responding' as my only suggestion. If something is 'just noise' then it
>>might be obvious that it is such.
>
>Some would see silence as complaisance.
In my experience, Mr Wagner, some people see things as they were not
intended in almost any situation... are you going to live your life and
direct your actions based on the possibility that the Some are watching?
>The best way of dealing with a
>schoolyard bully is giving him a taste of his own medicine. I've found they
>collapse quickly when confronted, keep pushing when not.
You are not proposing to 'deal with a schoolyard bully', Mr Wagner, you
are proposing to destroy the 'schoolyard'. There might be a bit of a
difference in doing so.
>
>>>> When someone sent a series of
>>>>emails to the abuse@ address of my accounts I let the people there deal
>>>>with it, also.
>>>
>>>Complaining to ISPs doesn't work. There are many many ISPs who ignore abuse
>>>complaints. Also, there's no way to block postings via Google.
>>
>>Complaining to my ISP worked in that the abuse@ guy (it was a male in all
>>cases) checked the newsgroup and posted that he saw nothing wrong. As for
>>Google... if you want it to contain a record of your responding to 'just
>>noise' then that is your concern.
>
>I doubt mindspring (where I happen to have a backup account) would find nothing
>wrong with WMK's badgering and persistently annoying posts. After they cancelled
>his account, he'd move to a more liberal ISP. There are hundreds with POPs in
>the Chicago area. Problem not solved. <shrug>
... and, as the fox said, the grapes were probably sour, anyways. How do
you know until you've invested at least half as much effort as the public
posting required?
Oh, that's right... the public posting is just that, Public... some people
have to live as though the Some were watching, I guess.
>
>>>>>If I left, I'd be setting a precedent which would encourage others to
>>>>>use the same tactic. That's not responsible.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone who decides to use your actions as precedent for their own, Mr
>>>>Wagner, would, it seems, get *exactly* what they deserve.
>>>
>>>That's unresponsive.
>>
>>If you are referring to my comment as being 'unresponsive' that is
>>incorrect; I am being quite quite responsive, Mr Wagner, as you posit your
>>actions as a precedent for those of others.
>
>Forgive my conversational syntax, with its incomplete sentences.
No need for me to forgive anything in this case, Mr Wagner, as I responded
to both possibilities I saw.
>
>>If you are referring to the fact that not everything on the UseNet is
>>worthy of a response and that acknowledging this unworthiness might cause
>>one to be unresponsive... my, my, you've come to such a *stunning*
>>conclusion!
>>
>>>If the spamming tactic silences me, the next unpopular
>>>poster will be hectored out the same way.
>>
>>There might possibly be a difference, Mr Wagner, between not responding to
>>'just noise' and 'being silenced'; using someone else's actions as
>>justification for your own can lead to what my Sainted Grandmother - may
>>she sleep with the angels! - used to invoke as the 'Brooklyn Bridge
>>Defense': 'So, someone else is jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge... you
>>should, too?'
>
>That's a poor analogy because everyone isn't jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge,
>only WMK.
Read what I wrote closely, Mr Wagner... it does not state that 'everyone'
is jumping, just 'someone else'.
>Even if everyone were mechanically flaming my postings, you just
>supported me. I'm not adopting their ideas no matter how widely held.
I do not support Brooklyn Bridge Defenses, Mr Wagner, and your offer to
behave in what you believe to be an idiotic manner because you conclude
that someone else is behaving in what you believe to be an idiotic manner
appears to be just that.
DD
Pat Hall
don't have the time to wade through his bulls**t.
PatH
Robert Wagner
>In article <3ef61d00...@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>>>I see... and that is how, say, you knew nothing about Google's
>>>>>modifications and optimisations built into MySQL.
>>>>
>>>>I couldn't find a description of how Google works today. I did find the
>>>>founders' paper describing its internal structure when it started in 1997.
>>>>
>>>>http://www7.scu.edu.au/programme/fullpapers/1921/com1921.htm
>>>
>>>That's nice... what comes next, appropriate documentation to show that
>>>things burn because they are filled with phlogiston?
>>
>>No, but I wouldn't explain fire as simple oxidation either.
>
>For what reason would your behavior differ? You did the equivalent with
>Google, it seems.
You're right. I was thinking inside the limitations of standard SQL. It didn't
occur to me that Google and MySql were outside the box.
>>I'd explain that
>>fire is a complex chain reaction involving radical formation. I'd describe
fire
>>as a low speed explosion. I'd support it by pointing out that Halon fire
>>extinguishers work by blocking radicals at the molecular level, not by
depriving
>>the fire of fuel or air.
>
>Before you learned this, Mr Wagner, your explanation might have been a bit
>different... just as your explanation of Google was a bit different.
Right again.
>>Know-nothings would say, 'RW is full of crap. I learned that fire is oxidation
>>in elementary school. Everyone with common sense knows it's true.'
>>
>>Those are the kind of 'debates' we have on CLC.
>
>Plural majestatus est, Mr Wagner; I have no such ''debates' on CLC'.
The Socratic approach avoids opposition.
>>Some would see silence as complaisance.
>
>In my experience, Mr Wagner, some people see things as they were not
>intended in almost any situation... are you going to live your life and
>direct your actions based on the possibility that the Some are watching?
In a public forum where the purpose is communication, yes.
>>The best way of dealing with a
>>schoolyard bully is giving him a taste of his own medicine. I've found they
>>collapse quickly when confronted, keep pushing when not.
>
>You are not proposing to 'deal with a schoolyard bully', Mr Wagner, you
>are proposing to destroy the 'schoolyard'. There might be a bit of a
>difference in doing so.
Collateral damage is regrettable.
>>>>If the spamming tactic silences me, the next unpopular
>>>>poster will be hectored out the same way.
>>>
>>>There might possibly be a difference, Mr Wagner, between not responding to
>>>'just noise' and 'being silenced'; using someone else's actions as
>>>justification for your own can lead to what my Sainted Grandmother - may
>>>she sleep with the angels! - used to invoke as the 'Brooklyn Bridge
>>>Defense': 'So, someone else is jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge... you
>>>should, too?'
>>
>>That's a poor analogy because everyone isn't jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge,
>>only WMK.
>
>Read what I wrote closely, Mr Wagner... it does not state that 'everyone'
>is jumping, just 'someone else'.
I didn't notice that you emended your Sainted Grandmother's words. She used to
say everyone is jumping.
>I do not support Brooklyn Bridge Defenses, Mr Wagner, and your offer to
>behave in what you believe to be an idiotic manner because you conclude
>that someone else is behaving in what you believe to be an idiotic manner
>appears to be just that.
I cannot refute your Become The Enemy Defense.
Chuck Stevens
> >>That's a poor analogy because everyone isn't jumping off the Brooklyn
Bridge,
> >>only WMK.
> >
> >Read what I wrote closely, Mr Wagner... it does not state that 'everyone'
> >is jumping, just 'someone else'.
>
> I didn't notice that you emended your Sainted Grandmother's words. She
used to
> say everyone is jumping.
According to what I read, his Sainted Grandmother is reported as saying
"someone else" in the current thread, "the manager" in another, and only
used "everyone" in rejoinder to an assertion explicitly involving "everyone"
in a third case. "Used to" implies habit; the facts contradict that.
"Occasionally, when context warranted", given this set of three examples, is
arguably more accurate.
Best evidence of what DD's Sainted Grandmother used to say, as reflected in
this forum, runs along the formula "<noun> is doing <x>? Fine, <noun> is
jumping off theBrooklyn Bridge... you'll jump too?". In this formula the
nouns match.
I would also suggest that DD is incontrovertibly better qualified to
describe what his Sainted Grandmother used to say, and how she modified that
saying to fit which circumstances, than Mr. Wagner is.
-Chuck Stevens
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <3ef61d00...@news.optonline.net>,
>>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>I see... and that is how, say, you knew nothing about Google's
>>>>>>modifications and optimisations built into MySQL.
>>>>>
>>>>>I couldn't find a description of how Google works today. I did find the
>>>>>founders' paper describing its internal structure when it started in 1997.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www7.scu.edu.au/programme/fullpapers/1921/com1921.htm
>>>>
>>>>That's nice... what comes next, appropriate documentation to show that
>>>>things burn because they are filled with phlogiston?
>>>
>>>No, but I wouldn't explain fire as simple oxidation either.
>>
>>For what reason would your behavior differ? You did the equivalent with
>>Google, it seems.
>
>You're right. I was thinking inside the limitations of standard SQL. It didn't
>occur to me that Google and MySql were outside the box.
Most gracious of you to admit that.
>
>>>I'd explain that
>>>fire is a complex chain reaction involving radical formation. I'd describe fire
>>>as a low speed explosion. I'd support it by pointing out that Halon fire
>>>extinguishers work by blocking radicals at the molecular level, not by depriving
>>>the fire of fuel or air.
>>
>>Before you learned this, Mr Wagner, your explanation might have been a bit
>>different... just as your explanation of Google was a bit different.
>
>Right again.
And most gracious again.
>
>>>Know-nothings would say, 'RW is full of crap. I learned that fire is oxidation
>>>in elementary school. Everyone with common sense knows it's true.'
>>>
>>>Those are the kind of 'debates' we have on CLC.
>>
>>Plural majestatus est, Mr Wagner; I have no such ''debates' on CLC'.
