I don't know 'why' but drug is not the past tense of drag anymore than sug is the past tense of sag, or tug is the past tense of tag :
to bag pt = bagged
to gag pt = gagged
to lag pt = lagged etc, etc
My wife did not "nug" me last night. She nagged me.
A drug is a chemical. "Dragged" is the past tense of the verb 'to drag'. Simple . . REALLY
I don't know 'why' but drug is not the past tense of drag
It's one of my pet peeves too.
I guess it's just one of the differences between spoken American and English.
"Maybe" Grant, rather than blame "poor schooling", one could attribute it to laziness. Drug is actually a word, just not the right one. Too much reliance on auto-correct, which doesn't necessarily correct?
Similarly I see defiantly in lieu of definitely and my all-time hate "dinning room" in place of "dining room". To me, a dinning room is where you play drums, or otherwise make a noise.
To me, a dinning room is where you play drums, or otherwise make a noise.
Really? And here I've always believed a 'dinning room' was the room you went in to play with various light dimmer switches to your heart's content. (My kids always loved them!)
My favorite, though, is the pt of flog, which should be flugged! 'D
@Ernest
As I said earlier, I have found it to be a regional US usage. However, none of the print dictionaries I have, or the more commonly used on-line dictionaries, show drug as a valid past tense for the word drag.
I did find one print dictionary that listed drug as an alternate form for the noun drag as per meaning 15 which lists drag or drug as a stonemason's tool for finishing soft stone without grit.
Beyond that, there is a small set of SoL authors from the same region of the USA that use drug as the past tense form of drag. Thus, I think it's something to do with the regional dialect or educational system there.
I'll admit, I grew up using "drug" as the past tense of drag. I'm not sure which region of the U.S. I picked it up from, as I moved around a lot in my youth. Both "drug" and "dove" are still relatively prominent in certain regions.
the fact it throws some readers out of the story while they work it out is why you should avoid such things, unless you have already included something to explain them.
I agree. Feel free to use it. But if you do, you need to understand where it's used and the context it's used it, cause someone will demand answers, and you need to include a reference to explain it.
Anytime you include a regional, specialty or abbreviation you need to provide background, and few readers will step outside the story to research a stray word they don't understand. So you need to put it into context, so they can pick up the meaning without having to research it. That's covered in "Being a Writer 103".
Both "drug" and "dove" are still relatively prominent in certain regions.
In all the editing and proofreading I've done, mostly for American authors, I've fortunately never encountered 'drug' used as the past tense of drag. Bearing in mind how rare it is and its likely dubious etymology, I would amend it to 'dragged' for the sake of the majority of readers. If the author felt strongly about it they could always change it back: I've had authors insisting on bizarre spellings for some very common words because it was what they were used to.
Although 'dove' is falling out of fashion, it is a spelling with a rigorous English English etymology.
AJ
And here I've always believed a 'dinning room' was the room you went in to play with various light dimmer switches to your heart's content.
That's the dining room.
The room in which you dine (but only on special occasions).
I'll admit, I grew up using "drug" as the past tense of drag. I'm not sure which region of the U.S. I picked it up from, as I moved around a lot in my youth.
From what I've been able to track down by talking to some US authors who use it, the use of the word drug instead of dragged appears to be from around two areas, the lower half of the Appalachians and the Ozarks. In which case I can see it arising from distortions of Scots accents or dialects by others. But there's no clear etymology on the usage.
From what I've been able to track down by talking to some US authors who use it, the use of the word drug instead of dragged appears to be from around two areas, the lower half of the Appalachians and the Ozarks. In which case I can see it arising from distortions of Scots accents or dialects by others. But there's no clear etymology on the usage.
That's interesting, as I've never spent much time in those regions. My mother was originally from West Virgina, and we'd occasionally drive there for a weekend trip every couple years, but I doubt that's where I picked it up. I'd guessed either the southeast U.S., the midwest, or one of the regional eastern N.C. accents, as they tend to be fairly radical offshoots of ancient English.
From what I've been able to track down by talking to some US authors who use it, the use of the word drug instead of dragged appears to be from around two areas, the lower half of the Appalachians and the Ozarks. In which case I can see it arising from distortions of Scots accents or dialects by others. But there's no clear etymology on the usage.
It's used in the "Intermountain West" (Between the Sierra and Cascade Mountain ranges and the Rockies) as well. Seems the Mormons brought it west with them, wherever they picked it up from.
Really? And here I've always believed a 'dinning room' was the room you went in to play with various light dimmer switches to your heart's content.
No, no, no - that's the dimming room the dinning room is where you keep the two drum sets the kids play on and do their shouting.
edit to add: the dinning room is also what you get when you mistype dining room.
Not all drugs are chemicals. Of course they are made of molecules, if you think all molecules are chemicals, then there is a basis for your statement. Penicillin is based on a mold. Some drugs are plant extracts. I think willow bark has many of the same effects as aspirin. Opiates (opium is one) come from poppies.
If you take enough of the right drugs, you don't care what the past tense of drag is.
LOL Richard . . . and again it happens mould vs mold.
Penicillin is a drug derived from mould. Opiates are drugs derived from poppies. Willow bark has an active constituent, a "natural drug" that has the same effect as Aspirin.
And more relevantly, "drug" is still NOT the past tense of the verb "to drag."
You really have a gross amount of asinine gall to claim that only you have the education and authority to determine what is proper English. One of the greatest things about English is its ability to absorb many varying word forms and get its meaning across.
As far as I am concerned, you are an almighty drag on the world of English speakers, and I wish someone had drug you to the ash heap before you started this nonsense.
But wait, maybe I am wrong about you. Perhaps you are a troll?
But wait, maybe I am wrong about you. Perhaps you are a troll
lying in wait in strange garb awaiting an unsuspecting maiden to cross over the bridge under which he lives?
lying in wait in strange garb awaiting an unsuspecting maiden to cross over the bridge under which he lives?
Or maybe he's on a coastal fishing vessel dragging a large fishing net behind him?
Or maybe he's on a coastal fishing vessel dragging a large fishing net behind him?
No, that would be a Trawl, not a Troll.
If the trawler breaks down, will they send a tagged to tow it back to port? ;)
Of course not, the will send a tower to tow it.
Why Aubie, Because I believe in doing anything I do, the best way I can, and politely brought up my point, with examples.
I don't believe I said anything insulting, yet your response is offensive and unwarranted. Like I care.
"Why Aubie, Because I believe in doing anything I do, the best way I can, and politely brought up my point, with examples.
I don't believe I said anything insulting, yet your response is offensive and unwarranted. Like I care."
It was supposed to be. I took offense at the way you downgraded the way my ancestors and I speak. You acted as if you were the arbiter of what is correct language, and you certainly are not! (BTW, note the use of the subjunctive case. You do know what the subjunctive is, don't you?)
