The flavour of words - 05/19/05 07:56 PM
Re: The flavour of words - 05/19/05 10:31 PM
Thanks Vern, interesting article.
> they were tested first on flowers and burnt plastic, and they managed to rate them correctly as pleasant and unpleasant.
hmmm. Gotta say I think this statement lacks objective validity. Personally, I find the scent of some lilies so cloying as to be rank and positively unpleasant - gimme the smell of tar, petrol and burning plastic anyday but! :)
> they were tested first on flowers and burnt plastic, and they managed to rate them correctly as pleasant and unpleasant.
hmmm. Gotta say I think this statement lacks objective validity. Personally, I find the scent of some lilies so cloying as to be rank and positively unpleasant - gimme the smell of tar, petrol and burning plastic anyday but! :)
Re: The flavour of words - 05/19/05 11:20 PM
>rate them correctly as pleasant and unpleasant.
That didn't sit well with me either.
That didn't sit well with me either.
Re: The flavour of words - 05/20/05 02:18 AM
yes, there was a family history of sever reactions to penicillan, so my doctor usually prescribed sulfur medicines, (long after most doctors had given them up) i associate suflur with feeling better.. when i was very young, i hated the medicine, and the smell of it, but after a while, i came to associate it with getter well. and now i like a mild to middling suflur smell. Like pavlov's dog, i got trained. and now years later, i still think of sulfur as a good smell.
so mav--you really must have had some good times in NJ in times past to think tar and petro chemical as good smell!
so mav--you really must have had some good times in NJ in times past to think tar and petro chemical as good smell!
Re: The flavour of words - 05/20/05 09:46 AM
> good times in NJ
yeah, I got way off the freeway too :)
yeah, I got way off the freeway too :)
Re: The flavour of words - 05/20/05 08:27 PM
Personally, I find the scent of some lilies so cloying as to be rank and positively unpleasant
Every year my mother-in-law grows paperwhites in a pot of water in the house. Many people find the smell of these narcissus-like flowers pleasant, but I always refer to them as "Bakelites", because the odor reminds me of burning Bakelite. On the other hand, I really like the musky smells of civet and ferret, and many animal smells which others don't care for.
On the "body odour" thing - my husband told me he'd read an article that said the smell of the male armpit is apparently calming to women. Something about the pheromones, I imagine. After we quit rolling around on the floor laughing, I suggested that I should make a voodoo doll using his armpit hair for anxious moments when he isn't around....
Every year my mother-in-law grows paperwhites in a pot of water in the house. Many people find the smell of these narcissus-like flowers pleasant, but I always refer to them as "Bakelites", because the odor reminds me of burning Bakelite. On the other hand, I really like the musky smells of civet and ferret, and many animal smells which others don't care for.
On the "body odour" thing - my husband told me he'd read an article that said the smell of the male armpit is apparently calming to women. Something about the pheromones, I imagine. After we quit rolling around on the floor laughing, I suggested that I should make a voodoo doll using his armpit hair for anxious moments when he isn't around....
Re: The flavour of words - 05/21/05 10:17 PM
> paperwhites in a pot of water
YES! We made the mistake one year of doing this, and in the evenings I ended up having to put the bloody things outdoors, they made such a foul stink :(
YES! We made the mistake one year of doing this, and in the evenings I ended up having to put the bloody things outdoors, they made such a foul stink :(
Re: The flavour of words - 05/22/05 10:39 AM
Gee, I'm glad I'm not alone on this, mav. Has anyone here heard of "supertasters"? (silly question; someone - or sometwelve - will have!)
supertasters - 05/22/05 08:10 PM
Yes, I've heard of supertasters. In fact, we were discussing the subject at a dinner party last night: one of our group and the daughter of another are both supertasters. The daughter, who is now about 11, still has an acceptable menu of only 12 or so foods; everything else is just overwhelming to her. The group member who is a supertaster has a bigger menu, but is still limited in that he cannot abide spicy foods and only takes real pleasure in the things I would call unforgiveably bland.
Re: supertasters - 05/22/05 08:25 PM
Here's an almost totally useless "test"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/supertaster/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/supertaster/
Re: supertasters - 05/22/05 08:40 PM
yup. useless and irritating.