>
>The Socratic approach avoids opposition.
The Socratic approach is one method... the end towards which one
approaches should be, I would say, the more ancient invocation of 'Come,
let us reason together'.
>
>
>>>Some would see silence as complaisance.
>>
>>In my experience, Mr Wagner, some people see things as they were not
>>intended in almost any situation... are you going to live your life and
>>direct your actions based on the possibility that the Some are watching?
>
>In a public forum where the purpose is communication, yes.
Watching is passive, communicating is active... and more watch, usually,
than communicate. It might be more satisfying to stop 'playing to the
audience' and perform with the other 'actors'.
>
>>>The best way of dealing with a
>>>schoolyard bully is giving him a taste of his own medicine. I've found they
>>>collapse quickly when confronted, keep pushing when not.
>>
>>You are not proposing to 'deal with a schoolyard bully', Mr Wagner, you
>>are proposing to destroy the 'schoolyard'. There might be a bit of a
>>difference in doing so.
>
>Collateral damage is regrettable.
Interesting that you use a military metaphor as a dodge, Mr Wagner... and
one that makes about as much sense in this context as 'We had to destroy
the village in order to save it'.
Your proposition has not been modified, then; it is not one of 'dealing
with a schoolyard bully' but one of destroying the 'schoolyard'. The
Anciente Wisdome has it that one does not use an axe to deal with a fly on
a friend's nose.
>
>>>>>If the spamming tactic silences me, the next unpopular
>>>>>poster will be hectored out the same way.
>>>>
>>>>There might possibly be a difference, Mr Wagner, between not responding to
>>>>'just noise' and 'being silenced'; using someone else's actions as
>>>>justification for your own can lead to what my Sainted Grandmother - may
>>>>she sleep with the angels! - used to invoke as the 'Brooklyn Bridge
>>>>Defense': 'So, someone else is jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge... you
>>>>should, too?'
>>>
>>>That's a poor analogy because everyone isn't jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge,
>>>only WMK.
>>
>>Read what I wrote closely, Mr Wagner... it does not state that 'everyone'
>>is jumping, just 'someone else'.
>
>I didn't notice that you emended your Sainted Grandmother's words. She used to
>say everyone is jumping.
I didn't notice that you ever met my Sainted Grandmother, Mr Wagner, and
had knowledge of what she said and when she said it. There was no
emendation, there was reportage.
>
>>I do not support Brooklyn Bridge Defenses, Mr Wagner, and your offer to
>>behave in what you believe to be an idiotic manner because you conclude
>>that someone else is behaving in what you believe to be an idiotic manner
>>appears to be just that.
>
>I cannot refute your Become The Enemy Defense.
Most gracious of you to admit this, as well.
DD
William M. Klein
all) cases, I prefer it. For those with a NG reader that allows reading
"threads" - this is a much better (IMHO) way of doing things than in the way
that made sense with "old" telnet readers.
As far as trimming goes, my "canned" comment is intended to alert "new"
(and unfamiliar) readers - or those looking thru archives. If, after
reading other posts from RW, they still want to read his comments, I think
they should be left in "without editing". However, I do understand your
"concern". Does your NG reader cause you "long delays" in bringing in all
these posts? If not, you can be certain that any post with such a "top
post" need not be read any further than my "canned" comment. If your NG
reader causes you significant delay in "bringing" in all my replies to his
notes, then let me know if there is something specific that I could add (at
the end of the subject or in the body of my text) to let you "killfile"
these posts without missing other "useful" ones (which I hope you think many
of mine are).
I am willing to be "flexible" about how to "mark" all of RW's posts - but I
do think that we (and I am glad to see at least one other CLC participant
has used my wording) need to make certain that no unsuspecting (new) reader
thinks that his posts are normally relevant, accurate, or in the "spirit" of
CLC.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Ron" <r...@address.below> wrote in message
news:bb0efvcnlfhms027q...@4ax.com...
> "William M. Klein" <wmk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >3) Like DD's standard "do your own homework" note, I will post a generic
> >
> > "Check google for the accuracy track-record of this poster - and the
> ><lack> of regard with which his comments are viewed by many in this
> >newsgroup"
> >
> >comments to his posts.
>
> Please stop doing this.
> You're top posting, and like most top posters, aren't bothering to
> trim at all. Since I have RW killfiled, what you're doing is
> echoing his posts around the killfile. This means that if I don't
> want RW's posts, I have to killfile you, too.
> I don't think I'm the only one affected by this. I'd suggest
> just dropping RW into your own killfile and not trying to "help"
> the situation. Really, even newbies are perfectly capable of
> making up their own mind about the value of his posts, and they're
> capable of doing it without your aid.
> I reiterate: the best way to help the situation is to drop RW
> into your own killfile. That way, the number of RW replies and
> threads will be smaller and the newsgroup will be spared the
> useless bickering.
> If you *really* want to do something active, then you might
> post a periodic (not more than once a week, please) pointer to
> an RW FAQ on the web.
>
> --
> Ron
> (user Ron
> in domain spamblocked.com)
docd...@panix.com
Chuck Stevens <charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I would also suggest that DD is incontrovertibly better qualified to
>describe what his Sainted Grandmother used to say, and how she modified that
>saying to fit which circumstances, than Mr. Wagner is.
... and sometimes those descriptions are difficult to relate, too... such
as the times when my Sainted Grandmother - may she sleep with the angels!
- used to say 'Whrrdy lv thstif?'...
... translating, of course, to 'Where'd I leave those teeth?'
DD
docd...@panix.com
William M. Klein <wmk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I am willing to be "flexible" about how to "mark" all of RW's posts - but I
>do think that we (and I am glad to see at least one other CLC participant
>has used my wording) need to make certain that no unsuspecting (new) reader
>thinks that his posts are normally relevant, accurate, or in the "spirit" of
>CLC.
Mr Klein, with all due respect... your use of "mark" (quote original)
brought to my mind the behavior of house-pets. It might be interesting to
consider the aspects of 'turf marking' before delivering your... streaming
opinions.
DD
Howard Brazee
On 23-Jun-2003, "William M. Klein" <wmk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I have previously posted my view on "top posting", i.e. that in many (not
> all) cases, I prefer it. For those with a NG reader that allows reading
> "threads" - this is a much better (IMHO) way of doing things than in the way
> that made sense with "old" telnet readers.
When it is appropriate to have a long quote with minimal addition - then top
posting makes sense, so that readers can decide whether to page down - at least
when it is obvious that you have no new material added below. It makes even
more sense when the nature of your top post makes it unlikely that a
conversation with layers of quotes will result.
Top posting, bottom posting, & middle posting should each be picked to make it
easy for the reader to follow the conversation.
JerryMouse
Newbie." See comments below.)
"William M. Klein" <wmk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bd7fqj$5r6$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
I agree.
Robert Wagner
>Interesting that you use a military metaphor as a dodge, Mr Wagner... and
>one that makes about as much sense in this context as 'We had to destroy
>the village in order to save it'.
The one who said that was a Marine, so I understood what he meant. A village is
a place in political space and time; it is not a collection of buildings.
Destroying the buildings enabled the political entity to survive, albeit in
ephemeral form for a short while.
FWIW, it irritates me that the quotation is misattributed to 'an American
soldier', 'a public relations officer' and 'a high-ranking officer.' And
(dis)credit usually goes to the US Army. The statement was made by a jarhead,
probably a lieutenant platoon leader. I saw him make it on TV.
Have you ever read B.H. Liddell-Hart, especially his "Strategy"? He puts
emphasis on occupying and administering, as opposed to killing the enemy and
leaving as we did in VietNam. We FINALLY seem to have grasped his wisdom in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Liddell-Hart's heroes are Carl von Clausewitz, Erwin
Rommel and Robert E. Lee. Although the latter two were on the losing side, their
brilliance is worthy of study and emulation.
>>>I do not support Brooklyn Bridge Defenses, Mr Wagner, and your offer to
>>>behave in what you believe to be an idiotic manner because you conclude
>>>that someone else is behaving in what you believe to be an idiotic manner
>>>appears to be just that.
>>
>>I cannot refute your Become The Enemy Defense.
>
>Most gracious of you to admit this, as well.
You changed my thinking on dealing with WMK. Ok, I won't spam his spams. I'll
first try sending in the inspectors (sysadmins), as we did in Iraq. If that
doesn't work ......
Robert Wagner
>I have previously posted my view on "top posting", i.e. that in many (not
>all) cases, I prefer it. For those with a NG reader that allows reading
>"threads" - this is a much better (IMHO) way of doing things than in the way
>that made sense with "old" telnet readers.
I agree in re top posting.
>As far as trimming goes, my "canned" comment is intended to alert "new"
>(and unfamiliar) readers - or those looking thru archives.
Your canned comment is a form of ad hominem which has nothing to do with
protecting new readers. You are SPAMMING the newsgroup in an attempt to
discredit me. Spamming is universally recognized as unacceptable behavior. For
instance:
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam" usually
carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means, essentially,
"too many separate copies of a substantively identical article."
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is
sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is included in
the determination. These are examples of substantively identical articles:
byte-for-byte identical messages
otherwise identical postings minimally customized for each group it appears in.
advertising the same service.
articles that consist solely of the same signature
articles which consist of inclusions of other user's postings, but are otherwise
identical.