Ohhh . . . I may have derided the way your ilk downgrade the English language, slightly . . but any neanderthal who believes something is correct just because it "IS" . . probably needs all the help they can get.
Your comments come across as if (subjunctive) you are the be all and end all of English usage. LOL . . what a joke.
IF, I wanted to INSULT your ancestors, I have PLENTY of ammunition, without resorting to simple things like language, (which is STILL, obviously, a bit too complicated for you.)
I "could" have gone on about how your ancestors butchered the Native Americans, and enslaved the Africans, and invaded a sovereign nation on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction . . when, in truth, you lot are masters of it.
IF, of course, "I wanted to stir the pot."
Feel free to "take offence'. Truth hurts sometimes.
Your comments come across as if (subjunctive) you are the be all and end all of English usage.
Your comments seem to indicate that you want this distinction for your own.
Of Course not, Captain.
I just got a little hot under the collar when I tried to discuss dragged and drug, and got raked over the coals by your resident "ape."
Some, (who I thank) made lucid comments, and actually started to convert me . . . .
any neanderthal who believes something is correct just because it "IS" . . probably needs all the help they can get
Ooooh! You got him good, mate but beware of "pot, kettle, black".
If he has Chinese, southern European (especially Italian) blood then DNA testing shows that he has a much higher likelihood of having Neanderthal blood. Of course with the Spanish links paddies are infected as well; elsewhere the incidence is, admittedly lower.
Me? it was my ancestors who discovered Vinland (Newfoundland) probably Manhattan Island and gave up Odessa a millennium ago so we are not Neanderthals!
Native Americans, and enslaved the Africans,
What's the difference? Africans stayed home, Native Americans crossed from the Horn of Africa towards Aden, then the Bering Straight - they are all the same.
Me? it was my ancestors who discovered Vinland (Newfoundland) probably Manhattan Island and gave up Odessa a millennium ago so we are not Neanderthals!
How old is your research?
The latest analyses indicate that every human race contains Neanderthal DNA. Moreover, although the DNA never seemed to limit the advanced cognitive abilities of the humans, it allowed them greater immunity--essential for those traversing the world, rather than those remaining in one location. The likely result is that those who didn't have those DNA components probably died out, rather than becoming stronger.
You seem to be doing what a lot of people do: associating Neanderthal DNA with 'savages' (aka: 'inferior species'--a tendency which often parallels references to blacks and other unpopular races).
It's not a matter of the 'whiter' races having no Neanderthal DNA, instead a few racial groups have slightly less of it--which limited their development as a species--rather than limiting their intellectual growth.
By the way, there is, and never has been, any evidence that Vikings ever reached Manhattan!
By the way, there is, and never has been, any evidence that Vikings ever reached Manhattan!
Perhaps not Manhattan, but there is plenty of evidence that they reached the north coast of North America, The east coast provinces of Canada and at least as far south as Maine.
Perhaps not Manhattan, but there is plenty of evidence that they reached the north coast of North America, The east coast provinces of Canada and at least as far south as Maine.
If the truth be known, we simply don't know OR AGREE about "foreign" influences in the early days of North America.
Until recently I was, for example, unaware of Mayan artefacts, pictograms and mounds found in the Carolinas and even in names in Florida such as MAImi. What is the connection between the south East USA and Cancun (except student weeks)?.
There is talk of Phoenecians in Rhode Island ...
As for the Vikings - how many actually returned to Europe and how many travelled south to find a better climate and got buried under concrete? Certainly there are "Americans" whose ancestors were there over innumerable generations who have blue eyes and other Caucasian features
If the truth be known, we simply don't know OR AGREE about "foreign" influences in the early days of North America.
How much lasting influence they had may be in doubt, but that they reached North America and had settlements here before Columbus is not.
How much lasting influence they had may be in doubt, but that they reached North America and had settlements here before Columbus is not.
The Vikings discovery of North America is also accepted by many as the reason why Christopher Columbus (a researcher, who likely read the original accounts) first proposed sailing for China. He knew land was there, but wasn't bright enough to realize it couldn't be China--a recognized fact as scholars knew the circumference of the Earth since the ancient Greeks. When pressed after his 'success', he tried to fudge by suggesting the Earth wasn't round but was instead "pear shaped".
Christopher Columbus (a researcher, who likely read the original accounts) first proposed sailing for China. He knew land was there, but wasn't bright enough to realize it couldn't be China--a recognized fact as scholars knew the circumference of the Earth since the ancient Greeks.
I've read articles by historians (professors of history) that claim he knew before he left that he Probably wouldn't reach China. And he knew when he found land that it wasn't China.
However, trade with India and China that bypassed the countries that controlled the silk road was a juicy prize to dangle before the Spanish crown in order to gain the funding he needed for the expedition.
From what I read on it, it's unclear whether he thought he could sail around the Americas and reach China after resupplying or the promise of trade with China and India was just a scam to get funding from the Spanish crown.
I've read articles by historians (professors of history) that claim he knew before he left that he Probably wouldn't reach China. And he knew when he found land that it wasn't China.
However, trade with India and China that bypassed the countries that controlled the silk road was a juicy prize to dangle before the Spanish crown in order to gain the funding he needed for the expedition.
Come on guys, you're destroying the popular Democrat narrative about Columbus having to fight the flat earth society, rather than Euclidean Geometry in order to win approval for his voyage that (re)discovered the Americas.
I've read articles by historians (professors of history) that claim he knew before he left that he Probably wouldn't reach China. And he knew when he found land that it wasn't China.
Talk about unusual circumstances. I'm sitting here, watching the BBC special where they reveal how they uncovered the new Viking smithy in Newfoundland, even as we're discussing this.
@Not_a_ID
Come on guys, you're destroying the popular Democrat narrative about Columbus having to fight the flat earth society, rather than Euclidean Geometry in order to win approval for his voyage that (re)discovered the Americas.
He didn't need to do that much convincing. The King of Spain mainly approved the voyage as it was a handy way of getting the Jewish nobility out of the country before he began the Crusades targeting them in an effort to get out of paying off his debts. He'd have approved it regardless of any evidence.
The King of Spain mainly approved the voyage as it was a handy way of getting the Jewish nobility out of the country before he began the Crusades targeting them in an effort to get out of paying off his debts.
Everything I have read is that the King of Spain opposed the expedition and that Queen Isabella was the one who convinced him to support it.
Everything I have read is that the King of Spain opposed the expedition and that Queen Isabella was the one who convinced him to support it.
Makes sense. If you kill every Jew, there's no bankers left to demand payment. However, the news of his success created such a stir, he couldn't prosecute any of those involved.
He didn't need to do that much convincing. The King of Spain mainly approved the voyage as it was a handy way of getting the Jewish nobility out of the country before he began the Crusades targeting them in an effort to get out of paying off his debts. He'd have approved it regardless of any evidence.
