| LifeisGood |
Remark on your Q&A:
First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
Especially when motivated by money.
Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone? (Last I saw
there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%) Now, keep in mind they were sell
this stuff as safe when these numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?
And last:
Olive Oil = Non-toxic.
Corn Oil = Non-toxic
Rape seed oil = toxic
Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare and state - (In the opinion of
commercial science [and the inventors] = Non-toxic)
But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
different.
Bob (this one) <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10gl7giab7a7jc0@corp.supernews.com...
Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:10gjvdoij8kor39@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
>>belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
>>you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
>>principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.
>
> Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than
> it actually was.
>
>
>>>They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>>>don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>>>yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>>>nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>>
>>And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
>>where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.
>
> Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)
Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.
>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.
>
> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am
> merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands
> from certain groups
There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
advance to alter the name from rape to something else. And this isn't
the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers in
English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to avoid
the whole question of connotations.
Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like calling
it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations. People erroneously
assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name. Seafood
suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the difference for
decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred million people, the
relentless explanations get old. Change the name and it's done.
People like Chilean Sea Bass but not Patagonian toothfish. Connotations.
> because they don't like the *sound* of a word.
> It would be like changing the name Christian to something else
> because atheists got their knickers in a twist.
This is exactly what it *isn't* about. No one got in a twist.
> You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a
> direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to
> Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and
> "Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to
> trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could
> trademark.
It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.
Here's a quote from: <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html>
Q: Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil
from sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil
rapeseed oil?
A: No. Canola oil comes from canola seed. Canola is the name given to
a very healthy oil that was developed from rapeseed. But it is not
rapeseed oil and has vastly different fatty acid and other properties
than rapeseed oil. Canola was developed using traditional plant
breeding methods to remove undesirable qualities in rapeseed. In terms
of their properties, canola oil is as different from rapeseed oil as
olive oil is as different from corn oil.
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>
They could have spelled it "Wrape" and trademarked it. It was the
sound and its associations they were trying to get away from.
BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital
letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word so
they could register a name: <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>
>>>It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>>>if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "crêpe"...I leave
>>>it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>>>removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>>>Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>>
>>I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
>>that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
>>like.
>>
>>Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
>>reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>>
>>Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
>>speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
>>certainly know.
>
> Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name
> within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross
> languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape
> does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...
Nah. It has everything to do with associations.
The secondary meaning of "rape" - a plant - is so far away from what
the average person would think that it's essentially not in
consideration. For the vast preponderance of English speakers, there's
only one meaning for the word. Rape greens and rape seeds are
virtually unknown as such in the US, and even when they are, the word
gets a cautious pronunciation for all the obvious reasons.
Why does this page exist?
<http://www.dazbert.co.uk/sites/rude...pocarisweat.htm
>
>>I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really
>>wasn't anything to fight about.
>
> How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.
Right. Your child is vulgar and disgusting, mine expresses himself fully.
> I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)
Eat some rape greens. You'll fart in all directions.
Pastorio (maybe drink some Pocari Sweat from Japan. Next big thing, I
tell ya...)
> And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and
> Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those
> names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,
> in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.
|
|
|
| Bob (this one) |
LifeisGood wrote:
> Remark on your Q&A:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the
> "truth". Especially when motivated by money.
Agreed that using them as the only source would be suspect. But
there's so much out there that debunks the twaddle you
offered from that crank, that it would occupy a thousand lines of the
same proofs restated from reliable, third-party sources.
But you use only one source for your misguided errancy. Perhaps you
didn't notice that. As you didn't notice his woeful lack of scientific
knowledge that you obviously share.
> Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone?
Does it have to be 100%? Is salt 100% safe with no "undesirable
qualities?" Is anything 100% safe? Do you know or are you just trying
to smear with inferences? If you know, say so. If you don't explain
why it's a problem.
> (Last I saw there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%)
Not what you saw at all. This was the numbers for erucic acid.