> However, I do understand your
>"concern". Does your NG reader cause you "long delays" in bringing in all
>these posts? If not, you can be certain that any post with such a "top
>post" need not be read any further than my "canned" comment. If your NG
>reader causes you significant delay in "bringing" in all my replies to his
>notes, then let me know if there is something specific that I could add (at
>the end of the subject or in the body of my text) to let you "killfile"
>these posts without missing other "useful" ones (which I hope you think many
>of mine are).
You don't understand UseNet basics. If the subject line is changed, you've
started a new thread. Thus your flame would not be juxtaposed to my article.
Given that you're a spammer, you cannot explain it away by offering cosmetic
changes. You can make it go away by stopping your juvenile spamming.
>I am willing to be "flexible" about how to "mark" all of RW's posts - but I
>do think that we (and I am glad to see at least one other CLC participant
>has used my wording) need to make certain that no unsuspecting (new) reader
>thinks that his posts are normally relevant, accurate, or in the "spirit" of
>CLC.
What is the spirit of CLC? Grouchy old men defending obsolete technology? I have
some experience maintaining an outstanding FAQ. I admit yours is good but hand
the FAQ to me and you'll see more COBOL than mainframe.
Robert Wagner
> If you'd add RWwarning to the subject line, then it would be
>extremely easy to killfile on that. Essentially, any unique
>and consistent string in the subject would allow any who
>wish to avoid loading a set of posts that all say the same thing
>would be useful.
Any change to the subject line would cause a new thread to be created. WMK wants
his postings closely associated with mine.
> While I appreciate your flexibility, I still think a periodic
>pointer to a FAQ is the right way to go. If you keep posting the
>same message, RW (or anyone else) could get your account cancelled
>due to spamming the newsgroup. It would be a valid complaint and
>likely to be acted on by your ISP once the Breidbart index went
>over 20. This would occur when you posted the same thing 20 times
>over a 45 day period.
Goddam right. The count is eight right now. When it hits twenty, he'll be
hearing from mindlink administrators.
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>Interesting that you use a military metaphor as a dodge, Mr Wagner... and
>>one that makes about as much sense in this context as 'We had to destroy
>>the village in order to save it'.
>
>The one who said that was a Marine, so I understood what he meant. A village is
>a place in political space and time; it is not a collection of buildings.
>Destroying the buildings enabled the political entity to survive, albeit in
>ephemeral form for a short while.
No, Mr Wagner, a village is a place in the heart and in the mind, a
collection of locations, memories and smells. Just because something can
be understood does not make it rational; it is easy to understand 'The
President of the United States is a six-foot tall lizard!' but the
rationality is questionable.
[snip]
>>>>I do not support Brooklyn Bridge Defenses, Mr Wagner, and your offer to
>>>>behave in what you believe to be an idiotic manner because you conclude
>>>>that someone else is behaving in what you believe to be an idiotic manner
>>>>appears to be just that.
>>>
>>>I cannot refute your Become The Enemy Defense.
>>
>>Most gracious of you to admit this, as well.
>
>You changed my thinking on dealing with WMK. Ok, I won't spam his spams. I'll
>first try sending in the inspectors (sysadmins), as we did in Iraq. If that
>doesn't work ......
Look forward to the white meat, Mr Wagner, but be ready for the sausage...
or...
... hope for the breast but prepare for the wurst. One step at a time.
DD
William M. Klein
> Your canned comment is a form of ad hominem which has nothing to do with
> protecting new readers. You are SPAMMING the newsgroup in an attempt to
> discredit me. Spamming is universally recognized as unacceptable
behavior. For
> instance:
>
If you read the following,
"For those not familiar with comp.lang.cobol,
Check google for the accuracy track-record of this poster (R. Wagner) -
and the <lack of> regard with which most of his comments are viewed by many
in this newsgroup before reading his post below."
This does NOT qualify as an "ad hominem" nor does it discredit you UNLESS
you accecpt the fact that viewing most of your posts via "google" shows that
you are not worthy of credit. It is also a statement of fact that many in
the newsgroup do not have much regard for you - which I think you have
already acknowledged in some of your other posts.
I do *not* state in my words what will happen when "newcomers" view your
posts via google. However, in this note I will say that I suspect that many
(not all) who follow my advice will have the same (and this is "ad hominem")
poor opinion of your accuracy, consistency, logic, and ability to
participate in this NG in manner consistent with its past and that desired
by many of its current participants - as I have.
Arnold Trembley
> (snip)
> Have you ever read B.H. Liddell-Hart, especially his "Strategy"? He puts
> emphasis on occupying and administering, as opposed to killing the enemy and
> leaving as we did in VietNam. We FINALLY seem to have grasped his wisdom in
> Afghanistan and Iraq. Liddell-Hart's heroes are Carl von Clausewitz, Erwin
> Rommel and Robert E. Lee. Although the latter two were on the losing side, their
> brilliance is worthy of study and emulation.
As a matter of fact, I have read B.H. Liddell-Hart's book on
Strategy. But my impression was that Sir Basil had nothing but
contempt for Clausewitz, and a great deal of respect for Sun Tzu.
"If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb
in every battle" - Sun Tzu
Alistair Maclean
RW, DD and overlong quoted re-posts. I'm seriously considering taking a
holiday until things change.
BTW, WMK, please try and convince DD to stop rising to the bait.
In message <bb0efvcnlfhms027q...@4ax.com>, Ron
<r...@address.below> writes
>"William M. Klein" <wmk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
....Snipped....
> I reiterate: the best way to help the situation is to drop RW
>into your own killfile. That way, the number of RW replies and
>threads will be smaller and the newsgroup will be spared the
>useless bickering.
> If you *really* want to do something active, then you might
>post a periodic (not more than once a week, please) pointer to
>an RW FAQ on the web.
>
--
Alistair Maclean
SkippyPB
enlightened us:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>Interesting that you use a military metaphor as a dodge, Mr Wagner... and
>>one that makes about as much sense in this context as 'We had to destroy
>>the village in order to save it'.
>
>The one who said that was a Marine, so I understood what he meant. A village is
>a place in political space and time; it is not a collection of buildings.
>Destroying the buildings enabled the political entity to survive, albeit in
>ephemeral form for a short while.
>
>FWIW, it irritates me that the quotation is misattributed to 'an American
>soldier', 'a public relations officer' and 'a high-ranking officer.' And
>(dis)credit usually goes to the US Army. The statement was made by a jarhead,
>probably a lieutenant platoon leader. I saw him make it on TV.
>
>Have you ever read B.H. Liddell-Hart, especially his "Strategy"? He puts
>emphasis on occupying and administering, as opposed to killing the enemy and
>leaving as we did in VietNam. We FINALLY seem to have grasped his wisdom in
>Afghanistan and Iraq. Liddell-Hart's heroes are Carl von Clausewitz, Erwin
>Rommel and Robert E. Lee. Although the latter two were on the losing side, their
>brilliance is worthy of study and emulation.
>
I have no idea what Viet Nam you are talking about, but our strategy
when we were there WAS to occupy and administer. What the hell do you
think the purpose of division size base camps in Pleiku, Saigon and
many other places was? What do you think the purpose of the Armies'
S-5 unit was? I'll give you hint. They are the Armies' Civilian
Administration unit. Why do you think the CIA sponsored elections in
south Viet Nam?
The differences in strategy between Viet Nam and Afghanistan and Iraq
are minimal at best. The difference is a military with a clear plan
(ours) and a nearly defenseless and unmotivated enemy. You clearly
have no clue and I'm wondering if you ever actually saw Viet Nam
outside of a book.
>>>>I do not support Brooklyn Bridge Defenses, Mr Wagner, and your offer to
>>>>behave in what you believe to be an idiotic manner because you conclude
>>>>that someone else is behaving in what you believe to be an idiotic manner
>>>>appears to be just that.
>>>
>>>I cannot refute your Become The Enemy Defense.
>>
>>Most gracious of you to admit this, as well.
>
>You changed my thinking on dealing with WMK. Ok, I won't spam his spams. I'll
>first try sending in the inspectors (sysadmins), as we did in Iraq. If that
>doesn't work ......
WMK is just pointing out the facts. That you can't handle them is
solely your problem.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
Real Signs:
In a New York City restaurant: OPEN SEVEN DAYS A WEEK AND WEEKENDS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
Robert Wagner
Spam is neither consistent with the CLC's past nor desired by its participants.
More importantly, it's inconsistent with your ISP's Acceptable Use Policy.
Frederico Fonseca
wrote:
As you consider that Spam is not acceptable by CLC's, would you please
stop posting in this group!.
Frederico Fonseca
ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com
William M. Klein
quoted text from me.
Whether *my* posts are "consistent" with CLC's past or not - is a separate
issue from whether RW's posts are.
Just on an "historical" note, since I have been a participant in CLC, there
HAS been one other "frequent poster" to CLC who generated as much disgust
(my words - not the groups) as RW does. There was SIGNIFICANT "spam" (if by
that you mean "tailored" replies) to his posts. This person used to make
posts that "basically" claimed that what was "good enough" for COBOL in 1974
was good enough for EVERYONE to use today. Furthermore, the fact that he
could "easily" maintain his own code (in a "shop of 1") meant that his style
was the "best possible". I only comment on this to reflect that (yet again)
RW's view of history (this time of CLC) is in error.