Except Columbus was from Italy, and started his efforts there, and worked his way through most of Europe, and even went to Portugal, the best navigators of the era, to support such an expedition before trying his luck in the courts of Spain.
And as mentioned, it was the Queen who sponsored his voyage, not the King. :)
The NFL Vikings play the New York Giants regularly(lately in New Jersey) and I am pretty sure when in the vicinity they visit Manhattan. That's where a lot of the entertainment is.
The latest analyses indicate that every human race contains Neanderthal DNA. Moreover, although the DNA never seemed to limit the advanced cognitive abilities of the humans, it allowed them greater immunity--essential for those traversing the world, rather than those remaining in one location. The likely result is that those who didn't have those DNA components probably died out, rather than becoming stronger.
Please CW; I pointed out that in some areas the incidence of Neanderthal DNA is far higher than in other areas. My actual words were "elsewhere the incidence is, admittedly lower.". As for Scandinavia the incidence was so low that there were no red dots on the map.
You seem to be doing what a lot of people do: associating Neanderthal DNA with 'savages'
Far from me to write anything like that; how much do we really know about them and were they any more "savage" than their homo sapiens neighbours? I don't know and therefore don't judge.
My actual words were "elsewhere the incidence is, admittedly lower.".
Your actual words were:
it was my ancestors who discovered Vinland (Newfoundland) probably Manhattan Island and gave up Odessa a millennium ago so we are not Neanderthals!
Again, the only take away from that is: 1) only those in the southern regions of Europe (Mediterranean and the Middle East) have any Neanderthal blood, and 2) that it results in resulting 'racial impurities' typically associated with blacks.
If that wasn't your intention, then I'd watch how you phrase such statements. I took offense at the statement, especially since it flies in the face of the multiple studies in the topic.
@sejintenej
If the truth be known, we simply don't know OR AGREE about "foreign" influences in the early days of North America.
The original statement sounded like it was based on the original 'Nordic stone house' discovered in New England decades ago, which was disproven a very long time ago.
However, the most recent find indicate there's a new site in the US northeast which shows evidence (a potential smithy forge), but it's far from Manhattan.
As a partial Norwegian myself (my grandmother's family), I actively follow such reports, as well as tracing the links in the ancient Norwegian sagas.
I don't know 'why' but drug is not the past tense of drag
It's a US regional usage today. They also like dove in place of dived.
It's a US regional usage today. They also like dove in place of dived.
Confirmed and agreed. I think it is more that the other uses have become somewhat obsolete, particularly in written form because they can easily become confused with other words, or at least confuse readers. Something most writers seek to avoid, after all while "He dove off of the diving board." May be technically correct, readers may be briefly confused because "Dove" happens to associated with a bird, and a brand of soap as well.
Almost on the same order of their, there, and they're, although there are a few other words out there currently escaping immediate recall that have identical spellings in English, but different enunciations and meanings depending on context.
"Almost on the same order of their, there, and they're, although there are a few other words out there currently escaping immediate recall that have identical spellings in English, but different enunciations and meanings depending on context."
My favorite word pair spelled the same, except for capitalizing the P, with vastly different meanings is Polish (the nationality from Europe) and polish usually done with a cloth and sometimes a specialized chemical product to make brighter. The genie emerged from a lamp as he started to polish it. And of course the Pole from Poland and the telephone pole. We could take a poll.
Can you polish a Polish telephone pole if you are a Pole?
Can a Pole vault in an International Track and Field event, the pole vault?
... although there are a few other words out there currently escaping immediate recall that have identical spellings in English, but different enunciations and meanings depending on context.
A couple of my favorites: lead and read.
The lead line was carried out by the lead weight.
"Did you read the story I read?"
The new gnu knew not what the old gnu knew.
The new gnu knew not what the old gnu knew.
There's no gnus like good gnus with Gary Gnu.
The new gnu knew not what the old gnu knew.
Was that the new news gnu who knew what the other gnu knew because he was the new gnu knew-it-all for the gnu news paper?
Two men went to the shop to buy clothes for their daughters. The first bought a tutu for each of his daughters, and the other asked for two tutus too, to give one to each of his daughters.
Man walks up tot he ticket counter and asks what time the train leaves. The clerk tells him the next one leaves at 4:04. Since the man is travelling with three friends, he tells the clerk he wants four for four-oh-four. The clerk says "I'm sorry sir, there aren't that many seats available."
The lead line was carried out by the lead weight.
But could a leader lead someone into a lead lined room where he could lead them in reading about lead exposure?
A couple of my favorites: lead and read.
The lead line was carried out by the lead weight.
"Did you read the story I read?"
The new gnu knew not what the old gnu knew.
Not mention to lead the minor miner to the lead mine.
Not mention to lead the minor miner to the lead mine.
In this day and age, I don't think that they would allow minors to be lead miners.
In this day and age, I don't think that they would allow minors to be lead miners.
I guess that depends on their being either a minor miner, or a minor miner. Of course, I guess that means there should be a major miner around somewhere. I wonder what he does?
Of course, I guess that means there should be a major miner around somewhere. I wonder what he does?
He majors in mining, of course! 'D
He is in the National Guard with the rank of Major. As opposed to Captain Zapp, who may be due for a promotion one of these days. Unless he is in the Navy, then O6 is pretty much the peak or his career, unless he makes Admiral. Rear Admiral, so he needs to write a lot of stories about anal sex. Then he can be a Vice Admiral, first of the lower half (the equivalent of a Major General, and then Vice Admiral of the upper half, like a Lieutenant General. Then if he drinks and eats a lot, he can be a Full Admiral (like a four star General. I don't remember what the equivalent of a five star General is in the Navy. Its General of the Army, or maybe Armies so it might be Admiral of the Navy. There haven't been a lot of five star Generals and Admirals, I think the last were promoted during world war two.
Vice is another one of those multi-meaning words. Vice like a tool for holding something still, Vice like doing something disapproved of like selling alcohol when prohibited or sex or drugs. Like the Cops have a vice squad. And then there is Vice President as being not quite a full member of an office, number two instead of number one. Of course number two may mean having a bowel movement instead of number one, urinating. And then there is the Go Pee Party.
For the amusement of a Swede who translates English texts into Swedish, I compiled a list of English words which are spoken differently depending on their usage. Unfortunately I can't find it; it may be on my most recently deceased PC along with an unpublished chunk of 'Evelyn'.
The only example I can remember off the top of my head is 'attribute', which in English English is stressed differently depending on whether it's being used as a noun or a verb.
AJ
I don't know 'why' but drug is not the past tense of drag
As I said earlier, I have found it to be a regional US usage. However, none of the print dictionaries I have, or the more commonly used on-line dictionaries, show drug as a valid past tense for the word drag.
I did find one print dictionary that listed drug as an alternate form for the noun drag as per meaning 15 which lists drag or drug as a stonemason's tool for finishing soft stone without grit.
