From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 51633
Date: 2008-01-20
----- Original Message -----From: tgpedersenSent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 12:03 PMSubject: [tied] Re: Sard--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@ ...>
wrote:
<snip>> Read the article again. Wheat gluten
No, *you* read it again. Gluten is gluten, there is no such thing as
"wheat gluten".***
'wheat gluten' means 'gluten found in white'.
***
> makes a few people sick;
A few people?? Quote:
"
How many possess these specific genetic risk at a 'carrier' state?
Certainly more than 5% of the actual population. In conclusion we have
a wide population of 'gluten-reactants' in Europe (EC): at least 1
million cases of total intolerance to gluten - an estimated similar
amount of 'gluten sensitive' people - 10-15 times more 'carriers' of
the risk of becoming gluten intolerant.
"
Imagine what the numbers were before fatal gluten became staple diet.***
I saw no justification for 5%.
***
> these same people could have eaten millet, sorghum, rye, rice (a
> grass, too) without a problem.
Except for rye.
But they didn't. So why is that relevant?***
The people who were very slightly gluten averse could have eaten rye without great problems.
Have you forgotten your argument?
It was, in a nutshell, that gluten aversity shows that humans were not early grain eaters.
***
> > Our evolutionary success is tied to the fact that men will eat
> > anything that does not eat them first.
>
> No they won't. The Chinese eat plenty of stuff we don't and never
> did.
>
> Gosh, I thought the Chinese qualified as 'men'. How foolish of me!
The Chinese do not qualify as 'all men', which you implied, since
there are people who are not Chinese.***
Why not react to what I write rather than to what you think I imply?
Who could be idiotic enough to suggest that Chinese are "all men'?????????
***
> > Man, the hunter, the keen observer of animal behavior, would
> > have certainly noticed rut, and the regularly timed appearance
> > of animal births after it.
>
> It didn't matter to them.
>
> ***
>
> You want to get a crowd of little children together? Stage a male
> and female dog going at it.
>
> Of course it mattered. Sex has always had a great fascination for
> our lubricious ancestors.
Sex was not connected to forces that made the world go round.***
Utterly unbelievable.
***
> I, personally, have no doubt that seeds and roots were collected
> to be eaten long before the idea of agriculture developed.
>
> I don't think your lack of doubt counts as an argument.
>
>
> If you think this is my judgment alone, I suggest you check the
> literature a little more closely.
Here's some literature for you (quote from Greco's article):
"
Archeological findings suggest that this revolution was not initiated
by the man hunter and warrior, but by the intelligent observations
made by the woman. The woman carried the daily burden of collecting
seeds, herbs, roots and tubers. Most probably she used a stick to
excavate roots and tubers: during this activity she observed the fall
of grain seeds on the ground and their penetration into the soil with
rain. She may have been surprised to find new plants in the places
which she herself dug with a stick, and made the final connection
between fallen seeds and new 'cultivated' plants.
She was, for thousands years, the sole leader of the farming practices
and provided a more and more consistent integration to the scanty
products of the man hunter (6).
[(6)] Heichelheim F. An Ancient Economic History. A.W. Sijthoff edt.,
Leiden, 1970.***
This is so much hot air. There is _no_ archaeological proof that agriculture was initiated by women. If there is, you tell me what it is instead of quoting someone politically correct.
Actually, ploughing requires the strength of men. Unless you call penny-ante gardening agriculture, the very nature of the activity rules out women originating it.
***
> > In fact, _why_ would agriculture have developed at all if men
> > were not collecting and eating what they later cultivated?
>
> Women did. They were not important to hunters.
>
>
> There are matriarchal tribes of hunters. Women are important to
> all men including homosexuals, to whom they are damnable
> competition.
They were not economically and religiously important to the degree
they were in agricultural societies.
***Sane societies have always valued the contributions of males and females equally.
Hunters, farmers, it does not matter.
***
> > Accordingly, there is no real reason to suppose that the PIE's,
> > at any stage of their wanderings, ever had a need to borrow
> > terminology for ejaculation.
>
> I never claimed they did. I think the term meant "disperse,
> fertilize, conceive"
>
> Perhaps you are still mentally where you claim your hunters
> were???
I don't think so. I quit throwing fits when I lost an argument some
years ago.***
No more fits makes you more fit.
***
> Conception (pace parthogenesis) requires among most of the animal
> kingdom fertilization through ejaculation.
Actually, I knew that already. And?
***Well, I bet I am not the only reader who will notice you excised a paragraph preceding my comment without indicating a <snip>.
***
> > Whether a given group recognized the connection between
> > internal ejaculation (coition) and pregnancy or not (I can
> > hardly believe any did not though they did believe pregnancy
> > could be caused, in addition, by other agencies, such as the
> > wind), male ejaculate externally as well.
>
> Not 'in addition'. The connection between coition and reproduction
> is important to agricultural society, not before.
>
> Creating heirs and fellow-warriors is as important to hunters as
> to gatherers and agriculturists. Where are you getting this?
Where are *you* getting with this?***
Your position is doctrinaire and completely contrary to common sense.
***
> > You think they needed to borrow a word from another language of
> > a people practicing agriculture?
>
> For "disperse, fertilize, conceive"? Yes. The idea that life was
> generated, not spontaneous, was new, at least as a central concept
> of their world image.
>
> Prove that point rather than just assert it, if you can.
It's common knowledge.***
I guess I am not common enough to know it.
Help me with my commonality.
***
> > You are making an unwarranted leap from the particular (gluten
> > rich wheat) to the general (all cereal grains).
>
> All the four common grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye) contain
> gluten, but wheat the most.
>
>
> But the article clearly makes the point that only monoculturally
> gluten-enriched wheat causes serious health problems for a defective
> few.
What does 'monoculturally gluten-enriched' mean? All the four grains
have been gluten-enriched. Celiacs are advised to stay clear of all four.
***Maybe you should read the article again.
***
> > Had the English sent the Irish rye, would they have died in
> > droves?
>
> Most likely in smaller droves. I am sorry if I have hurt Irish
> sensibilities (I think).
>
> The Irish are much more hard-skinned than that, I can personally
> assure you.
Thickheadedness is another sign of gluten-induced brain-damage.
***As is mental diarrhea.
***
> > You seem to want to connect gluten intolerance to the 'noble
> > hunter'
>
> Please don't attribute medical communis opinio to me.
>
> N.B. That is what I am understanding you to be doing.
And therefore it is so?
Torsten***
If you do not want it to be so, you could write your views differently.
Patrick
***