Re: Sard

> > 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'.

You mean 'wheat'?

> > 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%.

Then you should read the references he provides.

> > 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.

We are talking someone who had serious problems with it and who didn't
know the cause of their suffering. They exist even today.

> Have you forgotten your argument?

No.

> It was, in a nutshell, that gluten aversity shows that humans were
> not early grain eaters.

That's right. Why do you bring that up?

> > > 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?
>

That's actually what you wrote. There's no other way to interpret it.
I assumed it was a mistake.

> Who could be idiotic enough to suggest that Chinese are "all
> men'?????????

Besides you I don't know any, but I'm confident they exist.

> > > 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.

Value judgement.

> > 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.

I think I will tell you instead to read Heichelheim's book.

> 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.

I do, actually, inspired by Greco's article. Gardening with a digging
stick is agriculture. Agriculture didn't start with the plough.

> > > 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.

They are the exception.

> > 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.

The societies that have fertility goddesses are agricultural.

>
> > > 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"
> >

> > 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>.

And I've done it again in this post.

>
> > Where are *you* getting with this?
>
>
> Your position is doctrinaire and completely contrary to common
> sense.
>

Value judgement.

> > > 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.

Read common books. You could start with Heichelheim.

>
>
> > > 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.
>

I searched it first. 'monoculturally' doesn't occur in it.

>
>
> > > 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.
>

I'll take your word for it.


Torsten