> Now, keep in mind they were sell this stuff as safe when these
> numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?
HOw dense can you be? If these numbers are lower, wouldn't that mean
that they've reduced the "undesirable qualities?"
But, featherweight that you are, they didn't sell this *same* stuff.
The canola hybrids are different than the rapeseeds they started with.
And your preposterous efforts to use innuendo instead of facts merely
paints you as the quack you're demonstrating yourself to be.
> And last: Olive Oil = Non-toxic. Corn Oil = Non-toxic Rape seed oil
> = toxic Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare
You should be fair.
> and state - (In the opinion of commercial science [and the
> inventors] = Non-toxic)
"Commercial science"...? How silly. You have no idea what the
processes are for acceptance by government agencies as a food are. You
have no idea what the liabilities are.
> But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
> different.
To contrast with your ravings. You aren't correct in anything substantial.
HOw come you post anonymously? Why are you unwilling to stand behind
these words? Are you one of the wackos who wrote this desperately
uninformed nonsense? Are you offering your own words to prove your
own words? Why different anonymous names?
Are you ever going to offer something besides slurs, innuendo and crap
science?
Pastorio
|
|
|
| zxcvbob |
LifeisGood wrote:
> Remark on your Q&A:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
> Especially when motivated by money.
>
> Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone? (Last I saw
> there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%) Now, keep in mind they were sell
> this stuff as safe when these numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?
>
> And last:
> Olive Oil = Non-toxic.
> Corn Oil = Non-toxic
>
> Rape seed oil = toxic
> Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare and state - (In the opinion of
> commercial science [and the inventors] = Non-toxic)
>
> But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
> different.
>
>
Here's an extrordinary article I just found on canola oil. I'm about
half-way through reading it. I've not double-checked its references,
but so far it passes my bull**** test:
http://www.becomehealthynow.com/art...ardioself/1042/
Best regards,
Bob
|
|
|
| B.Server |
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:39:42 GMT, "LifeisGood" <PostToThe@group.com>
wrote:
>Remark on your Q&A:
>
>First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
>Especially when motivated by money.
>
It is a given that they have a vested interest and so one should look
at the data. However, that interest also includes making a safe
product. So far in this exchange I have seen precisely no evidence
that it is not safe and a great deal of evidence of ignorance of basic
chemistry and experimental methods. I will leave the choice in
rancid oils to connoiseurs thereof. I prefer mine fresh.
[...]
>
>Rape seed oil = toxic
You really ought to get this little nugget out to the Europeans and
Asians who have been eating it for centuries. And, by the way, you
ought to spend a little time around the extraction of olive oil
sometime.
|
|
|
| Julia Altshuler |
LifeisGood wrote:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
> Especially when motivated by money.
This might be the crux of the place where we disagree. While I can see
that there are examples of the seller of a product disguising its ill
effects (cigarette manufacturers), as a rule, the inventers and sellers
of a product have a great deal at stake in making sure the product they
sell is safe. When people are harmed by a product, they sue. That's
bad for business. Even with the cigarette example, tobacco had been
around for ages. The manufacturers may have suppressed internal
evidence (I believe they did) showing that smoking was harmful, but that
was after the fact. They didn't purposely invent tobacco in order to
hurt people. And that's the only product I can think of like that. I
can think of zillions more products that have been invented and marketed
that are wonderful and that do no harm. How about telephone answering
machines? (The first item my eye fell on when I looked around the desk
where I'm typing for an example.) Their manufacturers advertise good
things about them. Are we to assume they're wrong and that the machines
are deadly because the advertisers, inventers and marketers like them
and make money from them?
--Lia
|
|
|
| LifeisGood |
Julia Altshuler <jaltshuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:trDOc.54534$8_6.40584@attbi_s04...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> This might be the crux of the place where we disagree. While I can see
> that there are examples of the seller of a product disguising its ill
> effects (cigarette manufacturers), as a rule, the inventers and sellers
> of a product have a great deal at stake in making sure the product they
> sell is safe.
