Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by George W. Cherr, Dec 21, 2003.

  1. One reason not to skimp on carbohydrate:
    http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/amador/Creek/AP98/JoyGobs/intro.html A big question is: Does the
    food you eat really have a significant effect on your cognitive processing and behavioral patterns?
    According to Katherine Milton, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, " the
    behaviors and physiology that define us are the consequences

    of dietary-driven evolution. . . and everything comes back to diet." Milton has spent the last
    twenty years on the island of Barro Colorado in Panama, studying howler and spider monkeys. Her
    extensive research has resulted in an increased knowledge of the effects of diet in relation to the
    productivity of the brain. After many years of observation and analyzation of the monkeys, their
    habitat, diet, and physiology she made some astounding discoveries. Even though the two monkeys
    shared the same environment and were approximately the same size, they had dramatic differences. The
    spider monkeys, whose diet consisted ninety percent from fruits, had more energy, were brighter, and
    had larger brains. Milton also found that their digestive tracts were much smaller allowing for
    quicker removal of wastes. By eating high energy, hard to find fruits, the monkeys were forced to
    memorize more locations of plants, the time of year and day the fruit would ripen, thus forcing
    their brains to

    expand over time. In contrast, their counterpart, the howler monkey, fed themselves on protein rich
    leaves leading to a lack of energy that was needed to fuel the brain. Because of the excess in
    protein and lack of carbohydrates the howler monkeys were dull and unobservant. Milton was able to
    eat bananas and peanut butter sandwiches in front of the howler's making loud slurping noises, and
    the howler's were seemingly oblivious to her action's. The spider monkeys, however, had a much
    different reaction. They would attack Milton to get her food, and she quickly learned that eating
    could become a hazardous situation because of their attentiveness.

    In conclusion, the focal point of our experiment was based on the idea that diet has a direct impact
    on the function's of the brain.

    -- Thanks to DeVries
     
    Tags:


  2. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    "George W. Cherry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]_s04>...
    > One reason not to skimp on carbohydrate:
    > http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/amador/Creek/AP98/JoyGobs/intro.html A big question is: Does the
    > food you eat really have a significant effect on your cognitive processing and behavioral
    > patterns? According to Katherine Milton, an anthropologist at the University of California at
    > Berkeley, " the behaviors and physiology that define us are the consequences
    >
    > of dietary-driven evolution. . . and everything comes back to diet." Milton has spent the last
    > twenty years on the island of Barro Colorado in Panama, studying howler and spider monkeys. Her
    > extensive research has resulted in an increased knowledge of the effects of diet in relation to
    > the productivity of the brain. After many years of observation and analyzation of the monkeys,
    > their habitat, diet, and physiology she made some astounding discoveries. Even though the two
    > monkeys shared the same environment and were approximately the same size, they had dramatic
    > differences. The spider monkeys, whose diet consisted ninety percent from fruits, had more energy,
    > were brighter, and had larger brains. Milton also found that their digestive tracts were much
    > smaller allowing for quicker removal of wastes. By eating high energy, hard to find fruits, the
    > monkeys were forced to memorize more locations of plants, the time of year and day the fruit would
    > ripen, thus forcing their brains to
    >
    > expand over time. In contrast, their counterpart, the howler monkey, fed themselves on protein
    > rich leaves leading to a lack of energy that was needed to fuel the brain. Because of the excess
    > in protein and lack of carbohydrates the howler monkeys were dull and unobservant. Milton was able
    > to eat bananas and peanut butter sandwiches in front of the howler's making loud slurping noises,
    > and the howler's were seemingly oblivious to her action's. The spider monkeys, however, had a much
    > different reaction. They would attack Milton to get her food, and she quickly learned that eating
    > could become a hazardous situation because of their attentiveness.
    >
    > In conclusion, the focal point of our experiment was based on the idea that diet has a direct
    > impact on the function's of the brain.
    >
    > -- Thanks to DeVries

    Why, thank you Georgie boy. I consider this as your admission that you are completely wrong about
    carbs in the diet and as a complete vindication for us low-carb advocates.