Re: supertasters - 05/22/05 11:38 PM
Here's an almost totally useless "test"
Not sure why you dismiss the test as "almost totally useless", Vernon. The test is based on real science linking a person's sensitivity to taste to the number of papillae on their tongue - as explained at the conclusion of the test.
Just as digital picture quality is determined by the number of pixels, so taste is determined by the number of papillae. Odor [aroma] also contributes to taste, of course.
Not sure why you dismiss the test as "almost totally useless", Vernon. The test is based on real science linking a person's sensitivity to taste to the number of papillae on their tongue - as explained at the conclusion of the test.
Just as digital picture quality is determined by the number of pixels, so taste is determined by the number of papillae. Odor [aroma] also contributes to taste, of course.
Re: supertasters - 05/23/05 11:14 AM
I'm inclined to agree with Vernon. I picked the answers closest to what I believe is true of me and came up a supertaster - but in fact I eat everything with enjoyment, except liver and lima beans. The "usually don't like" foods are all things I've always enjoyed - I might have been the only child I know who was disappointed that there weren't Brussels sprouts for dinner!
Re: supertasters - 05/23/05 01:24 PM
With respect, Elizabeth, your personal assessment of the test based on your singular personal experience and self-analysis does not invalidate the test, or even cast suspicion on its scientific credibility.
The test is based on surveys conducted by trained researchers with dozens (perhaps thousands) of test takers, and the validity of the test has already been scientifically established.
In any case, one's own personal experience with a respected scientific test is not a reason to dismiss the test as "almost totally useless".
It would be a reason for trained researchers to treat the singular, self-evaluated, non-conforming result as "almost totally useless", however.
The test is based on surveys conducted by trained researchers with dozens (perhaps thousands) of test takers, and the validity of the test has already been scientifically established.
In any case, one's own personal experience with a respected scientific test is not a reason to dismiss the test as "almost totally useless".
It would be a reason for trained researchers to treat the singular, self-evaluated, non-conforming result as "almost totally useless", however.
Re: supertasters - 05/23/05 02:07 PM
the test *forced me to answer questions with an inadequate reply. sometimes I go out to eat, sometimes I go out with friends.
Re: supertasters - 05/23/05 02:55 PM
Yep; maybe they did lots and lots of testing that showed that these questions were reliable indicators, but I for one don't see how these can fit all the different circumstances, including, for one: how hungry you are. If you're ravenous, then yes, everything on the menu is going to seem delicious! Also, if you're ravenous, you're probably going to be wolfing down the first bites, probably without stopping to enjoy the taste all that much.
Re: supertasters - 05/23/05 08:15 PM
I grant that you [and Etaoin and Elizabeth] have valid reasons for your personal misgivings, Jackie, but it is likely that the test was designed to be administered by trained researchers who may have provided standard preliminary instructions to all test-takers. These standard instructions may have eliminated some of the uncertainty some test-takers experience when they take the test online without adequate preliminary instruction.
We don't know if the researchers who designed the test would accept as valid or reliable results obtained online by test-takers who may not have understood all of the required preliminary instructions, and who interpreted the results for themselves.
Chances are the researchers would not consider these online results as valid.
No doubt, the researchers would say that anyone exposed in advance to anyone's published denunciation of the validity of the test [as here] would not be an eligible subject for the test as any such person might be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by that derogatory opinion.
The danger of 'contamination' is especially great in a situation, like the one here at AWADtalk, where test-takers know one another and they may react unconsciously in sympathy with a test-taker who has published strong doubts about the test before they have had a chance to take the test for themselves.
Similarly, someone whom the test-takers dislike could swing their pre-test opinion in the opposite direction, also unconsciously, by expressing strong support for the test.
In either case, the results would be contaminated.
We don't know if the researchers who designed the test would accept as valid or reliable results obtained online by test-takers who may not have understood all of the required preliminary instructions, and who interpreted the results for themselves.
Chances are the researchers would not consider these online results as valid.
No doubt, the researchers would say that anyone exposed in advance to anyone's published denunciation of the validity of the test [as here] would not be an eligible subject for the test as any such person might be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by that derogatory opinion.