I'm not saying that people invent "unsafe" products. What I am saying is
that large organizations treat safety in term of percentages as to how it
effects the bottomline. This is calculated as "colateral damage". If they
feel that the cost of doing such will substantially damage the company (or
profits) they have the legal and economic clout to pull the wool over your
eyes.
Another example: Chickpox. This is a not life threating event, and once
exposed (and constracted) it is "extreemly" rare that one ever gets it
again. In fact, many believe that it is a step toward building a healthy
amune system.
Well, it seems that medical science sees a profit potential here. Inro: The
Chicken Pox vaccine. It has now become manditory in most schools. But, what
the public is not made of is 1) It is not a one time vacine (every 7 years
you must retake the vacine). 2) It is not a 100% effective vaccine 3)
Chickpox are far more dangerous to get as an adult therefor, delaying the
onset could be more problematic than just getting illness as a child. So, if
the ineffectiveness, turns up as an adult (Well you get the point)
This all about profits.......
But don't think for a minute I am saying that inventors strive to create
unsafe products. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for inventors. They
are normally very open minded individual with the ability to look (and see)
between the lines.
When people are harmed by a product, they sue. That's
> bad for business.
There are many examples of products that invented and patented and sold to a
shell company. Reason: when the leagal complications arise the parent
company can not be held acountable.
I know (Bob), I know, I'll say it for you; "Sweet Jiminey Crickets"!
Even with the cigarette example, tobacco had been
> around for ages. The manufacturers may have suppressed internal
> evidence (I believe they did) showing that smoking was harmful, but that
> was after the fact. They didn't purposely invent tobacco in order to
> hurt people. And that's the only product I can think of like that. I
> can think of zillions more products that have been invented and marketed
> that are wonderful and that do no harm. How about telephone answering
> machines? (The first item my eye fell on when I looked around the desk
> where I'm typing for an example.) Their manufacturers advertise good
> things about them. Are we to assume they're wrong and that the machines
> are deadly because the advertisers, inventers and marketers like them
> and make money from them?
>
>
> --Lia
>
|
|
|
| Julia Altshuler |
LifeisGood wrote:
> Another example: Chickpox. This is a not life threating event, and once
> exposed (and constracted) it is "extreemly" rare that one ever gets it
> again. In fact, many believe that it is a step toward building a healthy
> amune system.
> Well, it seems that medical science sees a profit potential here. Inro: The
> Chicken Pox vaccine.
Nooo! Not medical science. Medical science does not see a profit here.
Perhaps, *PERHAPS* a pharmeceutical company does, but medical science
does not. Please don't villify medical science. Thank medical
scientists for the figures on vaccine effectiveness and vaccine side
effects. Medical science is your friend. It is NOT all about profits.
It is about saving lives and public policy.
--Lia
|
|
|
| LifeisGood |
Julia Altshuler <jaltshuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DdZOc.190209$a24.111895@attbi_s03...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> Nooo! Not medical science. Medical science does not see a profit here.
> Perhaps, *PERHAPS* a pharmeceutical company does, but medical science
> does not. Please don't villify medical science. Thank medical
> scientists for the figures on vaccine effectiveness and vaccine side
> effects. Medical science is your friend. It is NOT all about profits.
> It is about saving lives and public policy.
>
> --Lia
You are correct. I did mis-speak. However, here is my dilema. I don't
understand why the majority of medical practitioners are so quick to fall
into line when pharmicutical companies see (and capture these opertunities).
Not all doctors, I should add, but the majority.
>
|
|
|
| Doug Freyburger |
LifeisGood wrote:
> Julia Altshuler wrote:
>
> > Nooo! Not medical science. Medical science does not see a profit here.
> > Perhaps, *PERHAPS* a pharmeceutical company does, but medical science
> > does not. Please don't villify medical science. Thank medical
> > scientists for the figures on vaccine effectiveness and vaccine side
> > effects. Medical science is your friend. It is NOT all about profits.