    In the absence of any credible argument to back your contentions, you resort to mindless name
    calling. That is as clear a statement of defeat as I've ever seen.

    ta ta,

    TC
     
  3. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    George W. Cherry <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

    > One reason not to skimp on carbohydrate:
    > http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/amador/Creek/AP98/JoyGobs/intro.html A big question is: Does the
    > food you eat really have a significant effect on your cognitive processing and behavioral
    > patterns? According to Katherine Milton, an anthropologist at the University of California at
    > Berkeley, " the behaviors and physiology that define us are the consequences of dietary-driven
    > evolution. . . and everything comes back to diet."

    > Milton has spent the last twenty years on the island of Barro Colorado in Panama, studying howler
    > and spider monkeys. Her extensive research has resulted in an increased knowledge of the effects
    > of diet in relation to the productivity of the brain. After many years of observation and
    > analyzation of the monkeys, their habitat, diet, and physiology she made some astounding
    > discoveries. Even though the two monkeys shared the same environment and were approximately the
    > same size, they had dramatic differences. The spider monkeys, whose diet consisted ninety percent
    > from fruits, had more energy, were brighter, and had larger brains. Milton also found that their
    > digestive tracts were much smaller allowing for quicker removal of wastes. By eating high energy,
    > hard to find fruits, the monkeys were forced to memorize more locations of plants, the time of
    > year and day the fruit would ripen, thus forcing their brains to expand over time.

    Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a more sophisticated social life
    - rather than as a consequence of keeping track of the locations of fruit (which is normally a
    trivial task by comparison).

    One wonders if Milton controlled for that.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  4. "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > George W. Cherry <[email protected]> wrote or
    quoted:
    >
    > > One reason not to skimp on carbohydrate:
    > > http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/amador/Creek/AP98/JoyGobs/intro.html A big question is: Does the
    > > food you eat really have a significant effect on your cognitive processing and behavioral
    > > patterns? According
    to
    > > Katherine Milton, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, " the behaviors
    > > and physiology that define us are the consequences of dietary-driven evolution. . . and
    > > everything comes back to diet."
    >
    > > Milton has spent the last twenty years on the island of Barro Colorado in Panama, studying
    > > howler and spider monkeys. Her extensive research has resulted in an increased knowledge of the
    > > effects of diet in relation to the productivity of the brain. After many years of observation
    > > and analyzation of the monkeys, their habitat, diet, and physiology she made some astounding
    > > discoveries. Even though the two monkeys shared the same environment and were approximately the
    > > same size, they had dramatic differences. The spider monkeys, whose diet consisted ninety
    > > percent from fruits, had more energy, were brighter, and had larger brains. Milton also found
    > > that their digestive tracts were much smaller allowing for quicker removal of wastes. By eating
    > > high energy, hard to find fruits, the monkeys were forced to memorize more locations of plants,
    > > the time of year and day the fruit would ripen, thus forcing their brains to expand over time.
    >
    > Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a more sophisticated social
    > life - rather than as a consequence of keeping track of the locations of fruit (which is normally
    > a trivial task by
    comparison).

    Yes, that's a notion held by some evolutionary psychologists and some neuroscientists. It's hard for
    me to believe that get- ting along with members of your family, clan, and tribe was as
    intellectually challenging as finding food, shelter, and secur- ity in a hostile world.

    George
     
  5. Mark D.

    Mark D. Guest

    "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    >
    > Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a more sophisticated social
    > life - rather than as a consequence of keeping track of the locations of fruit (which is normally
    > a trivial task by
    comparison).

    Tim,

    I recently saw a TV programme which showed a bunch of primate (or monkey; or ape...?) skulls laid
    out in a row, while it was explained that the size of each was quite precisely correlated to the
    size of the community its species tended to live in. At the 'top' end was a human skull - but the
    presenter didn't say what *its* size suggested would be the size of the 'natural' human community!
    I'd love to have seen such a calculation: 50? 100? 150? 500? 1000?