P.S. It should be noted that SINCE the "issue" of spam was raised, every
note of mine in reply to RW's (usually irrelevant and/or inaccurate) posts
has been "tailored" to explicitly address the specific post of his.
I certainly DO hope that RW learns from his reception within CLC and
Either
Learns how to post "useful" posts to CLC
or
Stops posting in CLC
It is unfortunate that the LENGTH of time (and the number of posts - and
"irrational threads") that RW has generated has already diminished the
"traditional" resources in CLC. Until he recognizes how LITTLE support he
receives from any participants and that the reason for this is HIS "style"
and "content" - I fear that CLC will be a "poorer" place for those actually
interested in COBOL.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <rob...@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:3ef8a492....@news.optonline.net...
docd...@panix.com
Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I agree. It takes far too long to download the newsgroup now, thanks to
>RW, DD and overlong quoted re-posts.
Mr Maclean, is this a matter of personal impression or might you happen to
have, say, anything that resembles a set of facts and figures to support
this?
>I'm seriously considering taking a
>holiday until things change.
Take care, stay well and go in good health, old boy.
DD
JerryMouse
"Frederico Fonseca" <real-email-...@email.com>
> >
> >Spam is neither consistent with the CLC's past nor desired by its
participants.
> >More importantly, it's inconsistent with your ISP's Acceptable Use
Policy.
> As you consider that Spam is not acceptable by CLC's, would you please
> stop posting in this group!.
Speaking of spam reminds me of SPAM(tm). Did you know SPAM(tm) now comes in
flavors other that "legacy" SPAM? Hormel makes Hickory SPAM and (my
favorite, yum) Chili SPAM.
docd...@panix.com
I've also heard tales of low-sodium SPAM(tm) and reduced-fat SPAM(tm)...
which seems to make as much sense as Iron City Light beer.
DD
JerryMouse
<docd...@panix.com>
>
> I've also heard tales of low-sodium SPAM(tm) and reduced-fat SPAM(tm)...
> which seems to make as much sense as Iron City Light beer.
I used to have a customer who owned a donut shop. He said not a day went by
that someone would order three jelly-filled and a diet Coke.
Self-delusion is instinctive.
docd...@panix.com
Well, maybe these folks were filling a group order for the office... or
something like that... and maybe I am the King of England, too! I recall,
long ago, seeing in a Reader's Digest something like 'Trying to lose
weight only by switching to low-calorie beverages is like trying to
lighten a falling airplane by emptying the ashtrays'.
>
>Self-delusion is instinctive.
Oh, I *cannot resist... are you sure you're being honest with yourself?
That sounded almost... reflexive.
(Freud said that the most profound statement of psychology he had ever
heard was Nietzsche's 'Memory says 'I did that'. Pride says 'I could not
have done that'. Eventually memory yields.')
DD
JerryMouse
<docd...@panix.com> >
> (Freud said that the most profound statement of psychology he had ever
> heard was Nietzsche's 'Memory says 'I did that'. Pride says 'I could not
> have done that'. Eventually memory yields.')
>
> DD
Didn't Clinton say the most profound statement of psychology he had ever
heard was Freud's "Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar."
docd...@panix.com
Not that I know of, no... but I do not follow the antics of politicians
very closely.
DD
Howard Brazee
On 24-Jun-2003, "JerryMouse" <nos...@bisusa.com> wrote:
> I used to have a customer who owned a donut shop. He said not a day went by
> that someone would order three jelly-filled and a diet Coke.
It is possible (though unlikely) that this makes sense. Someone budgets his
calories or sugar or caffeine for a day, and then decides he would rather have
it in jelly than in real Coke.
Tukla Ratte
wrote:
Or maybe Diet Coke just tastes better. >8-)
I prefer Diet Sprite over regular Sprite just because of the taste; I
don't give a damn about the calories.
--
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
Howard Brazee
On 26-Jun-2003, tukla...@tukla.net (Tukla Ratte) wrote:
> Or maybe Diet Coke just tastes better. >8-)
>
> I prefer Diet Sprite over regular Sprite just because of the taste; I
> don't give a damn about the calories.
But does anybody think lite beer tastes better than regular beer?
Probably, lots of people think that Regular Bud or Coors Original tastes better
than an Amber Ale or Nut Brown.
Do lite beer drinkers have 1/2 beer bellies?
Joe Zitzelberger
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
I just switched from my very occasional regular Coke to diet Coke.
After the first few months I was able to actually consume the diet Coke
without wanting to vomit. Now, I can't tell a difference.
(I was looking for calories I could cut out so I wouldn't have to switch
to lite beer...)
LX-i
IMO, the "caffeine-free" diet beverages are better than the caffeinated
ones. Generally, the CF versions of off-brand diet sodas are usually
better than their counterparts as well (which I found out during my
college days - "Hmmm... Coke is $1.49, Sam's Choice is $.69...")
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ AIM: LXi0007 ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ E-mail: LXi...@Netscape.net ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please post if you wish to be contacted privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Brazee
On 26-Jun-2003, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitz...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I just switched from my very occasional regular Coke to diet Coke.
> After the first few months I was able to actually consume the diet Coke
> without wanting to vomit. Now, I can't tell a difference.
I did the same thing after my heart attack a couple of years ago. As you say,
it took a while, but I adjusted.
> (I was looking for calories I could cut out so I wouldn't have to switch
> to lite beer...)
There's only so much adjusting I'm willing to do.
Alistair Maclean
>In article <1swSrEFb...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk>,
>Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I agree. It takes far too long to download the newsgroup now, thanks to
>>RW, DD and overlong quoted re-posts.
>
>Mr Maclean, is this a matter of personal impression or might you happen to
>have, say, anything that resembles a set of facts and figures to support
>this?
>
Sorry DD, all I have is a 56k modem. I have noticed a substantial
increase in download time with no concomitant increase in the numbers
of newsgroup postings.
>>I'm seriously considering taking a
>>holiday until things change.
>
>Take care, stay well and go in good health, old boy.
>
>DD
Tsk! You've peeked at my birth certificate again!
--
Alistair Maclean
YukonMama
Diet drinks leave a real bad taste in my mouth and give my daughter a very bad
headache (am told it's a reaction to the aspertame in most diet beverages).
Decafe coffee tastes like dirt from the backyard. Decafe tea isn't too bad and
it's about the only decafe beverage I'll drink if the 'real thing' isn't
available.
A few weeks back one of the grocery chains in town was hawking their store
brand of various items using blind taste tests. Of the 20 different products
they were demonstrating I was able to identify the name brand in all but 2 and
prefered the store brand version of one. If the family isn't going to eat it,
it's expensive.
Donald Tees
news:20030629230604...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> Decafe coffee tastes like dirt from the backyard. Decafe tea isn't too
bad and
> it's about the only decafe beverage I'll drink if the 'real thing' isn't
> available.
>
Coffee fuels this abode. A kilo a week. If I bought defafe, I'd probably
get my pot supply cut off.
Donald
Robert Wagner
'delivery device' of nicotine. Manufacturers take 12 oz. of water, add TEN
TEASPOONS of sugar and a little flavoring, then sell it to you for ten times
what it cost to produce. Would you take a glass of water, stir in ten teaspoons
of sugar and drink it down? If you would, you're headed for Type II diabetes in
midlife.
Ingesting that much sugar is abusive. If you need hydration, drink water, it's
free. If you want more interest, drink flavored iced tea.
>Diet drinks leave a real bad taste in my mouth and give my daughter a very bad
>headache (am told it's a reaction to the aspertame in most diet beverages).
99% of allergens are proteins. Aspertame is a protein. It's not only allergenic,
it's toxic to those who don't show allergic reactions. It causes brain
confusion.
JerryMouse
> If the family isn't going to eat it, it's expensive.
Around my house, if the 'family' didn't eat it, they wore it. My momma ....
Alistair Maclean
aspartame / / n.
a very sweet low-calorie substance used as a sweetener instead of sugar
or saccharin.
[chemical name 1-methyl N-l-aspartyl-l-phenylalanine, from aspartic
acid]
--
Alistair Maclean
Robert Wagner
I didn't say amino acid because some people associate the word acid with
chemical burns rather than electron receptors. Protein is familiar to everyone.
Chuck Stevens
Whatever your motives, and however familiar either of the two terms might be
to your target audience, amino acids are components of proteins, they aren't
themselves proteins. It's about as accurate to refer to Aspartame as a
protein as it is to refer to it as a hydrocarbon.
-Chuck Stevens
Donald Tees
pair of words that mean ... well I guess I'll let you make up your own
meaning ...
Donald.
"Robert Wagner" <rob...@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:3f00aa10...@news.optonline.com...
Robert Wagner
docd...@panix.com
You might have said what you did, Mr Wagner, because Space Aliens put the
words into your brain; whatever the reason for doing so calling aspartame
'an amino acid' or 'a protein' is, according to my understanding of the
criteria for either of these compounds, wrong.
DD
Harley
I associate acid with the word "flashback".
Robert Wagner
Tell your space alien friends that if they want to learn organic chemistry, they
must study chemistry texts, not lookup words in the dictionary and then
misunderstand the definition. Aspartic acid is an amino acid, the basic building
block of proteins. It is a potential allergen. Because it contains nitrogen, it
is not remotely close to a hydrocarbon, as suggested by fellow know-nothing
Donald Tees.