> > It is about saving lives and public policy.
>
> You are correct. I did mis-speak. However, here is my dilema. I don't
> understand why the majority of medical practitioners are so quick to fall
> into line when pharmicutical companies see ...
That's trivial to explain given a bit of medical history. The type
of medicine that currently dominates is called allopathic medicine.
Allopathic medicine dominates because it works *much* better than
competing schools like chiropractic, osteopathic, homeopathic and
so on. Just imagine having having an infectious disease and only
having a chiropractor or a homeopath as your choices. Well under
two centuries ago medical choices really looked a lot like that.
Alopathic medicine stresses drugs to cure if possible and to treat
symptoms if no cure is possible. The initial stress on aseptic
conditions during surgery revolutionized surgery and the use of
antibiotics doubled that revolution.
It is not an underlying principle of all possible medical sciences
that drugs are the solution to all problems, but almost all modern
doctors are trained in the alopathic school to the point that few
people even know that competing schools exist. And the alopathic
school came to dominate modern medicine through its systematic
approach to using drugs to combat problems combined with its
absorbtion of surgery when drug-based anethsetics were discovered.
The first principle of alopathic medicine is to try drugs to deal
with any problem if any drugs are available, and to consider
surgery when drug treatment has failed. This approach worked so
well it is now the standard for all medicine. In fact the word
"medicine" now means drugs the approach worked so well.
Unfortunately when a system has been in place long enough, the
forces that drive it evolve and weakenesses appear. Now nearing
two centuries into the domination of alopathic medicine the
profit motive of the manufacturers of drugs is becoming the tail
that wags the dog.
1) Most working doctors learn about new drugs from drug company
salesmen and this source of information is their largest single
input for staying current. Given the original stress on drugs
during medical school, this further reenforces the power of the
drug companies. This should be dealt with via mandatory CEU
courses to keep doctors up to date, and exactly that happens to
maintain a medical license. But the courses stress medications
and can be written by drug companies. More attention to CEUs
by medical schools is needed.
2) Most of the research money from both government and private
industry goes into the development of new drugs to treat
various illnesses. Some drugs like vaccines prevent illnesses
from ever occuring, some have curative effects like antibiotics,
but many treat symptoms like acid reflux or allergy treatments.
If you ran a government research lab, you would prefer to
develop a vaccine that beats a disease. If you ran a private
research lab you'd rather release a drug that folks will take
daily for the rest of their lives. Notice that the Nobel
prize is given for scientific advances and major cures not
treatments that require eternal medication. Some more
prestige based incentives need to be in place. Imagine having
a million dollar prize to develop a vaccine for disease X and
when it's been commercialized issuing a new prize for disease
Y.
3) Alopathic medicine didn't pay much attention to nutrition,
so much that comes out in the news is about toxic effects of
stuff that people eat. After all, alopathic medicine is better
at measuring toxic effects than at any form of prevention. So
the toxic effects are what gets reported, and medical students
get one whole class on nutrition and likely as not it still
stresses low fat.
4) Alopathic medicine always focused on curing an existing
illness and that means it has a weakness on prevention. In
the case of self-immune diseases the alopathic focus on
finding a pathogen fails. More focus on prevention and a
wider search for causes needs to be used.
The rising cost of medicine shows that alopathic medicine is
approaching a crisis. More and more money is being poured
into the model with less and less benefit. Between 1850 and
1950 medical science adnvaced to astonishing effectiveness
but since then the price-performance ratio has gotten worse
and worse. The alopathic model is reaching the point of
diminishing returns. Time for other schools to be developed.
Conveniently the AMA finally absorbed the ACA and Chiropractors
are now consider real medical practishioners. Other schools
need to be considered.
|
|
|
| notbob |
On 2004-08-03, Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's trivial to explain given a bit of medical history. The type
> of medicine that currently dominates is called allopathic medicine.