    Do you have any idea what the figure would be...?

    Anyone else...?

    M.
     
  6. Mark D.

    Mark D. Guest

    "George W. Cherry" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:9NJIb.
    > >
    > > Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a
    more
    > > sophisticated social life - rather than as a consequence of keeping
    track
    > > of the locations of fruit (which is normally a trivial task by
    > comparison).
    >
    > Yes, that's a notion held by some evolutionary psychologists and some neuroscientists. It's hard
    > for me to believe that get- ting along with members of your family, clan, and tribe was as
    > intellectually challenging as finding food, shelter, and secur- ity in a hostile world.

    It's not hard for me to believe. In my understanding, 'finding food, shelter and security' mostly
    involves relatively simple and unchanging issues: most of the individual activities don't require
    updating or further learning, and many of them could actually be 'hard-wired'. If you don't believe
    me, ask a prawn.

    A *social life*, on the other hand, involves such complex and/or continually changing considerations
    as kinship, obligation, dominance and subservience, general communication, secret communication,
    deceptive communication, understanding another's behaviour, predicting another's behaviour,
    controlling or manipulating another's behaviour, being able to prevent another understanding,
    predicting or controlling one's *own* behaviour, etc, etc...

    Feel free not to understand.

    M.
     
  7. Once upon a time, our fellow Mark D. rambled on about "Re: Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?."
    Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >I recently saw a TV programme

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    Try learning to spell in a civilized society, social boy!

    Why are the British so anal? You no longer rule this ng, the sea, let alone your bedroom!

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)

    PS: I just love my dentures. :)
     
  8. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    George W. Cherry <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

    > Yes, that's a notion held by some evolutionary psychologists and some neuroscientists. It's hard
    > for me to believe that get- ting along with members of your family, clan, and tribe was as
    > intellectually challenging as finding food, shelter, and security in a hostile world.

    I have no problem with the notion.

    Much of the primate envrionment consists of others of the same species - including many of the more
    hostile bits.

    Big brains are needed to compete for mates with others with big brains. They are not necessary to
    perform other survival tasks - as the many small-brained species demonstrate.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  9. Tim Josling

    Tim Josling Guest

    Mark D. wrote:
    > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a more sophisticated social
    >>life - rather than as a consequence of keeping track of the locations of fruit (which is normally
    >>a trivial task by
    >
    > comparison).
    >
    > Tim,
    >
    > I recently saw a TV programme which showed a bunch of primate (or monkey; or ape...?) skulls laid
    > out in a row, while it was explained that the size of each was quite precisely correlated to the
    > size of the community its species tended to live in. At the 'top' end was a human skull - but the
    > presenter didn't say what *its* size suggested would be the size of the 'natural' human community!
    > I'd love to have seen such a calculation: 50? 100? 150? 500? 1000?
    >
    > Do you have any idea what the figure would be...?
    >
    > Anyone else...?
    >
    > M.
    >
    >

    150 is the number I have read in several books,

    Tim Josling
     
  10. Mark D.

    Mark D. Guest

    "Tim Josling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:bt056f$lpm$
    > >
    > > At the 'top' end was a human skull - but the presenter didn't say what *its* size suggested
    > > would be the size of the 'natural' human community! I'd love to have seen such a calculation:
    > > 50? 100? 150? 500? 1000?
    > >
    > > Do you have any idea what the figure would be...?
    > >
    > > Anyone else...?

    >
    > 150 is the number I have read in several books,
    >

    Thanks, Tim.

    Actually, I've seen the same figure; but looking at all those skulls, 150 seemed a bit *low*...

    M.
     
  11. Mark D.

    Mark D. Guest

    "John 'the health expert who gave himself anaemia'"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:tuk6vvoit9jjbkbc67aotcikqgg5gvj34
    >
    > PS: I just love my dentures. :)

    How about the CP and the 'physically abnormal brain' you told us all about? Do you love
    those as well?