If you want to debate chemistry, it would help if you knew at least Chemistry
101. Looking this stuff up in the dictionary doesn't cut it.
Richard Plinston
>>>>To correct an error, aspartame is not a protein.
> Aspartic acid is an amino acid, the basic building block of proteins.
Aspartic acid is an amino acid.
Aspartame is _not_ aspartic acid.
Aspartame is _not_ an amino acid (nor a protein).
Aspartame is an ester synthesized from aspartic acid and phenylalanine.
Donald Tees
news:bdr0su$lsl$1...@aklobs.kc.net.nz...
Robert already knows that, he just gave the incorrect information cause the
rest of us are too stupid to handle the truth Richard. After all "acid" is
a politically incorrect word and burns people, and he would not want any of
us frightened.
Donald
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <3f00aa10...@news.optonline.com>,
>>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>To correct an error, aspartame is not a protein. From the OED:
>>>>
>>>>aspartame / / n.
>>>>a very sweet low-calorie substance used as a sweetener instead of sugar
>>>>or saccharin.
>>>>[chemical name 1-methyl N-l-aspartyl-l-phenylalanine, from aspartic
>>>>acid]
>>>
>>>I didn't say amino acid because some people associate the word acid with
>>>chemical burns rather than electron receptors. Protein is familiar to everyone.
>>
>>You might have said what you did, Mr Wagner, because Space Aliens put the
>>words into your brain; whatever the reason for doing so calling aspartame
>>'an amino acid' or 'a protein' is, according to my understanding of the
>>criteria for either of these compounds, wrong.
>
>Tell your space alien friends that if they want to learn organic chemistry, they
>must study chemistry texts, not lookup words in the dictionary and then
>misunderstand the definition. Aspartic acid is an amino acid, the basic building
>block of proteins.
Aspartame is not aspartic acid, Mr Wagner... aspartic acid is a component
of aspartame.
[snip]
>If you want to debate chemistry, it would help if you knew at least Chemistry
>101. Looking this stuff up in the dictionary doesn't cut it.
Mr Wagner, were I to want to debate chemistry I would choose to do so with
someone who uses the terminology correctly. You may consider further
input from you in this thread unnecessary.
DD
Robert Wagner
Phenylalanine is an amino acid.
A protein is two or more amino acids joined by peptide (C<->H) bonds.
A diamide is is two amino acids joined by any bonds.
An ester is an organic 'salt' formed by joining an acid with a base, usually
with loss of water.
How to make aspartame:
Phenylalanine C9H11NO2
+ Methanol (a base) CH3OH
= C10H15NO3
- water * 2 H4O2
= the ester C10H11NO
+ Aspartic acid C4H7NO4
= Aspartame (a diamide) C14H18N2O5
In other words, aspartame is two amino acids + an alcohol - water. Your
metabolism reverses the synthesis by breaking the bonds and adding water. The
amino acids are used normally i.e. to synthesize proteins. What remains is
methanol aka wood alcohol. In native form it can cause blindness but the more
serious concern is that when oxidized it produces formaldehyde. Formaldehyde
causes many medical problems including nerve damage, lung cancer and brain
cancer.
How to make formaldehyde:
Methanol CH3OH
+ oxygen O
- water H2O
= Formaldehyde CH2O
As a point of interest, your liver makes enzymes to metabolize ethanol (the
alcohol in beer, wine, etc.) because your body makes ethanol as a byproduct of
several chemical processes. One of them occurs in the retina of your eye. Your
body does not have enzymes to eliminate any other kind of inorganic alcohol
because they do not occur naturally.
The white powder on chewing gum is an alcohol that happens to be solid at room
temperature. Its function there is to absorb water. It will not make you high;
it will not even leave your GI tract because it's indigestible. In large
quantity, it will give you diahhrea.
Robert
SkippyPB
enlightened us:
>You just contributed zero information and wasted everyone's time.
>
>
But at least, unlike you, he was correct.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
Real Signs:
Sign in the window of a home cookin' restaurant in Phoenix:
The best piece of chicken you'll ever get without being a rooster!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
Robert Wagner
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:09:33 GMT, rob...@wagner.net (Robert Wagner)
>enlightened us:
>
>>You just contributed zero information and wasted everyone's time.
>But at least, unlike you, he was correct.
No, he was not correct in calling me a bullshit artist. In a discussion about
soft drinks, I said aspartame is allergenic because it is a protein. That's not
bullshit, that's simplification. A protein is two or more amino acids joined by
peptide bonds. Aspartame is two amino acids joined by another covalent bond,
specifically the two nitrogens are bonded to hydrogen rather than carbon. Would
pointing that out have added any useful information? Should I have drawn a
picture of the stereochemical structure?
I'm faulted for turning CLC into a debate forum. After I posted an innocuous and
essentially CORRECT statement, three know-nothings jumped on me with information
far more incorrect than mine. For instance, Alistair's dictionary definition
mentions only one component out of three that compose aspartame.
I didn't start a debate nor call names, you and your friends did.
--------- history of inaccuracy and boorishness below ---------
Chuck Stevens
> In a discussion about
> soft drinks, I said aspartame is allergenic because it is a protein.
That's not
> bullshit, that's simplification. A protein is two or more amino acids
joined by
> peptide bonds.
The definition in Webster's Ninth Collegiate states that proteins are
"naturally occurring extremely complex combinations of amino acids ...".
What is your source for the definition you are using?
> Aspartame is two amino acids joined by another covalent bond,
> specifically the two nitrogens are bonded to hydrogen rather than carbon.
How does "two amino acids joined by another covalent bond" qualify as a
"naturally occurring extremely complex combination of amino acids"?
Specifically, I have difficulty understanding the synthesis of Aspartame as
earlier described as being a naturally-occurring process. I also have some
difficulty thinking of two amino acids being joined by one bond as meeting
the criterion of the combination being extremely complex.
> Would pointing that out have added any useful information?
Might have been more accurate.
> Should I have drawn a picture of the stereochemical structure?
Arguably not. But using words the way a commonly-accepted dictionary of
English describes their meaning might be useful in fostering clear,
unambiguous and accurate communications.
> I'm faulted for turning CLC into a debate forum. After I
> posted an innocuous and essentially CORRECT statement,
> three know-nothings jumped on me with information far
> more incorrect than mine. For instance, Alistair's dictionary
> definition mentions only one component out of three that
> compose aspartame.
Well, let's try another dictionary definition, then. Webster's Ninth
Collegiate:
Protein... 1. Any of numerous naturally occurring extremely complex
combinations of amino acids that contain the elements carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen, oxygen, usu. sulfur, and occas. other elements (as phosphorus or
iron), are essential elements of all living cells, and are syntehsized from
raw materials by plants but assimilated as separate amino acids by animals
2) the total nitrogenous material in plant or animal substances.
Is your personal understanding of "protein" perhaps a touch Dodgsonesque?
-Chuck Stevens
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>SkippyPB <swie...@neo.NOSPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:09:33 GMT, rob...@wagner.net (Robert Wagner)
>>enlightened us:
>>
>>>You just contributed zero information and wasted everyone's time.
>
>>But at least, unlike you, he was correct.
>
>No, he was not correct in calling me a bullshit artist. In a discussion about
>soft drinks, I said aspartame is allergenic because it is a protein. That's not
>bullshit, that's simplification. A protein is two or more amino acids joined by
>peptide bonds.
Mr Wagner, this is an uncited definition. According to Morrison & Boyd
('Organic Chemistry' (3rd edition)): 'Proteins are made up of peptide
chains, that is, or amino acids joined by amide linkages. They differ
from polypeptides in having higher molecular weights (by convention over
10,000) and more complex structures.'
According to Streitweiser & Heathcock ('Introduction to Organic Chemistry'
(2nd ed.)): 'Proteins are special types of polypeptides composed primarily
of about 20 different specific amino acids. They are large molecules,
with molecular weights from 6000 to more than 1,000,000 (from more than 50
to more than 8000 amino acids per molecule).'
According to Van Nostrand ('Scientific Encyclopedia'): 'Molecular weights
of proteins extend from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands...'
According to
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polypeptides.html
: 'Proteins are made up of one or more polypeptide molecules'
... and according to
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/mim/domestic/html/saccharin_text.htm : 'The
aspartame molecule is a dipeptide, and is a combination of two naturally
occurring amino acids.'
Now, Mr Wagner, you stated, clearly and unambiguously, that 'aspartame...
is a protein.'; this is contradicted by the cite which calls it a
dipeptide. You have stated that 'A protein is two or more amino acids
joined by peptide bonds.'; this is contradicted by the cites which, while
varying in specifics, all grant proteins weights far in excess of what
might be generated by combining two amino acids.
You are, according to the sources given, wrong in the very basis of your
definitions and terminology. Are you able to present any sources to
support your uses?
DD
Richard
> >Aspartame is an ester
> An ester is an organic 'salt' formed by ..
Exactly, so why can't you just admit you were wrong instead of ranting
on as if you were 'almost right' in a format that is similar to your
string of 'I meant ..'s
Do try and stick to Cobol, this stuff is crap.