[major snippage of good stuff]
> and worse. The alopathic model is reaching the point of
> diminishing returns. Time for other schools to be developed.
It's starting to reach the point of absurdity. It's even becoming potentially
harmfull. Television is flooded with ads for cures for questionable
ailments like yellow toenails, acid reflux, and social stress that, more
often than not, are less of a problem than the possble side effects. I'm
always stunned by the casual, nonchalant mannerr the shil off-handedly
mentions the side effects may rot out your liver or kidneys or some other
critical organ like it's no big deal. Or how about the meds where the side
effects are played down. I have high cholestrol, but will be damned if I'll
take meds for it when the most I can find on it is, "may cause liver
damage". I don't want "may", I want facts. The problem is, they want
money, so I'm not likely to get the real story.
> Conveniently the AMA finally absorbed the ACA and Chiropractors
> are now consider real medical practishioners. Other schools
> need to be considered.
I'd like to know if this was just to avoid nagging litigation or did they
actually find some real science in the hollow halls of chiropracty? I've
been to three chiropracters in my life time and two of them were not just
quacks, but blantant con-artists. The third was a outlaw practitioner from
both camps, medical and chiropractic, and although a little looney, was
definitely an original who successfully developed a unique and effective
form of chiropracty.
nb
|
|
|
| Crush on Lyle |
"LifeisGood" <PostToThe@group.com> wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>...
> Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
> well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
> adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
> "church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
> of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.
Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look
like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when
they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like
keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture
back to the proper, not away from it.
|
|
|
| Peter Aitken |
"Crush on Lyle" <ignorethisfake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95d61b18.0408031454.2e37f328@posting.google.com...
> "LifeisGood" <PostToThe@group.com> wrote in message
news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>...
>
> > Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
> > well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
> > adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
> > "church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
> > of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.
>
> Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look
> like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when
> they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like
> keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture
> back to the proper, not away from it.
I'm afraid it is your logic that is backwards. Old bottle openers may have
looked like keys, but why church keys and not hotel keys or house keys or
warehouse keys? Surely church keys were no different from other kinds of
keys. The original poster is correct - the name arose because there is a
natural irony since many churches view alcohol as an evil. Opening a beer is
a move away from what the church teaches - get it?
--
Peter Aitken
Remove the crap from my email address before using.
|
|
|
| Bob (this one) |
Crush on Lyle wrote:
> "LifeisGood" <PostToThe@group.com> wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>...
The attribution is wrong here. I said the below...
>>Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
>>well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
>> adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
>>"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
>>of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.
>
>
> Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look
> like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when
> they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like
> keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture
> back to the proper, not away from it.
No. The whole idea of "church" key as opposed to any other kind is
that element of naughtiness. Keys look like keys, and the key to the
church door is like any other key. Bottle openers didn't look like
keys beyond having a loop at the end. The rest certainly wouldn't be
confused with a key.
It's a rascally reference.
Pastorio
|
|
|
| Crush on Lyle |
"Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<agVPc.163914$wH4.9721922@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> "Crush on Lyle" <ignorethisfake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:95d61b18.0408031454.2e37f328@posting.google.com...
> > "LifeisGood" <PostToThe@group.com> wrote in message
> news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>...
> >
> > > Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
> > > well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
> > > adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
> > > "church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
> > > of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.
> >
> > Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look
> > like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when
> > they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like
> > keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture
> > back to the proper, not away from it.
>
> I'm afraid it is your logic that is backwards. Old bottle openers may have
> looked like keys, but why church keys and not hotel keys or house keys or
> warehouse keys? Surely church keys were no different from other kinds of
> keys. The original poster is correct - the name arose because there is a
> natural irony since many churches view alcohol as an evil. Opening a beer is
> a move away from what the church teaches - get it?
Don't be afraid. I'm not suggesting that there's no irony involved,
but the original poster had it backwards. She said that "the slightly
naughty adds a note of humor," hence the use of the word "church," but
church isn't naughty, beer is. Using the word "beer key" to refer to
your bible might fall under that rule, nonsensical as that would be.