Beyond that, there is a small set of SoL authors from the same region of the USA that use drug as the past tense form of drag. Thus, I think it's something to do with the regional dialect or educational system there.
edit to add: I usually ignore as being a local slang usage and just get on with reading the story. After all, it's no worse than working out what sort of dance they do each morning when they do the IHOP - I sometimes wonder if it was a dance developed by Apple Computing.
Thus, I think it's something to do with the regional dialect or educational system there.
Yep, I've always considered it a dialect thing.
Yep, I've always considered it a dialect thing.
Very useful and helpful points. Here in the western US, I've heard "drug" re: "dragged" used in conversation. There's colloquial vs. formal both in speech, and more so in written expression.
I'd not get exited about it; rather I'd focus on the context and the origins. Lovely thing about the language is that tone and environment can be expressed so fluently simply by choosing a framework of colloquial and slang, social class expressions, and educational disparities.
Glad you mentioned it, Ghost & Grant.
I'd not get exited about it; rather I'd focus on the context and the origins.
I do.
It just takes a bit to figure out what was being said/described & get back in to the story.
It just takes a bit to figure out what was being said/described & get back in to the story.
the fact it throws some readers out of the story while they work it out is why you should avoid such things, unless you have already included something to explain them.
And then there is desert and dessert.
telling them apart is easy, if you have the grit.
My grocery store has a deli section with a lot of pre-made sandwiches. I call it the desert because of the sand which is there.
Wow . . .People. This is all FASCINATING . . . and proof that more can be learned sitting at the feet of 'learned men' than from many supposedly learned tomes. Thank you all.
Secondly, just in passing, I was not intentionally derogatory to neanderthals by using that term, more that they were relatively primitive.
Jean M. Auel (Clan of the Cave Bear and sequels) suggests they were "different", but definitely not inferior, and to a certain extent I would agree. That they eventually ceased to exist as a species, was more a disinclination to change, rather than a "failure" to do so.
Still, the universe loves change, and failure to accept that, is a dead-end street. Making up words in a language that is already impossibly complex seems redundant to me, hence, my original post.
The "rules" (lol) of English, only help make the impossibly complex . . .slightly less so.
Look up regularization of verbs, an ongoing processes that has been going on since the English language evolved out of a mixture of Anglo-saxon and Norman. There are a few exceptions of to the general rule of regularization (adding "ed" to make a verb past tense) e.g. pled becoming pleaded, but rather back forming irregular verbs by similarity to other similar sounding words, e.g. dive/dove and drag/drug. (Note I personally prefer dove and dragged.)
Perhaps using italics for dove and drug is the answer, to indicate the word comes from a foreign language.
Perhaps using italics for dove and drug is the answer, to indicate the word comes from a foreign language.
Extracting from the OED:
dove is N. Amer. and Eng. dial. past tense of dive. All the written citations are from US and Canadian sources starting from mid-19th century.
Drug is more interesting. There is a verb, to drug -- now rare (Sc. and Eng. regional (south.))., meaning, trans. and intr., "To pull forcibly, to drag". The past participle is, of course, drug :-). Citations start in mid-13th century.
drug also occurs as a past tense and past participle form of drag v. in nonstandard and regional use (especially U.S. regional (southern and Midland)).
drug also occurs as a past tense and past participle form of drag v. in nonstandard and regional use (especially U.S. regional (southern and Midland)).
If appropriate, given the characters' backgrounds, I'd go ahead and use it, but cover myself by including something like:
"Damn, man, where'd you ever use English?"
"What? Don't tell me you say drugged?"
"Hell, no, I say dragged like every other normal person!"
"Well excuse me. I wasn't raised in a University. Here in XXX, we say drug. By the way, we also say 'dove' instead of 'dived'."
It's a little obvious, but it gets the message across that it's a strictly regional usage.
But for a more interesting basis of comparison...
http://www.googlefight.com/%22cat+drug+in%22-vs-%22cat+dragged+in%22.php
This topic seems to drag on. Can we talk about dragons?
Western Dragons, Oriental Dragon, or Komodo Dragons?
Australians and New Zealanders remember the WW1 invasion of Turkey advocated by Churchill that led to a large number of ANZAC casualties. His work during WW2 has not apparently expunged his earlier sins, as far as they are concerned. I may be wrong, Churchill had a long and varied life and wrote a lot of history. Perhaps his distinguished ancestor did something in Germany that causes dislike for the name.
Most of the problem at Galipoli was the screw ups by the local generals who made them wait until the Turks were ready before attacking. Churchill's biggest murder of Aussie troops was Singapore. He had a three page report stating Singapore was totally open to attack from the land and was unable to be defended against a land based attack. The information was on page 3, but on page 1 it said Singapore was so well defended from the sea no one can take by a naval assault. He read half of page 1 and never read the rest of the report. Then he ordered a boat load of Aussie troops returning to Australia to be diverted to Singapore in time to be captured and made prisoner - most of them did not survive being POWs and died via various forms of torture or starvation.
If Churchill had not been so vain he refused to let anyone know he had trouble reading reports, they'd have given him more detailed verbal ones. But since he never said he had reading trouble, every one thought he read the damn reports, which he never did.
If Churchill had not been so vain he refused to let anyone know he had trouble reading reports
There was a lot of that sort of thing in that era.
FDR was a Polio survivor. He had to use a wheel chair most of the time. He couldn't stand for more than a few minutes without crutches or other assistance. However, he would not appear in public or allow himself to be photographed either using crutches or in his wheelchair.
That didn't have the same sort of life or death consequences for the troops and Churchill's reading issue, but it springs from the same show no weakness vanity.
Hell, Churchill wouldn't have even had to let everyone know. He could have had one trusted aid whose job it was to read the reports to him.
Hell, Churchill wouldn't have even had to let everyone know. He could have had one trusted aid whose job it was to read the reports to him.
Correct, but that meant letting them know of his problem and his vanity wouldn't let him do that. Thus many things that should have been taken into account for major decisions weren't, because he never read the report to know what to take into account. Thousands died for his vanity. Singapore wasn't the only issue he screwed up while Pm of England.
Most of the problem at Galipoli was the screw ups by the local generals who made them wait until the Turks were ready before attacking.
Yes, but the why Gallipoli was a fiasco. BUT the who is to blame is the commander who selected and instructed those generals. My recollection is that Rules 1 through 3 of the Guidebook for Naval Warfare states: never attempt an attack from the sea unless absolutely necessary. Rules 4 through 6 state that if have landed from the sea, WITHIN THE FIRST HOURS you must get inland to a line that is defensible, and with enough space behind you to allow re-supplies.
If Churchill was too drunk to make sure a bunch of public school twits understood that, then he ordered a suicide mission.
His work during WW2 has not apparently expunged his earlier sins, as far as they are concerned
No, they are not expunged. I remember it so vividly. It happened only 40 years before I was born.