Alistair Maclean
<rob...@wagner.net> writes
So finally you admit fault. Most people understand what an amino acid is
and it's role in making proteins.
--
Alistair Maclean
Alistair Maclean
<rob...@wagner.net> writes
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <3f00aa10...@news.optonline.com>,
>>Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>>>Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>To correct an error, aspartame is not a protein. From the OED:
>>>>
>>>>aspartame / / n.
>>>>a very sweet low-calorie substance used as a sweetener instead of sugar
>>>>or saccharin.
>>>>[chemical name 1-methyl N-l-aspartyl-l-phenylalanine, from aspartic
>>>>acid]
>>>
>
>chemistry, they
>must study chemistry texts, not lookup words in the dictionary and then
>misunderstand the definition. Aspartic acid is an amino acid, the basic
>building
>block of proteins. It is a potential allergen. Because it contains nitrogen, it
>is not remotely close to a hydrocarbon, as suggested by fellow know-nothing
>Donald Tees.
>
>If you want to debate chemistry, it would help if you knew at least Chemistry
>101. Looking this stuff up in the dictionary doesn't cut it.
I looked it up in the dictionary because even you (RW) can not argue
with the Oxford English Dictionary. Don't belittle others for your
inadequacies.
As for allergens (I suffer from eczema and allergic rhynitis): all
chemicals, naturally sourced or otherwise, are potential allergens and
toxins. Even distilled water kills.
--
Alistair Maclean
Robert Wagner
>
>"Robert Wagner" <rob...@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:3f01a8ce...@news.optonline.com...
>> In a discussion about
>> soft drinks, I said aspartame is allergenic because it is a protein.
>That's not
>> bullshit, that's simplification. A protein is two or more amino acids
>joined by
>> peptide bonds.
>
>The definition in Webster's Ninth Collegiate states that proteins are
>"naturally occurring extremely complex combinations of amino acids ...".
>What is your source for the definition you are using?
There isn't an Official Definition of protein. A working definition in DNA
research circles is that it must be capable of 'normal' monomer folding. The
generally accepted hypothesis is that the smallest possible would contain 20
amino acids. Similar numbers appear on the list I posted in reply to Doc Dwarf,
with the notable exception of antifreeze glycoprotein, which is not folded.
>> Aspartame is two amino acids joined by another covalent bond,
>> specifically the two nitrogens are bonded to hydrogen rather than carbon.
>
>How does "two amino acids joined by another covalent bond" qualify as a
>"naturally occurring extremely complex combination of amino acids"?
>Specifically, I have difficulty understanding the synthesis of Aspartame as
>earlier described as being a naturally-occurring process. I also have some
>difficulty thinking of two amino acids being joined by one bond as meeting
>the criterion of the combination being extremely complex.
I don't know what "naturally occurring" means. Proteins are synthesized by
plants and animals. DNA is the synthesis factory .. that's all it does. By that
definition, an insulin molecule made by an animal is "natural" while an
IDENTICAL molecule made in a lab is "artificiall". In my opinion, natural is not
a useful distinction.
"Extremely complex" is too vague. Define extremely or complex. The definition in
terms of folding is a concrete test.
http://www.icgeb.org/~p450srv/artificial_reviews.html
>> Would pointing that out have added any useful information?
>
>Might have been more accurate.
Calling aspartame a diamide would have sounded pedantic, which would have led to
criticism for ego gratification.
>> I'm faulted for turning CLC into a debate forum. After I
>> posted an innocuous and essentially CORRECT statement,
>> three know-nothings jumped on me with information far
>> more incorrect than mine. For instance, Alistair's dictionary
>> definition mentions only one component out of three that
>> compose aspartame.
>
>Well, let's try another dictionary definition, then. Webster's Ninth
>Collegiate:
>
>Protein... 1. Any of numerous naturally occurring extremely complex
>combinations of amino acids that contain the elements carbon, hydrogen,
>nitrogen, oxygen, usu. sulfur, and occas. other elements (as phosphorus or
>iron), are essential elements of all living cells, and are synthesized from
>raw materials by plants but assimilated as separate amino acids by animals
>2) the total nitrogenous material in plant or animal substances.
That definition is simply wrong. The only elements _required_ to make an amino
acid are N, C and H. Only "essential" amino acids are assimilated by animals;
they synthesize all the rest. It almost sounds like they have protein confused
with carbohydrate.
>Is your personal understanding of "protein" perhaps a touch Dodgsonesque?
While we're on the subject, did you know the heme molecule (found in all
animals) and the chlorophyll molecule are identical except for one atom?
Chlorophyll has magnesium in the center; heme has iron. The difference between
Mn and Fe is one proton. If you were missing one proton, you'd be a plant.
Carroll could have used that.
Robert Wagner
9 aa Glycoproteins used as antifreeze by antarctic fish
http://tea.rice.edu/schulz/12.4.1999.html
20 aa Tryptophan cage, the 'poison' in Gila Monster saliva
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021018080244.htm
24 aa Humanin, a human protein associated with Alzheimer's
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/bi-tpp050903.php
51 aa Insulin, all mammals (molecular weight 5733)
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/pancreas/insulin_struct.html
---- history below ---
Chuck Stevens
> There isn't an Official Definition of protein.
There isn't an Academie Francaise defining American English, that's true.
However, it is my considered opinion that the Merriam-Webster offerings can
be considered accurate reflections of how words can be considered to be
generally understood in American English.
> A working definition in DNA research circles is that it must be capable of
'normal' monomer folding.
A working definition of "bicho" in some circles is "bug". In other circles
it's "thingy". In still other circles it's unprintable. Alta Vista gives
"tiny beast". However, neither I nor anybody else in this forum seems to
be atttempting to communicate in Mexican, Venezuelan or Cuban dialects of
Spanish. The particular jargon used by DNA researchers does not define
common usage.
> >
> >Well, let's try another dictionary definition, then. Webster's Ninth
> >Collegiate: ...
> That definition is simply wrong. ...
How DNA researchers think of "protein" is not necessarily how it is
generally understood in American English. By the same token, how COBOL
programmers think of "picture" is not necessarily how the generic casual
visitor to a photographic exhibition would do so.
Jargon: 2: the technical terminology or characteristic idion of a special
activity or group ...
I'd recommend strongly, if the M-W definition is "simply wrong", that you
contact them immediately. Many rely on www.m-w.com for common usage in
American English, and they need to fix their website to reflect more
accurately common American usage. You might encourage them to recall all
the copies of the just-published Eleventh Collegiate so that they can
reprint them to adjust for their failure to treat the DNA researcher's usage
as accurately determining the definition of "protein" for the population at
large ... And since you'll be pointing this error out to them, you might
want to get them to fix "picture" too ... ;-)
-Chuck Stevens
Michael Mattias
Aspartame:
1. Sweet stuff that goes into soda pop and other foods.
2. Substance which made Don Rumsfeld rich when he ran G D Searle.
MCM
docd...@panix.com
Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <3f00f20a...@news.optonline.com>, Robert Wagner
><rob...@wagner.net> writes
[snip]
>>Tell your space alien friends that if they want to learn organic
>>chemistry, they
>>must study chemistry texts, not lookup words in the dictionary and then
>>misunderstand the definition. Aspartic acid is an amino acid, the basic
>>building
>>block of proteins. It is a potential allergen. Because it contains nitrogen, it
>>is not remotely close to a hydrocarbon, as suggested by fellow know-nothing
>>Donald Tees.
>>
>>If you want to debate chemistry, it would help if you knew at least Chemistry
>>101. Looking this stuff up in the dictionary doesn't cut it.
>
>I looked it up in the dictionary because even you (RW) can not argue
>with the Oxford English Dictionary. Don't belittle others for your
>inadequacies.
Doing - or not-doing, depending on how one wishes to see the situation -
such a thing might have a discernable effect on the volume of postings
here.
>
>As for allergens (I suffer from eczema and allergic rhynitis): all
>chemicals, naturally sourced or otherwise, are potential allergens and
>toxins. Even distilled water kills.
Oh, I *cannot* resist...
... depending on how much of it you breathe, aye!
DD
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>Some examples of small proteins with cites:
>
> 9 aa Glycoproteins used as antifreeze by antarctic fish
>
> http://tea.rice.edu/schulz/12.4.1999.html
Mr Wagner, nowhere on this page is it stated that 'a protein is two or
more amino acids joined by peptide bonds' and nowhere on this page is it
stated that aspartame is a protein.
>
>20 aa Tryptophan cage, the 'poison' in Gila Monster saliva
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021018080244.htm
Mr Wagner, this page does not state 'two or more amino acids joined by
peptide bonds' or that aspartame is a protein.
>
>24 aa Humanin, a human protein associated with Alzheimer's
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/bi-tpp050903.php
Mr Wagner, no statement here of either of your assertions.
>
>51 aa Insulin, all mammals (molecular weight 5733)
>
>
>http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/pancreas/insulin_struct.html
Mr Wagner, there is no statement here which matches your assertions... in
short, *none* of your sources verify your assertions.
Your statements were clear and unambiguous, Mr Wagner, as definitions
should be... your statements are also, according to the sources you have
cited above, completely and utterly idiosyncratic.
DD
----- history follows -----
Robert Wagner
>In message <3f00aa10...@news.optonline.com>, Robert Wagner
><rob...@wagner.net> writes
>>Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>To correct an error, aspartame is not a protein. From the OED:
>>>
>>>aspartame / / n.