I've looked up the origin of the term church key before and I've
always read, in multiple sources, that it links back to old bottle
openers (the term has been around longer than those beer can openers
have been). Old iron church keys don't look like car keys, or house
keys, etc. They have a big iron ring on top, shaped like the ring on a
lever bottle opener. Do any of your keys have those?
http://www.just-for-openers.org/Church-Key.html
|
|
|
| Crush on Lyle |
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<10h12uraor7943e@corp.supernews.com>...
> Crush on Lyle wrote:
>
> > "LifeisGood" <PostToThe@group.com> wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>...
>
> The attribution is wrong here. I said the below...
>
> >>Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
> >>well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
> >> adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
> >>"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
> >>of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.
> >
> >
> > Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look
> > like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when
> > they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like
> > keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture
> > back to the proper, not away from it.
>
> No. The whole idea of "church" key as opposed to any other kind is
> that element of naughtiness. Keys look like keys, and the key to the
> church door is like any other key. Bottle openers didn't look like
> keys beyond having a loop at the end. The rest certainly wouldn't be
> confused with a key.
>
> It's a rascally reference.
>
> Pastorio
Again, there may indeed be an element of irony involved but my point
was that someone didn't just grab the name "church key" out of the
blue to start referring to something that in no way resembled a key of
any type, just because it sounded "naughty." it has an etymological
history, and it had its origins in a physical resemblence to keys. The
present irony of the term is NOT the same as calling a French pastry
by some dirty word (I don't remember what the word meant), as the OP
suggested. Giving something benign a dirty name is the opposite of
giving something dirty a benign name. Euphimisms are sometimes funny,
but they're not funny in the same way marketing a bottle of oil under
the brand "YUMMY RAPE OIL" is.
here's one link I found:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-chu2.htm
Anyway we're sort of agreeing, I just see the irony as a secondary
element in the formation of the word.
|
|
|
| Crush on Lyle |
"Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<agVPc.163914$wH4.9721922@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> "Crush on Lyle" <ignorethisfake@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:95d61b18.0408031454.2e37f328@posting.google.com...
> > "LifeisGood" <PostToThe@group.com> wrote in message
> news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>...
> >
> > > Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
> > > well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
> > > adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
> > > "church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
> > > of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.
> >
> > Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look
> > like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when
> > they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like
> > keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture
> > back to the proper, not away from it.
>
> I'm afraid it is your logic that is backwards. Old bottle openers may have
> looked like keys, but why church keys and not hotel keys or house keys or
> warehouse keys? Surely church keys were no different from other kinds of
> keys. The original poster is correct - the name arose because there is a
> natural irony since many churches view alcohol as an evil. Opening a beer is
> a move away from what the church teaches - get it?
And as long as I'm postin' links, here are some pictures of church
keys. To me they look just like bottle openers (just pricier)
http://pages.tias.com/7225/PictPage/1922322558.html
I think church keys are thought of as being big and long, hence the
distinction to other keys.
|
|
|
| Doug Freyburger |
Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> The original poster is correct - the name arose because there is a
> natural irony since many churches view alcohol as an evil. Opening a beer is
> a move away from what the church teaches - get it?
I've had friends tell tales of Grandma spending Sunday afternoon
at church and Grandpa spending Sunday afternoon at the pub. So
to me it's always been an inside joke on that theme.
|
|
|
| Doug Freyburger |
notbob wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> Television is flooded with ads for cures for questionable
> ailments like yellow toenails, acid reflux, and social stress that, more
> often than not, are less of a problem than the possble side effects.
Also they're better fixed by prevention using diet. Since starting
Atkins the only time I've had acid reflux was one meal far off-plan
at an Indian low fat vegetarian restaurant. Nothig really wrong
with the food, just my body is so used to high-fat/low-carb that it
couldn't handle the quick reversal for just one meal. Anyways,
many folks report that going low carb cures their acid reflux.