    And then there is the fact that you've been waiting *6 months* for my ISP to cancel my account in
    response to your complaining - only to find that they

    tell us, Gohde-boy: do you love *that* too?

    M.
     
  12. "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > George W. Cherry <[email protected]> wrote or
    quoted:
    >

    >
    > > Yes, that's a notion held by some evolutionary psychologists and some neuroscientists. It's hard
    > > for me to believe that get- ting along with members of your family, clan, and tribe was as
    > > intellectually challenging as finding food, shelter, and security in a hostile world.
    >
    > I have no problem with the notion.

    There's no doubt about social relationships being problematical for primates. If an individual were
    very socially challenged and interpersonally incompetent s/he might even be driven out of the tribe
    and therefore likely to perish--or at least not reproduce.

    But consider brain lateralization, handedness, and dexterity. The human hand is an incredibly
    cunning instrument, and the evolution of the human brain was no doubt greatly influenced by tool
    making and tool handling. Consider baseball pitchers, concert pianists, and watchmakers. It takes a
    rich neural capacity to perform these feats. Notice how the hands work together, the left hand
    holding and the right hand manipulating. Observe this in yourself. (I've assumed that you're right
    handed.) Surely, the brain evolved to its size in human beings for many reasons, manual dexterity
    and social skills being chief among them. Another evolutionary pressure was to communicate, and
    language is centered in the left brain hemisphere, as is the control center for the most dexterous
    hand (in right handed persons). It appears that evolution utilized the richness of the left
    hemisphere (developed for right hand dexterity) for language.

    > Much of the primate envrionment consists of others of the same species - including many of the
    > more hostile bits.
    >
    > Big brains are needed to compete for mates with others with big brains.

    Big breasts in women and big muscles and fat wallets in males

    > They are not necessary to perform other survival tasks - as the many small-brained species
    > demonstrate.
     
  13. "Mark D." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "George W. Cherry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:9NJIb.
    > > >
    > > > Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a
    > more
    > > > sophisticated social life - rather than as a consequence of keeping
    > track
    > > > of the locations of fruit (which is normally a trivial task by
    > > comparison).
    > >
    > > Yes, that's a notion held by some evolutionary psychologists and some neuroscientists. It's hard
    > > for me to believe that get- ting along with members of your family, clan, and tribe was as
    > > intellectually challenging as finding food, shelter, and secur- ity in a hostile world.
    >
    > It's not hard for me to believe. In my understanding, 'finding food,
    shelter
    > and security' mostly involves relatively simple and unchanging issues:
    most
    > of the individual activities don't require updating or further learning,
    and
    > many of them could actually be 'hard-wired'. If you don't believe me, ask
    a
    > prawn.
    >
    > A *social life*, on the other hand, involves such complex and/or
    continually
    > changing considerations as kinship, obligation, dominance and
    subservience,
    > general communication, secret communication, deceptive communication, understanding another's
    > behaviour, predicting another's behaviour, controlling or manipulating another's behaviour, being
    > able to prevent another understanding, predicting or controlling one's *own* behaviour,
    etc,
    > etc...
    >
    > Feel free not to understand.

    Hi, Mark. I responded to this in my response to Tim Tyler.

    George
     
  14. Once upon a time, our fellow Mark D. rambled on about "Re: Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?."
    Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >> PS: I just love my dentures. :)
    >
    >How about the CP and the 'physically abnormal brain' you told us all about? Do you love
    >those as well?

    Ah! I see that you received my post.

    Thank you for publicly acknowledging that my jab was more effective. :)

    It is easy to poke Academics with a pointy stick. People like you are so stupid and predictable. :)

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)
     
  15. Once upon a time, our fellow George W. Cherry rambled on about "Re: Does TC have howler monkey
    syndrome?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >There's no doubt about social relationships being problematical for primates. If an individual were
    >very socially challenged and interpersonally incompetent s/he might even be driven out of the tribe
    >and therefore likely to perish--or at least not reproduc

    ?????