Yes, but the why Gallipoli was a fiasco.
First, the high command chose generals who were better placed for their connections than their military prowess. Second, they chose generals who regard ordinary troops as disposable tools of no worth. Third, they landed them at the wrong beaches. Fourth, the generals tried to treat the landings like a parade ground and they had all the time in the world to do as they wished because they didn't respect the Turks at all. The result was the delays allowed the Turks to move troops into empty positions while the generals kept everyone piled up on the beaches until they were ready to march them inland to get killed by newly arrived Turks in strong positions.
s to Churchill, like Hitler, he was a good orator, and nothing else, yet few realise or accept that.
s to Churchill, like Hitler, he was a good orator, and nothing else
Oh come on, he was a great orator. :)
Oh come on, he was a great orator. :)
To mix metaphors, either "He could orate 'till the cows came home" or "He orated while Europe burned".
they chose generals who regard ordinary troops as disposable tools of no worth.
I'm reminded of our murderous triumvirate that plunged us into the Iraq wars, Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld. When it became apparent that a horrendous number of our young men and women were being horribly maimed and killed in thin-skinned utility vehicles totally unsuited for operations in a guerilla-warfare theater of IED's and RPG attacks, one of those assholes was famously quoted as saying, "You go to war with what you've got."
I wished at the time we could have strapped his ass into the driver's seat of one of those sheet-metal humvees and sent him down the famous death highway between Bhagdad and the International Airport.
Nothing much has changed. The armor is better, but the "insurgents" are ever more clever to match.
It ain't only the Generals who are troop-sacrificing assholes.
I'm reminded of our murderous triumvirate that plunged us into the Iraq wars
graybyrd,
When Sadam invaded Kuwait the agreements put in place before then came into play and the US was committed to military operations in Iraq. The problem was the US Congress stopped the military from stopping all over Sadam and the Iraqi military and agreed to a Cease Fire instead of finishing them off at that time. Once the momentum stopped they let Sadam set up the situation that's existed since. Then when the US Congress refused to jump on Sadam as soon as he started violating the Cease Fire Agreement they let him create recruit all the terrorists the media now call insurgents, most of whom aren't Iraqi citizens.
Yes, the hardware should have been worked on in between, but, again, it was the US Congress that budget for hardware development down. Not just the president on the day the fighting started again.
The real sad part is this is the fourth or fifth time they've done that to the US Military.
When it became apparent that a horrendous number of our young men and women were being horribly maimed and killed
It is tragic when soldiers are needlessly injured or killed in combat.
However, you are overstating things quite a bit. casualty rates for Iraq and Afghanistan are the lowest for any war the US has ever fought, a full order of magnitude below WWII.
lowest for any war the US has ever fought, a full order of magnitude below WWII.
True, but when many of those could have been avoided due to the development and purchase of better equipment between the actual shooting events but wasn't allowed to reduced budgets, well, that's what get many people upset. Save a few bucks on the military so they can afford boondoggles, and people die when they need the denied gear.
True, but when many of those could have been avoided due to the development and purchase of better equipment between the actual shooting events but wasn't allowed to reduced budgets, well, that's what get many people upset.
Nothing new or special there. Look what happened to the US Military between WWI and WWII. US tanks at the start of WWII were almost as lightly armed and armored as some of the lighter vehicles in Iraq.
A German Panzer from WWII could total a US tank in one shot, but it took combined fire from five or six US tanks to kill a Panzer. And the Panzer with it's long barreled gun had two or 3 times the range of the short barreled main guns on the US tanks.
In the end we won on the ground only because we could manufacture our tanks faster than the Germans could blow them up. The German Panzers were well engineered, but had to be hand built. The US tanks were designed from the ground up to be cheaply mass produced on assembly lines.
Nothing new or special there.
exactly. The US Congress seems to be afraid of improving the military until after it's proven they need improving due to the body count a bit less spending earlier would have saved lives.
The US Congress seems to be afraid of improving the military until after it's proven they need improving due to the body count a bit less spending earlier would have saved lives.
True but my original point stands, the casualty rates, even in the early parts of the Iraq war were negligible compared to earlier wars.
In fact, the military history channel has a special that covers major tank battles, part of it talk about what happened when US tank forces engaged the Iraqi Republican Guard defensive lines.
One part of that, talks about how two Bradley fighting vehicles, a scout vehicle that is one of the lightest armored vehicles in the US inventory, engaged and destroyed five or six Iraqi T2 tanks.
True but my original point stands, the casualty rates, even in the early parts of the Iraq war were negligible compared to earlier wars.
True, but they could've been a lot lower, especially in the re-engagement after the ending of the Cease Fire if congress had approved the hardware development the military wanted due to lessons learned in the first round in the sand. Which is the point I was making.
However, you are overstating things quite a bit. casualty rates for Iraq and Afghanistan are the lowest for any war the US has ever fought, a full order of magnitude below WWII.
That's more due to the low number of insurgents, rather than the high risk of devastating attacks (bigger bombs but fewer bad guys and bullets).
That's more due to the low number of insurgents, rather than the high risk of devastating attacks (bigger bombs but fewer bad guys and bullets).
The why is irrelevant. Put in context against past wars, calling the casualty rates in Iraq horrendous is absurd.
If we had to re-fight WWII today, we would lose despite having the best military tech on the planet, because the media/public would go bat shit crazy over the casualty rates of a real war.
The why is irrelevant. Put in context against past wars, calling the casualty rates in Iraq horrendous is absurd.
I believe he didn't mean that the casualty rates are horrendous, though that's what he said. Instead, I suspect he meant that the injuries are horrendous (due to the repercussions of the larger bombs, and loss of limbs and the resulting PTSD.
In a war with more bullets, you'd have more deaths, but those recovering wouldn't be as badly damaged emotionally and intellectually. WW II had quite a few "Battle Fatigue" cases, but no way near the volume we have now.
And related to the other discussion thread, it's only a "mental" issue because the damage occurs in the brain (from having you brain bounce around in your skull by explosives).
If we had to re-fight WWII today, we would lose despite having the best military tech on the planet, because the media/public would go bat shit crazy over the casualty rates of a real war.
By the way, the biggest cause of deaths in both World Wars were contagious diseases (both civilian and military) rather than combat deaths.
In a war with more bullets, you'd have more deaths, but those recovering wouldn't be as badly damaged emotionally and intellectually.
Try taking a look as the photos of mustard gas casualties from WWII.
I think you mean WWI, from what I've heard the "no gas" war crime rule was one that was pretty much followed by all sides in WWII.
In a war with more bullets, you'd have more deaths, but those recovering wouldn't be as badly damaged emotionally and intellectually. WW II had quite a few "Battle Fatigue" cases, but no way near the volume we have now.
One argument is that in WWII individuals were in shooting positions for relatively short periods whereas now even in their bases they are at risk so don't have the recuperation time.
