Jerry Avins wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>> Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Seriously. Just look through your microscope and report what you
>>>>> see. Are you afraid the view would be embarrassing, or have your
>>>>> kids so messed up the instrument that it's useless?
>>>>
>>>> Jerry, this one-note-symphony you're so frantically clutching is
>>>> just one more sour note. Are you looking through your microscope at
>>>> "turned" mayo? You know, that same mayo you didn't know was
>>>> bacteriostatic? Give it a rest. I'm willing to defer to proven
>>>> researchers and coherent documents. That's why I spent 13 years at
>>>> university-level study. So I could learn what others had discovered.
>>>> Or am I supposed to isolate oxygen all over again?
>>>
>>> Bluster all you want, but you can't hide being afraid to look. Yes,
>>> mayo is somewhat bacteriostatic, that's what makes for a good
>>> comparison between wood and plastic. To turn up the contrast, try
>>> smears of egg yolk and chicken guts. But speaking of chicken, you
>>> won't look.
>>
>> I'm neither afraid to look, nor to continue to spotlight the emptiness
>> of your appropriately embarrassed posture.
>>
>> Mayo isn't "somewhat bacteriostatic," it's guaranteed to be by the
>> laws of physics and biological conditions. The aW is very low - you
>> know what that is, right?- and the pH is low. It makes for *no*
>> comparison to use a bacteriostat to test for bacterial growth on a
>> substrate. The mayo would be killing bacteria and skewing results. Why
>> do you persist in this campaign to dig the hole deeper?
>>
>> Jerry, to repeat it again for your density - that science has been
>> done. Based on this Luddite position of yours, we should all be
>> spending our days checking *everything* that has gone before us. Maybe
>> this afternoon, you'll invent vaccines and discover insulin.
>>
>> It's over, Jerry.
>
> It is indeed over. You enshrined yourself in Google's archive as one who
> values dogma over inquiry, and I'm content to leave it at that.

Jerry, this is slimy. You know full-well that dogma is
precisely what I rejected and insisted on citations that
reflected disciplined investigation. And you say the good
opinions of the <alt.food-chat> folks matter to you?

Recall my words from another post to which you daren't reply...?
> People were bled because physiological mechanisms were
wrongly
> understood. That whole business goes all the way back to
ancient Greece.
> They did a "bad" thing after observations because their
explanations of
> the mechanisms at hand were flat out wrong. And the bases
for those
> observations were restrictive dogma for a couple
millennia. Because it
> was amateurs who were doing the interpreting. Amateurs
like you and me.

<LOL> Scientific papers and scholarly works by scientists
have suddenly become dogma. And your purity of heart because
you say you own two microscopes sets you apart. How utterly
droll you are. How desperate - I can smell the flop sweat
from here.

So we should all be performing detailed bacteriological
studies on our kitchen counters. Microscopes at the ready,
slides and cover slips sterilized in our kitchen autoclaves.
We shouldn't accept detailed and rigorous study done by
professional in their field. Instead, we amateurs should
challenge them in our homes. The only way this could be
funnier is if you wore a fright wig and a red nose...

Oh, wait. Perhaps I spoke hastily...

> In Galileo's day, Aristotle was the most respected scientific authority.

Oh, look Aristotle. Pretty much the same guy I brought up in
another post and quoted above. Boy, you sure are an original
thinker. I mean that sincerely. Nearly.

> Among his recorded observations was the "fact" that heavy objects fall
> faster than light ones. Galileo chose to look, and history records his
> success in overturning the old dogma. You refuse to look; too bad.

Aristotle wasn't a "scientific" authority - the word hadn't
been invented yet, nor had the concept. The scientific
method certainly wasn't how things were done. Aristotle's
ideas were the result of deductive reasoning, and that shows
how far astray you've gone in trying to do the same.
Aristotle was a "natural philosopher" - someone who dealt in
ideas and concepts to be accepted on faith. The Italian
renaissance began to promote experimentation over faith.
Must be why my Italian sensibilities rejected your
based-on-faith offerings.

So, Jerry, how many cutting boards did you look at through
your home-customized microscope? Gimme a round number. An
estimate. And what was the grid count? Of what kind of
bacteria? What standardized conditions? I mean a real
science whiz like you who wants us other lay folk to work in
a carefully controlled, bacterially stable environment -
like our kitchens. So working diligently in my humble
kitchen, you're saying that I have the opportunity to
overthrow the considered work of teams of Ph.D food
scientists who work in organized laboratories, with highly
specialized equipment, in stringently controlled
experiments, constantly monitoring each other and
procedures. And the opinions about you of the people in
<alt.food-chat> are important to you?

Sweet Jesus, are you a sad case.

> Jerry
>
> P.S. As Galileo said on another occasion, "Epur se muove."

<LOL> Yes he did say that. And I'm just trying to come up
with a greater non sequitur. He said it and he was right.
Unlike yourself. Yes, he did study the conditions. Just like
you.

I'm just astonished you didn't again mention - who was it -
"Leibnitz" (properly spelled Leibniz) again. Oh, wait, I
corrected you to tell you that it was Liebig. I forgot your
gratuitous error. I'm very forgetful like that. Why I'm seen
as so forgiving. Besides, Leibnitz, Liebig - all looks the
same to you, right?

No, seriously...

How hollow to impugn me for not doing any kitchen-counter
tests when you haven't either. Had you, you would have
posted the pictures of your disarrayed kitchen to accompany
the one of the filthy pot in the slob-haven room. Pictures
of disgusting cutting boards smeared with your detritus,
piles of cotton swabs, microscope slides with festering
puddles...

You would at least have crowed about your diligence and my
lack of it. Oh, wait. You are decrying my lack of the spirit
of inquiry... but mention none of your own. No data. There
are names for that kind of behavior, Jerry. Bad names.

It's a real testament to your integrity that you're edgewise
trying to declare victory, smarmily implying it with that
world-weary tone. A grand exhibition. All Sound and fury...

Pastorio