    The center of medical scientism is the incorrect biomedical model rather than the correct
    biopsychosocial model.

    In the world of medicine, social relationships don't exist.

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
    --
    John Gohde,
    Feeling Great and Better than Ever!

    Natural health is an eclectic self-care system of natural therapies
    that builds and restores health by working with the natural
    recuperative powers of the human body.
    http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/definition.html
     
  16. Tim Tyler

    Tim Tyler Guest

    George W. Cherry <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
    > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> George W. Cherry <@mit.edu> wrote or quoted:

    > But consider brain lateralization, handedness, and dexterity. The human hand is an incredibly
    > cunning instrument, and the evolution of the human brain was no doubt greatly influenced by tool
    > making and tool handling. Consider baseball pitchers, concert pianists, and watchmakers. It takes
    > a rich neural capacity to perform these feats.

    Machines will master such tasks well before that can compose and perform good love songs - IMO.

    > Surely, the brain evolved to its size in human beings for many reasons, manual dexterity and
    > social skills being chief among them.

    I don't rate manual dexterity as especially important. The whole "tools -> intelligence" theory has
    always been massively overrated.

    > Another evolutionary pressure was to communicate, and language is centered in the left brain
    > hemisphere, as is the control center for the most dexterous hand (in right handed persons). It
    > appears that evolution utilized the richness of the left hemisphere (developed for right hand
    > dexterity) for language.

    Spoken language is widely believed to have evolved out of a system where gestures played a more
    prominent role. Such a relationship would not be very suprising.

    >> Much of the primate envrionment consists of others of the same species - including many of the
    >> more hostile bits.
    >>
    >> Big brains are needed to compete for mates with others with big brains.
    >
    > Big breasts in women and big muscles and fat wallets in males

    Big breasts take no brain power - and demonstrate that brains are

    explode.

    However, "fat wallets" seems to play into the "big brain" area to me. Isn't the fastest way to a fat
    wallet notoriously through management and leadership of a band of your fellow men? It seems to me
    that the task requires a substantial degree of competence in the field of social affairs - and
    involves competition with other brains trying to pull the same trick.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
     
  17. Mark D.

    Mark D. Guest

    "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
    >
    > Thank you for publicly acknowledging that my jab was more effective. :)

    What 'jab', Gohde-boy? You're utterly toothless and feeble in *every way*...

    > It is easy to poke Academics with a pointy stick. People like you are so stupid and
    > predictable. :)

    So go on: tell us all how you *always knew* that I'd go on to re-post the following:

    --------text of Gohde message:------- From: Sir John ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Whole
    Grains & John's colic View: Complete Thread (56 articles) Original Format Newsgroups:
    sci.med.nutrition Date: 2002-05-17 08:54:52 PST

    "Actually, Dilworth and the other academics just get their jollies stomping on the physically
    handicapped.

    I happen to be a physically handicapped individual.

    I have been documented to have physical brain damage and slight CP.

    I have been documented to have a physically abnormal brain.

    I have an obvious speech impediment, among other physical problems, due to my physical brain damage.
    The right corner of my mouth is also physically paralyzed.

    My physical handicap has existed since birth. My brain is wired differently from other people.
    English as a result has always been my weakest subject. But, that did not prevent me from succeeding
    academically in both French and German at college.

    Like many other people, I do have trouble in the language department due to my physical handicap.
    But, I have largely over come my language problems except for the occasional A-Hole on these ngs.

    It is always amazing to me how the supposedly so intelligent can be so profoundly stupid! As long
    as I am still breathing, I will be posting and expanding my website, grammar and spelling errors
    or no. :)

    I make no apologizes for being born screwed and having to constantly deal with A-Holes like
    you people.

    I bet scum like you also go around kicking cripples too?
    ---------

    M.
     