The danger of 'contamination' is especially great in a situation, like the one here at AWADtalk, where test-takers know one another and they may react unconsciously in sympathy with a test-taker who has published strong doubts about the test before they have had a chance to take the test for themselves.
Similarly, someone whom the test-takers dislike could swing their pre-test opinion in the opposite direction, also unconsciously, by expressing strong support for the test.
In either case, the results would be contaminated.
Re: supertasters - 05/24/05 09:30 AM
What bollocks. It's a spurious online freebie of no validity at all.
Re: supertasters - 05/24/05 12:34 PM
Carpathian, I didn't say the test WAS no good, I said I thought it was almost useless. I'm entitled to my opinion, as is everyone on this board. You defend the test as though it was you who invented it. Lighten up.
Re: supertasters - 05/24/05 06:15 PM
Dear Elizabeth:
"Almost totally useless" is almost totally unfair to the serious and respectable scientists who produced this test.
If you hadn't published your harsh and hasty and unqualified disparagement, I wouldn't have felt the need to address your spurious evaluation so bluntly.
So, please, Elizabeth, lighten up.
"Almost totally useless" is almost totally unfair to the serious and respectable scientists who produced this test.
If you hadn't published your harsh and hasty and unqualified disparagement, I wouldn't have felt the need to address your spurious evaluation so bluntly.
So, please, Elizabeth, lighten up.
Re: supertasters - 05/24/05 06:52 PM
Elizabeth:
Fret not. Certain spurious small coins frequently return temporarily to the scene of their crimes.
I'm reminded of my distant cousin Sam Remington, who decided that counterfeiting small change in a shop outside London would keep him below the radar of the constabulary. Alas, he was mistaken, and asked plaintively as he was led away in cuffs, "How'd you catch me?" The arresting detective merely sang the old refrain, "Sam, you made the pence too long."
And Sam's not the only one who's been busted. Just look out on the car path.
TEd
Edit:
Sam was like his dead cat. In the bad mintin' racket.
TR
Fret not. Certain spurious small coins frequently return temporarily to the scene of their crimes.
I'm reminded of my distant cousin Sam Remington, who decided that counterfeiting small change in a shop outside London would keep him below the radar of the constabulary. Alas, he was mistaken, and asked plaintively as he was led away in cuffs, "How'd you catch me?" The arresting detective merely sang the old refrain, "Sam, you made the pence too long."
And Sam's not the only one who's been busted. Just look out on the car path.
TEd
Edit:
Sam was like his dead cat. In the bad mintin' racket.
TR
So which is it this time around? - 05/25/05 11:51 AM
Carpathian or Plutarch? (you fool no one, save perhaps some newcomers, is that your aim?)
Re: So which is it this time around? - 05/25/05 12:31 PM
You're right, it's a sock puppet.
Re: So which is it this time around? - 05/25/05 06:28 PM
Dear ASp:
I thought I would relieve all of the need to guess by indicating that Carpathian ("Carp" for short) is the former Plutarch. [Please note Plutarch post above.]
I changed my name because "Carpathian" allows me to become a "Carp" before my time. :)
If I fooled anyone, I regret it - because I certainly made no effort to fool anyone. Quite the contrary.
So successful was I in making Plutarch's appearance known to you, you circulated the alarm by PM immediately following Carpathian's very first post.
Thank you. You saved me the trouble. :)
I thought I would relieve all of the need to guess by indicating that Carpathian ("Carp" for short) is the former Plutarch. [Please note Plutarch post above.]
I changed my name because "Carpathian" allows me to become a "Carp" before my time. :)
If I fooled anyone, I regret it - because I certainly made no effort to fool anyone. Quite the contrary.
So successful was I in making Plutarch's appearance known to you, you circulated the alarm by PM immediately following Carpathian's very first post.
Thank you. You saved me the trouble. :)
Re: So which is it this time around? - 05/25/05 08:17 PM
Came back for more carping, eh?
the Carps are circling :) - 05/25/05 08:39 PM
Came back for more carping, eh?
Not exactly, W'ON. This time I plan to give as much Carp as I take.
