 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
The Canola oil test - See for your self.
"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
... > WardNA wrote: > > > Curriculums today are so based on skepticism and "challenge authority" that 40% > > of my kids' highschool went for Ralph Nader in a straw vote in the 2000 > > Presidential election. (The remaining 65% went for Gore.) > > > > Neil > > > 40% for Nader and 65% for Gore... How many for Bush? > > Best regards, > Bob -5% of course!! -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Canola oil test - See for your self.
"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
... > WardNA wrote: > > > Curriculums today are so based on skepticism and "challenge authority" that 40% > > of my kids' highschool went for Ralph Nader in a straw vote in the 2000 > > Presidential election. (The remaining 65% went for Gore.) > > > > Neil > > > 40% for Nader and 65% for Gore... How many for Bush? > > Best regards, > Bob -5% of course!! -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Canola oil test - See for your self.
"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
... > WardNA wrote: > > > Curriculums today are so based on skepticism and "challenge authority" that 40% > > of my kids' highschool went for Ralph Nader in a straw vote in the 2000 > > Presidential election. (The remaining 65% went for Gore.) > > > > Neil > > > 40% for Nader and 65% for Gore... How many for Bush? > > Best regards, > Bob -5% of course!! -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
On 2004-08-03, Doug Freyburger > 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>...
> Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a > well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty > adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called > "church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter > of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper. Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture back to the proper, not away from it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Crush on Lyle" > wrote in message
om... > "LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>... > > > Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a > > well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty > > adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called > > "church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter > > of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper. > > Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look > like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when > they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like > keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture > back to the proper, not away from it. I'm afraid it is your logic that is backwards. Old bottle openers may have looked like keys, but why church keys and not hotel keys or house keys or warehouse keys? Surely church keys were no different from other kinds of keys. The original poster is correct - the name arose because there is a natural irony since many churches view alcohol as an evil. Opening a beer is a move away from what the church teaches - get it? -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Crush on Lyle" > wrote in message
om... > "LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
Crush on Lyle wrote:
> "LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>... The attribution is wrong here. I said the below... >>Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a >>well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty >> adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called >>"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter >>of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper. > > > Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look > like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when > they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like > keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture > back to the proper, not away from it. No. The whole idea of "church" key as opposed to any other kind is that element of naughtiness. Keys look like keys, and the key to the church door is like any other key. Bottle openers didn't look like keys beyond having a loop at the end. The rest certainly wouldn't be confused with a key. It's a rascally reference. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
Crush on Lyle wrote:
> "LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message r.com>...
> "Crush on Lyle" > wrote in message > om... > > "LifeisGood" > 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message r.com>...
> "Crush on Lyle" > wrote in message > om... > > "LifeisGood" > 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message >...
> Crush on Lyle wrote: > > > "LifeisGood" > 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message >...
> Crush on Lyle wrote: > > > "LifeisGood" > 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message r.com>...
> "Crush on Lyle" > wrote in message > om... > > "LifeisGood" > wrote in message > news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>... > > > > > Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a > > > well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty > > > adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called > > > "church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter > > > of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper. > > > > Huh? They're called church keys because bottle openers used to look > > like church keys. The name just got transfered to newer openers (when > > they started putting beer in cans), even though they don't look like > > keys. In any case your logic is backwards as "church" is a venture > > back to the proper, not away from it. > > I'm afraid it is your logic that is backwards. Old bottle openers may have > looked like keys, but why church keys and not hotel keys or house keys or > warehouse keys? Surely church keys were no different from other kinds of > keys. The original poster is correct - the name arose because there is a > natural irony since many churches view alcohol as an evil. Opening a beer is > a move away from what the church teaches - get it? And as long as I'm postin' links, here are some pictures of church keys. To me they look just like bottle openers (just pricier) http://pages.tias.com/7225/PictPage/1922322558.html I think church keys are thought of as being big and long, hence the distinction to other keys. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message r.com>...
> "Crush on Lyle" > wrote in message > om... > > "LifeisGood" > wrote in message > news:<imyOc.60274$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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
(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 ```````````` |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
(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 ```````````` |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
(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 ```````````` |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message >...
> Crush on Lyle wrote: > > > "LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$eM2.52484@attbi_s51>... > > The attribution is wrong here. I said the below... > > Pastorio Sorry for screwing up the attribution. the formatting of the top message in the thread was weird. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message >...
> Crush on Lyle wrote: > > > "LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<imyOc.60274$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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 03:09:48 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 03:09:48 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
On 4 Aug 2004 07:27:12 -0700,
(Crush on Lyle) wrote: > 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 Aha! So, it's the "other" end of the key that inspired the term. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-chu2.htm sf Practice safe eating - always use condiments |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
words mean something WAS: The Canola oil test - See for yourself.
On 4 Aug 2004 07:27:12 -0700,
(Crush on Lyle) wrote: > 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 Aha! So, it's the "other" end of the key that inspired the term. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-chu2.htm sf Practice safe eating - always use condiments |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Canola oil test - See for your self.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Canola oil test - See for your self.
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Should I use Canola or Peanut oil? | General Cooking | |||
| Rapeseed Oil or Canola Oil | General Cooking | |||
| Canola Oil vs Corn Oil | General Cooking | |||
| canola oil | General Cooking | |||
| Canola mayonnaise | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