If we had to re-fight WWII today, we would lose despite having the best military tech on the planet, because the media/public would go bat shit crazy over the casualty rates of a real war.
Didn't that happen as far back as Vietnam? Perhaps that is why the press was muzzled during the Falklands. **
By the way, the biggest cause of deaths in both World Wars were contagious diseases (both civilian and military) rather than combat deaths.
Arguable. Going back to WWII in Britain it was not then acknowledged (but is now) that going into bombed (or otherwise rubble filled buildings was a cause of some cancers - we were getting such deaths as late as 1950 that I know of.
** An aside about the absolute brilliance of the US Navy communications during the Falklands skirmish. A British Naval officer was seconded to the US Navy as a liason. His wife phoned the base where he was and asked for Lieutenant Commander Major. The US Navy telephonist replied "we don't have majors in the navy" and put the phone down.
Arguable. Going back to WWII in Britain it was not then acknowledged (but is now) that going into bombed (or otherwise rubble filled buildings was a cause of some cancers - we were getting such deaths as late as 1950 that I know of.
I wasn't thinking of cancer risks but primarily of the Flu and a few other viral infections during the two wars. As World Wars, they brought together large concentrations of people with little exposure to foreign environments and often in moderate health to begin with, and put then into a viral mixing bath. The Flu alone was reported to have killed more people than WW II (and if I'm correct, they claim more than both World Wars, though I'll have to check that reference. There were also several other sicknesses that struck soldiers and they 'sweeties' back home during those times too.
The Flu alone was reported to have killed more people than WW II (and if I'm correct, they claim more than both World Wars, though I'll have to check that reference.
Estimates vary between 40-100 million deaths as a result of the Spanish Flu in 1918-1920.
Although the absolute numbers were very high, as a percentage of the global population at the time it was quite small compared to the big daddy of them all- the Black Death.
Spanish flu, 1% of the world's population died.
Black death, 20%.
It always amuses me when people have a day or 2 off work and say they had the Flu, or people are at work and claim they have the Flu.
If you've got the flu, you're bed ridden for a week, if you're lucky.
If you've got the flu, you're bed ridden for a week, if you're lucky.
What is typically referred to as the 24hr flu because of flu like symptoms is actually mild food poisoning.
Not all flu strains are equally potent. What most people get is seasonal flu which is one of the weakest. Though it too was a significant killer back in the day, it is now only a threat to the very young and the very old or those with compromised immune systems. Yes, it lasts a week or two, but most people won't be bed ridden by it.
Even a potent flu like the Spanish Flu would not kill nearly as many people if it were to re-occur today. The primary reason for this is the development Intravenous Therapy, particularly saline fluids.
The primary cause of flu related deaths is dehydration due to the combination of nausea and diarrhea.
Even a potent flu like the Spanish Flu would not kill nearly as many people if it were to re-occur today. The primary reason for this is the development Intravenous Therapy, particularly saline fluids.
A question from the ignorant. Where I was brought up we had gas lighting, no heating, damp everywhere, little quality food and we were close to a river which was actually an open sewer. Surely today's living standards have made us stronger in combatting illness? (That is over and above immunisation and other health services intervention)
The primary cause of flu related deaths is dehydration due to the combination of nausea and diarrhea
Dehydration is also a factor in other killer diseases - I lost over two stone (over 18%) of bodyweight from sweating during one attack of a tropical disease (which occasionally is passed in London, UK)
Surely today's living standards have made us stronger in combatting illness?
Yes and no.
By living in better conditions we're not exposed to as many harmful viruses, bacteria & poisons as we used to be. And on those occasions when we are it's only for brief periods of time and not day after day, week after week, moth after month.
However there is more & more evidence that people have gotten carried away with cleanliness and the end result is many younger people's immune systems aren't as robust as those of older people.
The immune system is something that adapts & develops over time, however if children never get to play on the grass, in the dirt & mud, climbing trees & generally getting dirty then their immune systems aren't exposed to many lower level pathogens & so don't develop an immune response to them. End result, when they're exposed to much more dangerous pathogens their immune systems just aren't up to the job.
The other issue is the use of anti bacterial wipes for general cleaning.
All that's required to make things safe for use is a clean cloth & clean water. Maybe some detergent or cleaner if there is a particularly dirty spot. The use of anti-bacterial wipes doesn't make those surfaces any cleaner, however what it does do is help the development of much more difficult to kill bacteria.
.. (or children won't) .. develop an immune response
Correct! Children should be encouraged in play in and eat mud.
anti bacterial wipes (lead to) the development of much more difficult to kill bacteria
Just a little MORE to it than that. I once did a compulsory course run by the government health service for those wanting to open any food preparation service.
A lot of foods have dangerous bacteria, e.g. all meats have significant amounts of salmonella. They CANNOT be eliminated. What is important is to prevent exponential growth for an hour or more with temperatures in the range 10-40 degrees Celsius.
The thing that causes 'food poisoning' is not the bacteria, it is the toxins produced by bacteria if they are allowed to multiply. Fridges at 5 C do not stop bacteria growth, they merely slow it down enough so the toxins being accumulated do not reach levels that we will notice.
For dishwashers, water must be 70-80 C, much higher than in homes; AND everything must be dried - bacteria cannot survive without water.
I suggest that even for surfaces that have been in contact with meats, the most dangerous situation, what you use to clean the surface is largely irrelevant, PROVIDED you use a dry cloth at the end. That gets bacteria down to levels our digestive systems can easily cope with.
However there is more & more evidence that people have gotten carried away with cleanliness and the end result is many younger people's immune systems aren't as robust as those of older people.
The immune system is something that adapts & develops over time, however if children never get to play on the grass, in the dirt & mud, climbing trees & generally getting dirty then their immune systems aren't exposed to many lower level pathogens & so don't develop an immune response to them. End result, when they're exposed to much more dangerous pathogens their immune systems just aren't up to the job.
I was brought up in a culture of allowing such risks and indeed I seem to be immune to most things - Montezuma's revenge to multiple wasp and hornet stings. I used to agree with you BUT am starting to change my mind.
When I was young a heavy rock fell on the back of my ankle. The doctor tried everything in the book but couldn't control the infection which, by then; had eaten into the Achilles tendon and all around. Amputation was being talked about.
He had fleetingly heard of some miracle drug up in London and sent away for some. It came as a gauze soaked in what looked like honey, but 12 hours later there was no infection.
These days the power of penicillin (which is what that was) has been eroded by MRSA. Indeed two weeks ago, lunching under a lime tree something fell on my wife's head leading to what looked like a bad burn; the doctor immediately put her on an anti MRSA drug which suggests that if that treatment is widespread then such advanced drugs have a limited lifespan.
Ergo I am more concerned about the risks of common playground cuts because more and more we are running out of effective treatments.
Ergo I am more concerned about the risks of common playground cuts because more and more we are running out of effective treatments.