No more turn-the-other-cheek Plutarch.
Carps aren't the only ones who can carp. But they never Carp alone. They always Carp in packs.
Good! That makes the odds pretty much even. :)
Not exactly, W'ON. This time I plan to give as much Carp as I take.
No more turn-the-other-cheek Plutarch.
Carps aren't the only ones who can carp. But they never Carp alone. They always Carp in packs.
Good! That makes the odds pretty much even. :)
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/25/05 11:41 PM
Tnat's it. I am outta here. You know exactly where you can place the small shards of this board after you have finished destroying it, you crummy piece of shit.
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/26/05 12:37 AM
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/26/05 10:25 AM
Dear TEd Rem:
I said I would give as much Carp as I take.
My apologies. I overstated that.
I will not stoop to the viciousness of some of the leading Carps around here --- which seems to have rubbed off on you in my absence.
In the past, you were content to sit on the sidelines quietly while ASp and Of Troy heaped unprovoked abuse on me week after week, month after month for over 3 months. As you know, I departed to give the Carps an opportunity to clean up their own mess.
I say again, I will give as much Carp as I take. But I am not a real "Carp" so I will continue to distinguish myself as a gentleman.
But there will be no more turn-the-other-cheek Plutarch.
I don't need to resort to obscenities and gratuitous insults and hysterical tirades foaming with hate language to deal with Carpal dog packs defending their sacred Carpal precincts from unwelcome truths.
I said I would give as much Carp as I take.
My apologies. I overstated that.
I will not stoop to the viciousness of some of the leading Carps around here --- which seems to have rubbed off on you in my absence.
In the past, you were content to sit on the sidelines quietly while ASp and Of Troy heaped unprovoked abuse on me week after week, month after month for over 3 months. As you know, I departed to give the Carps an opportunity to clean up their own mess.
I say again, I will give as much Carp as I take. But I am not a real "Carp" so I will continue to distinguish myself as a gentleman.
But there will be no more turn-the-other-cheek Plutarch.
I don't need to resort to obscenities and gratuitous insults and hysterical tirades foaming with hate language to deal with Carpal dog packs defending their sacred Carpal precincts from unwelcome truths.
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/26/05 04:50 PM
Yikes, I feel like someone who's just showed up for The Importance of Being Earnest only to find Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf playing on the stage. What gives with all the useless fighting?
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/27/05 03:43 PM
What gives with all the useless fighting?
Your insight seems particularly apt when we reflect on the fact that Albee's title was inspired by the childrens' nursery rhyme "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf". [At least, that is the popular theory.]
Your insight seems particularly apt when we reflect on the fact that Albee's title was inspired by the childrens' nursery rhyme "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf". [At least, that is the popular theory.]
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/28/05 01:02 AM
What gives with all the useless fighting?
Your insight seems particularly apt when we reflect on the fact that Albee's title was inspired by the childrens' nursery rhyme "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf". [At least, that is the popular theory.]
And some folks are George and Martha all rolled into one...evidently.
Your insight seems particularly apt when we reflect on the fact that Albee's title was inspired by the childrens' nursery rhyme "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf". [At least, that is the popular theory.]
And some folks are George and Martha all rolled into one...evidently.
Re: The flavour of words - 05/28/05 01:07 AM
> good times in NJ
yeah, I got way off the freeway too :)
Yes, Mav..."duked" it out in the wilds of New Jersey, huh?
When you get off the Turnpike you ever know what natural wonders you might find.
yeah, I got way off the freeway too :)
Yes, Mav..."duked" it out in the wilds of New Jersey, huh?
When you get off the Turnpike you ever know what natural wonders you might find.
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/28/05 12:32 PM
some folks are George and Martha all rolled into one...
Very large of you to acknowledge it, W'ON.
It just goes to show that it is sometimes unfair to judge a group by the behavior of a few, even when the group acquiesces in scandalous behavior.
Acquiesce doesn't always give consent. Sometimes it only gives the appearance of consent.
It is regretable that those who offend are the ones most likely to be heartened by this chimera of consent.
Very large of you to acknowledge it, W'ON.