  18. "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > George W. Cherry <[email protected]> wrote or
    quoted:
    > > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >> George W. Cherry <@mit.edu> wrote or quoted:
    >

    >
    > > But consider brain lateralization, handedness, and dexterity. The human hand is an incredibly
    > > cunning instrument, and the evolution of the human brain was no doubt greatly influenced by tool
    > > making and tool handling. Consider baseball pitchers, concert pianists, and watchmakers. It
    > > takes a rich neural capacity to perform these feats.
    >
    > Machines will master such tasks well before that can compose and perform good love songs - IMO.
    >
    > > Surely, the brain evolved to its size in human beings for many reasons, manual dexterity and
    > > social skills being chief among them.
    >
    > I don't rate manual dexterity as especially important. The whole "tools -> intelligence" theory
    > has always been massively overrated.
    >
    > > Another evolutionary pressure was to communicate, and language is centered in the left brain
    > > hemisphere, as is the control center for the most dexterous hand (in right handed persons). It
    > > appears that evolution utilized the richness of the left hemisphere (developed for right hand
    > > dexterity) for language.
    >
    > Spoken language is widely believed to have evolved out of a system where gestures played a more
    > prominent role. Such a relationship would not be very suprising.
    >
    > >> Much of the primate envrionment consists of others of the same
    species -
    > >> including many of the more hostile bits.
    > >>
    > >> Big brains are needed to compete for mates with others with big brains.
    > >
    > > Big breasts in women and big muscles and fat wallets in males

    >
    > Big breasts take no brain power - and demonstrate that brains are

    > explode.
    >
    > However, "fat wallets" seems to play into the "big brain" area to me. Isn't the fastest way to a
    > fat wallet notoriously through management and leadership of a band of your fellow men? It seems to
    > me that the task requires a substantial degree of competence in the field of social affairs - and
    > involves competition with other brains trying to pull the same trick.

    Sometimes inheritance does the trick. :eek:)

    Bill Gates does not seem to have especially great interpersonal competence. He's a nerdy guy who saw
    the potential of the personal computer and saw that realizing this potential required new soft-
    ware. Nobelist John F. Nash, Jr. fattened his wal- let by the Nobel prize money by his work on game
    theory while he was paranoid, schizophrenic, and completely socially inept. Phil Condit, the recent-
    ly deposed chairman of the board at Boeing, was a Sloan Fellow at MIT the same year I was. He lacked
    interpersonal skills and sensitivity, but he he had a passion for aircraft design, manufacturing,
    and marketing. (He had an MS degree in aeronau- tics from Princeton.) He's been married and divorced
    four times. I know many captains of industry and very successful entrepreneurs. It was their vision
    for products or services that drove their success. Patrick J. McGovern, Jr., another MIT Sloan
    alumni and wildly successful entrepreneur, had a vision for publishing books with the title "X for
    Dummies". That was it (his biography will not reveal unusual social competence). Was Pat successful?
    You bet: he recently gave $350 million dollars to MIT to fund "The McGovern Institute for Brain
    Research". (That's the largest gift given to a university by any- one).

    BTW, correlation is not causation. Other evolutionary pressures (non-social pressures) may have
    created our large brains--which then created complex social situations which required cunning social
    actions which required even larger brains. My take on the whole "Was it tools, manual dexterity,
    language, or complex social situations that required big brains?" question is that it was probably a
    mix of these and other things. I plead ignorance on the "final answer" to this com- plex--unanswerable--
    question. (Maybe I should read "Biology for Dummies".) :eek:)

    George
     
  19. Once upon a time, our fellow Mark D. rambled on about "Re: Does Mark D howler at the Moon? YES." Our
    champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >So go on: tell us all how you *always knew* that I'd go on to re-post the following:

    More proof that my posts are more effective. :)

    You are so stupid, Mark D.

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)
     
  20. Once upon a time, our fellow George W. Cherry rambled on about "Re: Does TC have howler monkey
    syndrome?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >was a Sloan Fellow at MIT the same year I was.

    Look at you now!

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)
     
Loading...