(EDIT, not so much Catch 22 as a self fulfilling prophesy).
Catch 22. People with poor immune systems will be in greater need of antibiotics & the like. The improper use of such things is leading to their ineffectiveness. For the immune system to function normally it needs the exposure to pathogens at a very young age. That's why small babies & small children pretty much incubators for whatever it is that's going around at the time; until they've had it & gotten over it and then their body can deal with it the next time around.
In the end, there could be a large group of people with little or no resistance to even the most minor ailments, and nothing to treat them with.
Looking back at some of the places I used to play when i was a kid, i'm surprised i'm still alive. If people are lucky, and not too stupid when they're young, they'll survive their mistakes & learn from them.
Unfortunately most people don't seem to be able to learn from the mistakes of others, so we get adults behaving like children that know no better, even though by now they should.
If we don't get lucky and come up with another breakthrough of the type that Penicillin was, poor immune systems & a lack of common sense could result in some very unpleasant times ahead.
Looking back at some of the places I used to play when i was a kid, i'm surprised i'm still alive. If people are lucky, and not too stupid when they're young, they'll survive their mistakes & learn from them.
On the one hand, playground equipment and settings are "safer" than when we ol' farts were kids (in the U.S.) but the toxic chemical environment is far worse (everyone born in the world today carry detectable levels in their bodies); but levels of air and ground pollution from hydrocarbon emissions are far less. So it's a mixed bag, at best. Social stress (again, U.S.) is far higher now; witness the epidemic of youth suicides. Processed food marketing is leading to a worldwide epidemic of gross obesity and diabetes. Millions of people in the U.S. live in "food deserts" where access to healthy alternative foods are severely restricted, as super-market chains have withdrawn from inner-city areas. Fact!
Regarding antibiotics, we (U.S. again) allowed industrial-scale agricultural use of the "miracle drugs" for beef, pork, and poultry production, even as a "growth" enhancement additive in livestock feed. One could make a case that U.S. meat products are unfit for human consumption, long-term, but to change the mass-production process now would lead to massive cost increases and consumer rebellion.
Sad. Inevitable. Irreversible. Unsustainable.
Oh... once as a child I scraped my knee on a pile of asphalt road gravel, getting some under the skin. Days later I had septicemia--blood poisoning--in that leg. A rural doctor prescribed three water-glasses of warmed sauerkraut juice daily, plus wound dressing changes, and bed rest. That was 1949. Today? Who knows? I rallied, healed, and it took years before I could face a serving of sauerkraut, well-drained of course!
Common sense on a social scale? Don't bet on it. Marketing and economic forces, and cultural fashion will rule in every instance. Until catastrophic results reshape thinking.
Days later I had septicemia--blood poisoning--in that leg. A rural doctor prescribed three water-glasses of warmed sauerkraut juice daily, plus wound dressing changes, and bed rest
Our ancestors had a variety of methods of treating illness and injuries. It is said that the Roman Legionnaire doctors were far more effective than anything up to the 1800's.
Your local doctor was following in the footsteps of many. They knew that honey contains an antibiotic, that many many plants had curative effects. True they were not as effective as some present drug cures but they didn't become ineffective.
I have had two cases of local medicine being effective. An Irish nurse did something with my hand where I had masses of warts - I don't know what but 6 weeks later they were all gone. Could have been psychosomatic (sp?). In the other case a lady of breeding (Americans think Daughters of the Republic) went up the hill for plants and made a concoction in the kitchen. She put this on the latest in a long line of stys (pus filled facial eruptions) and not only did that one clear up immediately but I have never had one since.
You mentioned the farming use of drugs; the anti MRSA one I previously referred to is a mixture of two drugs, one of which is reportedly given to cattle.
If we don't get lucky and come up with another breakthrough of the type that Penicillin was, poor immune systems & a lack of common sense could result in some very unpleasant times ahead.
Already here? Our doctor in France is usually as careful as anyone could possibly want - we have been going to her for 18 years. Normally the strongest she will consider is Ampicylline - a routine antibiotic. Went there ten days ago - my wife had a sore on her scalp. Murielle's immediate statement was "you've been under the trees, haven't you?" Answer; yes. The treatment was a drug normally used for antibiotic resistant streptococcus plus a spray usually used to sterilize the skin before surgery. We had to take stringent precautions like my wife cutting her nails in case she opened the wound in her sleep. The entire pill package - the empty foil pill container, the cardboard package etc.has to be taken to a pharmacy for security destruction after use - the doctor and pharmacist separately emphasised that. Sterilise hands etc. and she is not over it yet despite what appears to be a way-out treatment
To support the muddy contingent, I had plenty of it as a kid. Took family to Brasil (courtesy of a customer) and made them take every precaution possible but ignored the precautions for myself. My wife got a very nasty dose of gippy tummy needing multiple injections and I was OK throughout. I'm still worried at how germs are becoming resistant to current medicines.
To support the muddy contingent, I had plenty of it as a kid. Took family to Brasil (courtesy of a customer) and made them take every precaution possible but ignored the precautions for myself. My wife got a very nasty dose of gippy tummy needing multiple injections and I was OK throughout. I'm still worried at how germs are becoming resistant to current medicines.
When traveling internationally, I always ignored the standard precaution "Never drink the local waters", and instead would drink bottled water with local ice. The idea is, it provides a low dose of the local allegens so your body can adjust to it more slowly, rather than taking in huge quantities and facilitating a major crisis. In all my travels, I never had a (major) problem, but then again, it might just have gotten lucky as shit!!!
In all my travels, I never had a (major) problem, but then again, it might just have gotten lucky as shit!!!
Well, that and there is probably something to be said about many bacteria not doing well after being frozen, and if they did somehow survive, they'd be weak enough coming out of being frozen most immune systems could probably finish it off easily. But then, I'm not a biology major. :)
A Virus would be another matter however, it can be just as dangerous coming out of a hard freeze as it was the moment it was created.
A Virus would be another matter however, it can be just as dangerous coming out of a hard freeze as it was the moment it was created.
The local population wouldn't be as likely to be immune to a known virus as their bodies would have 'adapted' to a common bacteria American's simply aren't exposed to. And my intent, in using the ice cubes, was to slowly expose myself to the local bacteria so I'd become accustomed to it, and it worked. After several days drinking the local ice in my mixed drinks, I'd eventually switch to the local iced tea or other drinks with water in them, and I'd be fine whereas my other traveling partners would be bent over their toilet bowls all night.
That said, a series of 2-week samples by a single sample hardly qualifies as a reliable scientific survey, thus my comment about being as lucky as shit (pun intended).
When traveling internationally, I always ignored the standard precaution "Never drink the local waters", and instead would drink bottled water with local ice. The idea is, it provides a low dose of the local allegens so your body can adjust to it more slowly, rather than taking in huge quantities and facilitating a major crisis. In all my travels, I never had a (major) problem, but then again, it might just have gotten lucky as shit!!!