It just goes to show that it is sometimes unfair to judge a group by the behavior of a few, even when the group acquiesces in scandalous behavior.
Acquiesce doesn't always give consent. Sometimes it only gives the appearance of consent.
It is regretable that those who offend are the ones most likely to be heartened by this chimera of consent.
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/28/05 06:05 PM
>Very large of you to acknowledge it, W'ON.
It just goes to show that it is sometimes unfair to judge a group by the behavior of a few, even when the group acquiesces in scandalous behavior.
Acquiesce doesn't always give consent. Sometimes it only gives the appearance of consent.
It is regretable that those who offend are the ones most likely to be heartened by this chimera of consent.
I was talking about you.
It just goes to show that it is sometimes unfair to judge a group by the behavior of a few, even when the group acquiesces in scandalous behavior.
Acquiesce doesn't always give consent. Sometimes it only gives the appearance of consent.
It is regretable that those who offend are the ones most likely to be heartened by this chimera of consent.
I was talking about you.
Re: the Carps are circling :) - 05/28/05 07:14 PM
I was talking about you.
And I was talking about Carp.
We'll let those who are neither me nor Carp decide who specializes in obscenities, unprovoked personal insults, hateful tirades and cowardly bullying.
The record is crystal clear on the subject for any who may be curious.
And I was talking about Carp.
We'll let those who are neither me nor Carp decide who specializes in obscenities, unprovoked personal insults, hateful tirades and cowardly bullying.
The record is crystal clear on the subject for any who may be curious.
Re: too stupid to look in a mirror - 05/29/05 12:59 AM
Are you seriously going to carry on your pathetic bleating and whinging until the end of time? You are simply a fatuous waste of DNA. Go get yourself some proper treatment and stop inflicting your crap on everyone round here. No-one's interested in your legalistic pettifogging, and nothing you say can force anyone to like you when the practical results of your character shine through so clearly.
Re: too stupid to look in a mirror - 05/29/05 02:45 AM
oh, mav, there you go pussy footing your way round, not really saying what you mean..
you need to be clearer, and to better articulate (can you be articulate when you are writting?) well maybe articulate isn't the right word.. but
hey, this is a word board. mostly. about words.
it useful, i am always forgetting word to describe rhetorical terms, (and come here and ask the same question again and again) and i seem to remember some other words.. what where they? something about leaving, and not posting.. i vaguely remember..
well it doesn't seem to matter. some times i forget words too.. (see spree for latest example!)
you need to be clearer, and to better articulate (can you be articulate when you are writting?) well maybe articulate isn't the right word.. but
hey, this is a word board. mostly. about words.
it useful, i am always forgetting word to describe rhetorical terms, (and come here and ask the same question again and again) and i seem to remember some other words.. what where they? something about leaving, and not posting.. i vaguely remember..
well it doesn't seem to matter. some times i forget words too.. (see spree for latest example!)
Mutual Admiration Society - 05/29/05 12:04 PM
nothing you say can force anyone to like you when the practical results of your character shine through so clearly
Dear Maverick:
I can't imagine why you think I would aspire to be "liked" by you or your fellow Carp or even by anyone else who posts here, at least as a primary motivation for visiting here.
This is not a "Mutual Admiration Society" -- although it has been monopolized by some for that purpose.
This is a forum for the expression of ideas and opinions associated with words.
If someone favors an idea I might have or an opinion, or insights I might bring here expressed by others -- whether or not they favor me, personally, as the originator or messenger -- then I am rewarded and encouraged, and this is what I look for in others.
Friendship I can find in the real world. And flattery is a balm for the insecure.
If it's friendship and flattery you seek, Maverick, you should look for it in the real world, not here.
If posters happen to make some friends in this forum in the process of exchanging ideas and debating ideas -- the more openly and honestly and candidly, the better -- those friendships are an incidental pleasure, not the raison d'etre of AWADtalk.
If you and your fellow Carp want to soothe your insecurities in a sanctuary of fawning flatteries, you should take your Mutual Admiration Society some place where the real world cannot intrude upon your fantasies.
Dear Maverick:
I can't imagine why you think I would aspire to be "liked" by you or your fellow Carp or even by anyone else who posts here, at least as a primary motivation for visiting here.