>>>a very sweet low-calorie substance used as a sweetener instead of sugar
>>>or saccharin.
>>>[chemical name 1-methyl N-l-aspartyl-l-phenylalanine, from aspartic
>>>acid]
>>
>>I didn't say amino acid because some people associate the word acid with
>>chemical burns rather than electron receptors. Protein is familiar to
everyone.
>>
>
>So finally you admit fault.
I admit to using an imprecise word in a non-technical discussion, in the
interest of the readers' ease.
Your OED quotation is even less precise. It doesn't say what aspartame IS other
than a "substance", and it mentions only one out of three components. It is an
informal description rather than a Definition. Generally, dictionaries are poor
sources for definitions of technical words. For a good definition, you must go
to the subject's literature.
For chemistry, two outstanding online sources are:
http://www.aist.go.jp/RIODB/SDBS/sdbs/owa/sdbs_sea.cre_frame_sea
http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/name-ser.html
(even gives bond enthalpies)
Go to the first, lookup C6H12O6, the formula for basic monosaccharides such as
glucose and fructose. You'll be amazed to find 17 isomers, some of which aren't
sugars at all. Then lookup the chemicals we've been discussing: C9H11NO2,
C4H7NO4, CH3OH and C14H18N2O5. Not so simple, is it?
>Most people understand what an amino acid is and it's role in making proteins.
That's certainly untrue for most people, and arguably untrue for most educated
people. I once read that 50% of college seniors in Texas could not name the
country to its south. Unbelieving, I asked a few Texans, including my daughter
who'd waded across the Rio Grande with me several times. None of them could
answer correctly. When I told my (then) boss about it, he replied "I have a
similar question I ask non-technical job applicants such as secretaries. The
question is "Who was Sigmund Freud?" Half don't know the answer." Unbelieving, I
went home and asked my (then) wife, who sat around reading psychology books all
day long. She guessed he was a physicist. I'm not making this up!
Robert Wagner
I wanted to say the same, but succeeded in restraining myself.
I've learned from bitter experience that allergic people won't listen to logic.
I try to explain that the antibody mechanism can identify only proteins and
polypeptides (such as A-gliadin, which causes celiac, wheat allergy) and maybe
metals like nickel. They don't want to hear it. They insist everything is an
allergen. They even talk about 'allergies' to water. I give up.
Robert Wagner
>
>"Robert Wagner" <rob...@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:3f01ebb0....@news.optonline.com...
>
>> There isn't an Official Definition of protein.
>
>There isn't an Academie Francaise defining American English, that's true.
>However, it is my considered opinion that the Merriam-Webster offerings can
>be considered accurate reflections of how words can be considered to be
>generally understood in American English.
M-W 'defines' COBOL as: a computer programming language designed for business
applications. That's a description, not a rigorous definition.
>> A working definition in DNA research circles is that it must be capable of
>'normal' monomer folding.
>
>A working definition of "bicho" in some circles is "bug". In other circles
>it's "thingy". In still other circles it's unprintable. Alta Vista gives
>"tiny beast". However, neither I nor anybody else in this forum seems to
>be atttempting to communicate in Mexican, Venezuelan or Cuban dialects of
>Spanish. The particular jargon used by DNA researchers does not define
>common usage.
DNA researchers are on the leading edge of protein synthesis.They are the
experts. My misuse of protein played to common usage. You obviously want to
debate technical usage. Are you equipped to do so with more than a dictionary?
>> >Well, let's try another dictionary definition, then. Webster's Ninth
>> >Collegiate: ...
>
>> That definition is simply wrong. ...
>
>How DNA researchers think of "protein" is not necessarily how it is
>generally understood in American English.
That's a red herring and this whole line of argumentation is bullshit. You want
me to admit that I'm stupid. Ok, I'm stupid. Have your way with it and stop
harassing me.
Robert Wagner
cites again. I won't waste another hour looking them up only to have them
trashed like this.
docd...@panix.com
Perhaps you are directing your efforts inappropriately, Mr Wagner, and
should start at the source.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=allergen
DD
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
>You ask for cites, I give them, and you act like a buffo, a clown.
Mr Wagner, I asked for cites of your definition; you gave cites of
something out. Pointing this out is not what I would call 'clownish'.
>Don't ask for
>cites again.
Rest assured, Mr Wagner, that I will give your imperatives all the
consideration they duly deserve.
>I won't waste another hour looking them up only to have them
>trashed like this.
Were the cite you had supplied to have supported - note the subjunctive,
Mr Wagner - your definitions, Mr Wagner, then what you describe as
'trashing' would not have happened.
DD
docd...@panix.com
Robert Wagner <rob...@wagner.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I once read that 50% of college seniors in Texas could not name the
>country to its south.
Mr Wagner, there is no 'the' country to the south of Texas, there are many
countries to the south of Texas. What is the geographic orientation of,
say, Brazil to Texas?
>Unbelieving, I asked a few Texans, including my daughter
>who'd waded across the Rio Grande with me several times. None of them could
>answer correctly.
This may speak more towards the company you keep, Mr Wagner, than anything
else.
DD
Russell Styles
I am quessing that you do not watch Jay Leno. This very thing is a
regular
part of his show. He calls it "Jay walking", and he goes on the street and
asks normal people easy questions.
I have no idea how many DO answer his questions correctly, they
don't get on the air. The people mentioned above would fit right in.
Alistair Maclean
>> Even distilled water kills.
>
>Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
>... depending on how much of it you breathe, aye!
>
>DD
>
No, Doc. Seriously, water is toxic if drunk to excess. Witness: recent
deaths in the UK with excessive water consumption after taking Ecstasy.
--
Alistair Maclean
Alistair Maclean
<rob...@wagner.net> writes
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <+3CgNwArTfA$Ew...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk>,
>>Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>As for allergens (I suffer from eczema and allergic rhynitis): all
>>>chemicals, naturally sourced or otherwise, are potential allergens and
>>>toxins. Even distilled water kills.
>>
>allergen. They even talk about 'allergies' to water. I give up.
I did not refer to water as being allergenic. I merely said that it can
kill. By omission, I meant '.. and not by drowning.'
--
Alistair Maclean
Alistair Maclean
<rob...@wagner.net> writes
>Your OED quotation is even less precise. It doesn't say what aspartame IS other
>than a "substance", and it mentions only one out of three components. It is an
>informal description rather than a Definition. Generally, dictionaries are poor
>sources for definitions of technical words.
Agreed.
>>Most people understand what an amino acid is and it's role in making proteins.
>
>That's certainly untrue for most people, and arguably untrue for most educated
>people. I once read that 50% of college seniors in Texas could not name the
>country to its south. Unbelieving, I asked a few Texans, including my daughter
>who'd waded across the Rio Grande with me several times. None of them could
>answer correctly. When I told my (then) boss about it, he replied "I have a
>similar question I ask non-technical job applicants such as secretaries. The
>question is "Who was Sigmund Freud?" Half don't know the answer."
>Unbelieving, I
>went home and asked my (then) wife, who sat around reading psychology books all
>day long. She guessed he was a physicist. I'm not making this up!
Mexico and disproven psychotherapist, founder and father of modern
psychotherapy (to whom a cigar is not a phallic symbol when Freud is
smoking it)?
We have similar examples of poor educational standards in the UK but
probably not quite as bad as the ones quoted above.
--
Alistair Maclean
Howard Brazee
On 1-Jul-2003, Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I looked it up in the dictionary because even you (RW) can not argue
> with the Oxford English Dictionary. Don't belittle others for your
> inadequacies.
The OED attempts to tell us what words mean to all. Within limited technical
environments, some of those definitions can be misleading or wrong.
To illustrate - people who don't care for the Theory of Evolution sometimes say
"it's only a theory", as though that makes it different from the Law of Gravity.
So in a discussion like this we need to establish which language/definitions are
appropriate.
============================
The SF author Fredrik Pohl tells in his wonderfully titled autobiography _The
Way The Future Was_ about how he was in a discussion with experts on ancient
Rome, and in particularly the Emperor Tiberius. There was a disagreement, so
Pohl pulled out an Encyclopedia Britanica, opened it to Tiberius, and showed
what the encyclopedia said. The other expert conceded the argument. If he
had looked at the end of the reference, there were two initials from the author
of that entry - FP. Pohl quoted himself to win an argument with someone just
as knowledgeable as himself.
Howard Brazee
On 2-Jul-2003, docd...@panix.com wrote:
> >I once read that 50% of college seniors in Texas could not name the
> >country to its south.
>
> Mr Wagner, there is no 'the' country to the south of Texas, there are many
> countries to the south of Texas. What is the geographic orientation of,
> say, Brazil to Texas?
Not directly south, but more south than east. If you draw a line at the western
point of South America, and go directly north, it will go through Florida.
SkippyPB
enlightened us:
>"Chuck Stevens" <charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Wagner" <rob...@wagner.net> wrote in message
>>news:3f01a8ce...@news.optonline.com...
>>> In a discussion about
>>> soft drinks, I said aspartame is allergenic because it is a protein.
>>That's not
>>> bullshit, that's simplification. A protein is two or more amino acids
>>joined by
>>> peptide bonds.