With such a cure available, why are drugs used to deal with the
problem in the first place? Because of the basis of alopathic
medicine in using drugs when available rather than looking at
prevention.
> > Conveniently the AMA finally absorbed the ACA and Chiropractors
> > are now consider real medical practishioners. Other schools
> > need to be considered.
>
> I'd like to know if this was just to avoid nagging litigation or did they
> actually find some real science in the hollow halls of chiropracty? I've
> been to three chiropracters in my life time and two of them were not just
> quacks, but blantant con-artists. The third was a outlaw practitioner from
> both camps, medical and chiropractic, and although a little looney, was
> definitely an original who successfully developed a unique and effective
> form of chiropracty.
I'll offer a positive viewpoint:
Medicine is supposed to be a scientific pursuit that uses the
scientific method, at least in the research portions. Doctors
in the field can well fall behind but the research doctors are
supposed to use the scientific method.
With the scientific method, the direction you are headed matters
far more than your starting point. As long as you take
objective data on your efforts, do experiments on new methods,
take objective data on the results, and attempt to formulate
models that suggest innovatives methods, you will eventually
solve all sorts of problems. That includes dicovering the
problems with your current methods and coming up with better
ones.
In chemistry the scientific method took chemists from
philostigon to atoms. In medicine the scientific method took
doctors from bleeding to eliminate illnesses to the germ
theory to locate the source of illnesses.
I have no idea what state modern chiropracty is in, but
if they have researchers at their schools who are gathering
objective data and working on improving the field, they are
headed in the right direction. Eventually but inevitably.
Maybe that's what the AMA was looking for. Hard experimental
data.
|
|
|
| PENMART01 |
ignorethisfake@yahoo.com (Crush on Lyle) writes:
>
>someone didn't just grab the name "church key" out of the
>blue to start referring to something that in no way resembled a key of
>any type, just because it sounded "naughty." it has an etymological
>history, and it had its origins in a physical resemblence to keys.
http://www.just-for-openers.org/Church-Key.html
---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````
|
|
|
| Crush on Lyle |
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<10h12uraor7943e@corp.supernews.com>...
> Crush on Lyle wrote:
>
> > "LifeisGood" <PostToThe@group.com> wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>...
>
> The attribution is wrong here. I said the below...
>
> Pastorio
Sorry for screwing up the attribution. the formatting of the top
message in the thread was weird.
|
|
|
| Robert Klute |
On 4 Aug 2004 07:42:27 -0700, dfreybur@yahoo.com (Doug Freyburger)
wrote:
>notbob wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>> Television is flooded with ads for cures for questionable
>> ailments like yellow toenails, acid reflux, and social stress that, more
>> often than not, are less of a problem than the possble side effects.
>
>Also they're better fixed by prevention using diet. Since starting
>Atkins the only time I've had acid reflux was one meal far off-plan
>at an Indian low fat vegetarian restaurant. Nothig really wrong
>with the food, just my body is so used to high-fat/low-carb that it
>couldn't handle the quick reversal for just one meal. Anyways,
>many folks report that going low carb cures their acid reflux.
>
I will second that one. I've gone from 75mg of pepcid twice a day to
nothing. Never get heartburn anymore and I am eating food just as spicy
and hot, if not not more so.
|
|
|
| Robert Klute |
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 03:09:48 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com>
wrote:
>No. The whole idea of "church" key as opposed to any other kind is
>that element of naughtiness. Keys look like keys, and the key to the
>church door is like any other key. Bottle openers didn't look like
>keys beyond having a loop at the end. The rest certainly wouldn't be
>confused with a key.
>
>It's a rascally reference.
It is both. By the time beer came in bottles with caps (the bottlecap
being invented in 1892), about the only thing that was the size and
shape as bottle opener was the large old mortise tumbler lock keys used
in churches.
|
|
|
|