This is not a "Mutual Admiration Society" -- although it has been monopolized by some for that purpose.
This is a forum for the expression of ideas and opinions associated with words.
If someone favors an idea I might have or an opinion, or insights I might bring here expressed by others -- whether or not they favor me, personally, as the originator or messenger -- then I am rewarded and encouraged, and this is what I look for in others.
Friendship I can find in the real world. And flattery is a balm for the insecure.
If it's friendship and flattery you seek, Maverick, you should look for it in the real world, not here.
If posters happen to make some friends in this forum in the process of exchanging ideas and debating ideas -- the more openly and honestly and candidly, the better -- those friendships are an incidental pleasure, not the raison d'etre of AWADtalk.
If you and your fellow Carp want to soothe your insecurities in a sanctuary of fawning flatteries, you should take your Mutual Admiration Society some place where the real world cannot intrude upon your fantasies.
Re: mad - 05/29/05 10:32 PM
Interesting that you see this as set apart from the 'real world'. Most of us have met in the flesh, sometimes on many occasions, most of us see this as part and parcel of the real world we inhabit, and although we adopt screen names (mainly to guard against the depradations of fuckwits like you) we are exactly who and what we project ourselves to be. You, on the contrary, have proven so insecure that you have adopted a minimum of what, eight, nine or ten personae on this board? - and have shown yourself to be the same egomaniac little cretin behind each name. Most of us do indeed come here for discussion based around issues of language, whereas judged by your actual posts you apparently come here in some desperate pursuit of the approval of others, and when this has not been forthcoming try to bludgeon a response by incessant whinging and bleating of the most puerile kind.
Well, here is the plain unvarnished truth as it appears to most who have had to put up with your noise over the past years:
1. You are not very quick witted or knowledgeable.
2. You have a far higher regard for your own capacities than does anyone who knows you.
3. You have a pathological need to feel included, to the masochistic excess of forcing your company on an established yet open group of people who have found your company boring.
Get a life. Get treatment. Above all, get out here.
Of course, I don't really expect you to be able to take this on board. That's the nature of mental imbalance.
Well, here is the plain unvarnished truth as it appears to most who have had to put up with your noise over the past years:
1. You are not very quick witted or knowledgeable.
2. You have a far higher regard for your own capacities than does anyone who knows you.
3. You have a pathological need to feel included, to the masochistic excess of forcing your company on an established yet open group of people who have found your company boring.
Get a life. Get treatment. Above all, get out here.
Of course, I don't really expect you to be able to take this on board. That's the nature of mental imbalance.
Re: mad - 05/30/05 11:46 AM
You have a pathological need to feel included
Actually, I have a pathological need to feel unincluded, Maverick, most particularly unincluded in the sort of calumnies and pettiness and hysterics you and some of your leading Carps fall back on, having neither reason nor intellect to prop you up.
Actually, I have a pathological need to feel unincluded, Maverick, most particularly unincluded in the sort of calumnies and pettiness and hysterics you and some of your leading Carps fall back on, having neither reason nor intellect to prop you up.
Re: mad - 06/03/05 04:21 PM
How about a word or two from one of the NOT "CARPS" you're so blithely assuming will support you, Carpathian/Plutarch/whoever the hell you are:
I've been sick of your shit for a long, long time. For a while I thought maybe you'd gotten over yourself, but apparently not. You lecture us, you condescend to us, you fight with everyone. Go ahead and make some nasty comments about me now, for using an expletive or something. I'm not aware that I've ever exchanged posts with you before, but I'm pretty sure you now hate my guts as well as every "Carpal Tunnel" here on AWAD.
Geez, I thought I could come here and lurk without getting pissed off...
I've been sick of your shit for a long, long time. For a while I thought maybe you'd gotten over yourself, but apparently not. You lecture us, you condescend to us, you fight with everyone. Go ahead and make some nasty comments about me now, for using an expletive or something. I'm not aware that I've ever exchanged posts with you before, but I'm pretty sure you now hate my guts as well as every "Carpal Tunnel" here on AWAD.
Geez, I thought I could come here and lurk without getting pissed off...