>>
>>The definition in Webster's Ninth Collegiate states that proteins are
>>"naturally occurring extremely complex combinations of amino acids ...".
>>What is your source for the definition you are using?
>
>There isn't an Official Definition of protein. A working definition in DNA
>research circles is that it must be capable of 'normal' monomer folding. The
>generally accepted hypothesis is that the smallest possible would contain 20
>amino acids. Similar numbers appear on the list I posted in reply to Doc Dwarf,
>with the notable exception of antifreeze glycoprotein, which is not folded.
>
No official definition of protein? Maybe in your world but in my
chemistry book "officially" defines protein as:
" A polypeptide or molecule made up of polypeptides. Examples:
Albumin, hemoglobin, keratin."
And what is a polypeptide you ask? There is an official definition
for that as well:
"A chain of amino acids linked together by peptide bonds. A
polypeptide chain is the basic structural unit of a protein, some
proteins consisting of one, some of several polypeptides. The
polypeptide chains of proteins are synthesized on the ribosomes, using
messenger RNA as a template."
And finally, the "official" definition of Aspartame is:
"A dipeptide methyl ester: L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester.
Molecular formula: C14H18N2O5
Aspartame is metabolized in the body to its components: aspartic acid,
phenylalanine, and methanol. Like other amino acids, it provides 4
calories per gram. Since it is about 180 times as sweet as sugar, the
amount of aspartame needed to achieve a given level of sweetness is
less than 1% of the amount of sugar required. Thus 99.4% of the
calories can be replaced.
Aspartic acid (also called "aspartate") is a naturally occuring amino
acid which is a component of all proteins. It is classified as a
"non-essential" amino acid, meaning that humans do not need to get it
from their diets since they can make it from other things in the diet.
Aspartic acid is important in the synthesis of new DNA, in urea
synthesis, and as a neurotransmitter in the brain. As such, its levels
in the body are carefully regulated. If the body needs more aspartic
acid, it makes more using oxaloacetate from the tricarboxylic acid
cycle (Krebs cycle) of energy metabolism. If the body has a surplus of
aspartic acid, it converts the excess to fumarate, which enters the
tricarboxylic acid cycle and provides energy.
Phenylalanine is one of the "essential" amino acids, meaning that
humans must get it from their diet. It is a precursor for the
synthesis of tyrosine and several neurotransmitters. Excess
phenylalanine is broken down to fumarate and acetoacetate, both of
which are part of normal energy metabolism. People who lack the enzyme
to convert phenylalanine to tyrosine are not able to metabolize
phenylalanine normally; this condition is called phenylketonuria (PKU)
because, in these people, excess phenylalanine is instead converted to
phenylketones which appear in the urine. If it is not detected and
treated, this condition leads to mental retardation. This was the
first genetic disease for which a routine screening test became
available. Persons having this genetic defect must monitor their
intake of phenylalanine. For this reason, products containing
aspartame carry an information label for phenylketonurics. Note that
even people with PKU require a certain amount of phenylalanine every
day (estimated adult requirement is about 7 mg per pound of body
weight per day). People with PKU are accustomed to keeping track of
phenylalanine intake from the usual protein sources (meat, dairy,
plants) but would not normally associate soft drinks with
protein--hence the informational label on products containing
aspartame.
Methanol is commonly encountered in the diet. The table below shows
the amount of methanol you would get from a can of diet soft drink,
along with amounts found in the same volume of several fruit juices.
Methanol is well known to be poisonous in large quantity. "Large
quantity" means tens or hundreds of grams. Your liver can deal with
reasonable quantities of methanol, metabolizing it so that it can be
excreted. If you start drinking enough methanol to get inebriated, you
overwhelm your liver's metabolic machinery, and serious problems
result." [Information courtesy of
http://www.finchcms.edu/cms/biochem/walters/sweet/aspartame.html)
And if you read the entire web site you'll learn that the body safely
handles the components of Aspartame and that the majority of
sceintists today believe it to be safe, much better than consuming
equal amounts of sugar or sachrin. Of course these real facts run
contrary to the BS RW is trying to once impart in this newsgroup. RW
posted about the dangers of using Asparteme which is the same message
of one Betty Martini. She is the founder of an organisation called
'Mission Possible' and, according to that organisation's website, "has
worked ceaselessly to spread the word that aspartame is a toxic poison
unfit for human consumption."
Regulators and scientists have tested aspartame for more than two
decades, in more than 100 studies, with the same result: Aspartame is
safe to use. In fact, the FDA Commissioner noted upon approval that
"few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated,
close scrutiny, and the process through which aspartame has gone
should provide the public with additional confidence of its safety."
In addition to FDA approval, a number of health groups, including the
American Medical Association, the American Diabetes Association and
the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition, support the
use of aspartame.
So who you going to believe?
Regards.
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
Real Signs:
Sign in the window of a home cookin' restaurant in Phoenix:
The best piece of chicken you'll ever get without being a rooster!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
Howard Brazee
On 2-Jul-2003, "Russell Styles" <RWS...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I am quessing that you do not watch Jay Leno. This very thing is a
> regular
> part of his show. He calls it "Jay walking", and he goes on the street and
> asks normal people easy questions.
>
> I have no idea how many DO answer his questions correctly, they
> don't get on the air. The people mentioned above would fit right in.
I also wonder how many people answer stupid questions with stupid answers.
Howard Brazee
On 2-Jul-2003, Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> We have similar examples of poor educational standards in the UK but
> probably not quite as bad as the ones quoted above.
My personal experience would lead me to say the same thing about the U.S. But
my personal experience is limited.
docd...@panix.com
Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <bdtc24$4tf$1...@panix1.panix.com>, docd...@panix.com writes
>>> Even distilled water kills.
>>
>>Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>>
>>... depending on how much of it you breathe, aye!
>>
>>
>
>deaths in the UK with excessive water consumption after taking Ecstasy.
I am aware of the possibility of electrolyte 'flushing', Mr Maclean... and
I still could *not* resist, anyhow.
DD
docd...@panix.com
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 2-Jul-2003, docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>> >I once read that 50% of college seniors in Texas could not name the
>> >country to its south.
>>
>> Mr Wagner, there is no 'the' country to the south of Texas, there are many
>> countries to the south of Texas. What is the geographic orientation of,
>> say, Brazil to Texas?
>
>Not directly south, but more south than east.
Oh, I *cannot* resist... close enough for Texans, then!
DD
LX-i
> toxins. Even distilled water kills.
Stop the insanity! http://www.dhmo.org
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ AIM: LXi0007 ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ E-mail: LXi...@Netscape.net ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please post if you wish to be contacted privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Wagner
>Methanol is commonly encountered in the diet. The table below shows
>the amount of methanol you would get from a can of diet soft drink,
>along with amounts found in the same volume of several fruit juices.
>Methanol is well known to be poisonous in large quantity. "Large
>quantity" means tens or hundreds of grams. Your liver can deal with
>reasonable quantities of methanol, metabolizing it so that it can be
>excreted. If you start drinking enough methanol to get inebriated, you
>overwhelm your liver's metabolic machinery, and serious problems
>result." [Information courtesy of
>http://www.finchcms.edu/cms/biochem/walters/sweet/aspartame.html)
Restani (1991) points to a human study showing where 200 mg of formaldehyde per
day was ingested for 13 weeks without adverse effects. This would be equivalent
to an daily air exposure of 13.3 ppm, which is many times over the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists limit of 1 ppm, which was shown
to cause chronic toxicity in Srivastava (1992). This shows that formaldehyde in
foods is not absorbed well.
"Ingestion represents a minor route of [formaldehyde] exposure because the
dilution factor and the binding to the macromolecules present in food reduce
substantially the [formaldehyde] concentration that enters into contact with the
gastrointestinal mucosa" (Restani 1991)
Aspartame bypasses the 'shields' of stomach acid, incomplete digestion and
liver enzymes. With aspartame, virtually all the methanol is absorbed. Then,
after it is already in the bloodstream, it is converted to formaldehyde which is
subsequently metabolized to formic acid.
>Regulators and scientists have tested aspartame for more than two
>decades, in more than 100 studies, with the same result: Aspartame is
>safe to use. In fact, the FDA Commissioner noted upon approval that
>"few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated,
>close scrutiny, and the process through which aspartame has gone
>should provide the public with additional confidence of its safety."
>In addition to FDA approval, a number of health groups, including the
>American Medical Association, the American Diabetes Association and
>the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition, support the
>use of aspartame.
>
>So who you going to believe?
Good question. Do you believe the food industry or independent scientists?
An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature was conducted by Dr. Ralph G.
Walton, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton analyzed
164 aspartame studies that were felt to have relevance to human safety. Of those
studies, 81 were sponsored by the aspartame industry and the FDA; 83 were funded
without any industry money. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work
for the aspartame industry immediately following approval, including the former
FDA Commissioner you quoted above, many consider FDA studies to be equivalent to
industry-sponsored research.
Of the 83 independent studies, 82 (99%) identified one or more problems with
aspartame. The one exception was a review of industry-sponsored studies.
Of the 81 FDA/aspartame industry-sponsored studies, 80 (99%) claimed that no
problems were found with aspartame.
You can read Dr. Walton's study at:
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
And you can read one of the better known independent studies at:
http://presidiotex.com/barcelona/SUMMARY/summary.html