I think "lucky as shit"
In some countries the bottlers simply cannot afford (or the country doesn't have the foreign exchange resources) to properly sterilise water to the extent westerners might need (especially if they don't have resistance to their own local bugs). Freezing does not reduce the quantity of allergens - it simply stops then multiplying - whilst frozen. When the ice melts in your drink the bugs are released. What may help is that the quantity of ice is small compared to the drink so you get a much diluted dose. I don't know but I wonder if the alcohol in spirituous drinks kills bacteria.
As I previously tried to indicate, my wife and family took every precaution known but she still got ill - bad luck I suspect. That the kids were OK suggests that alcohol had no effect
As I previously tried to indicate, my wife and family took every precaution known but she still got ill - bad luck I suspect. That the kids were OK suggests that alcohol had no effect
Or it means they were swilling the stuff after you went to bed, only to replace it with tap water--making your wife sick.
You get to know how kids think after a while.
I'm still worried at how germs are becoming resistant to current medicines.
I have to amend my above statement.
In 2005, after several years of testing my specialist and I settled on the "most effective" cocktail of drugs which I have to take daily to deal with allergies; there are many different ones available and relative dosage strength has to be taken into account.
The other day and by accident I and my wife both didn't have the necessary reliever when I needed it so my daughter let me try hers which is "the norm" for the condition, chemically different and had been previously tested and found not to work. On this occasion it worked far far better than my normal reliever suggesting that in this case I have grown resistance after 16 years.
Ergo it is not just the antibiotics where there is a problem - it could be a far wider group of medicines which lose their effectiveness.
we are running out of effective treatments
I live in Indonesia. A while ago I caught Typhoid, very mild because I had been vaccinated, but not nice!
I am started on one drip while my strain is tested for resistance. After 5 days, I am changed over to a drug that will work.
I think those antibiotics killed off the competition for some golden staph and another infection I had lurking in my body at low levels, but had now come out to play. The resistance testing for those two strains showed only a handful of effective drugs, and they all required drips. So, another two 5 days courses of drips.
As an editor, I suggest Grant's comment should be amended to: WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS!!
Yes and no.
By living in better conditions we're not exposed to as many harmful viruses, bacteria & poisons as we used to be. And on those occasions when we are it's only for brief periods of time and not day after day, week after week, moth after month.
Not quite. It was long theorized that the Bubonic Plague has weakened greatly over the years, but when they dug it up and tested it, it was nearly identical to the modern versions. Now they believe the Black Plague was so fatal because of the widespread malnutrition across Europe and the Asia at the time. The fact they didn't understand the role of viruses or sanitation, and that people shat (past tense of shit) in the street and ate from copper plates only made these situations worse).
So yeah, living conditions make a world of difference. In the 1400s the Black death wiped out 1/3 of Europe, in WW I the Flu killed l% in Europe and America.
Also, the use of anti-bacterial wipes is worse than you propose. They don't eliminate any of the harmful bacteria, what they do is kill all the beneficial bacterial which help the digestive system and combat the more harmful ones.
Sejintenej, the 'keep the kids safe and indoors' movement is credited with creating the dramatic rise in allergies from a tiny percentage to a majority of the population. What's more, it's now been determined that the best approach to an allergy isn't to avoid it, but to eat small amounts repeatedly (hopefully with an Epi pen nearby, just in case).
Graybyrd, something like 70% of ALL antibiotic use is dedicated to growth stimulants, so it follows that they play a major role in antibiotic resistance, even though the meat contains NO antibiotics when it leaves the lot. However, farms and slaughter houses foster the presence of antibiotic resistance, when are then shipped around the globe.
Are we fucking geniuses or what?
Also, the problem with antibiotic resistance is the class of antibiotics we rely on. It's easy to grow. A better class of antibiotic can be grown in dirt, but it won't survive in a lab, so isn't used. What's more, the dirt variety doesn't promote resistance after prolonged exposure. In fact, there are so many types, all different classes in themselves, that a resistance to one wouldn't impact any others.
However, it's estimated we're anywhere from 15 to 50 years from developing a way to develop and sell this new/old type of antibiotic.
Another issue are disease we almost eradicated but didn't. We now have more (but less severe) cases of Whooping Cough because the inoculations we all received as children wear off and become worthless as we age. I caught the disease in middle school (7th grade), despite being fully immunized as a child. For 2 months I coughed like I had Emphysema, and the last month I'd cough for 5 minutes before throwing up, attended school the entire time, and not a single doctor would prescribe a Whooping Cough test or booster!
Two examples of theories that were generally accepted until technology had advanced sufficiently to test them are luminiferous aether and phlogiston.
They are still valid, albeit disproven, theories.
Once upon a time the approved theory was that disease was cause by humors. Not jokes, the Greeks and Romans and other physicians of that era, and for a long time afterward (because if Aristotle said it it was true). That was mostly replaced by the germ theory of disease, before bacteria and viruses were "discovered". One doctor discovered new mothers and their babies had higher survival rates if he and midwives washed their hands. A germ of an idea. In a way the germ theory was right, in another there is no one organism or life form that is a germ. There are thousands of tiny little bits of life that cause disease. I don't know if the Germ Theory of Disease is proved or not.
I don't know if the Germ Theory of Disease is proved or not.
Seriously?
First there were microscopes and visual confirmation; then there were culture media and colony growth, and disease linkages. Further physical proofs associated discrete organisms with specific diseases.
Then came the electron microscope and virus studies, with further proofs and linkages.
Finally, we had the global race to 'weaponize' the more deadly cultures, formerly termed "germ warfare." "Germ" is just a generic, catch-all term for disease-causing organisms.
Proof? Try licking a smallpox sore. It ain't "bad humor" that's gonna cause an adverse reaction.
Or is there some alternate universe we're peeking into here?
Once upon a time the approved theory was that disease was cause by humors.
For those that don't know, the humors were/are the various bodily fluids. It was believed that diseased was the result of imbalance between the humors.
That is where the idea of bleeding as a cure for disease comes from.
(because if Aristotle said it it was true)
He also published that weasels has sex using their ears, and it was accepted as gospel truth for over 1,000 years, because no one ever considered it might not be true. Also, no one ever wasted much time watching weasels after they hung their socks on their doors.
@DS
That is where the idea of bleeding as a cure for disease comes from.
That's another of Aristotle's 'gifts to humanity'. He proposed that the best treatment is to treat 'like with like'. Thus you use heat to treat fevers (like feeding them hot peppers), and cold to treat chills. A counter group suggested, no, you have it wrong, it's all about balances, so if someone's too hot, you cool them, and if someone is too chilled, you warm them up.
Neither is a perfect approach, but each works in certain very limited circumstances.
He proposed that the best treatment is to treat 'like with like'. Thus you use heat to treat fevers (like feeding them hot peppers), and cold to treat chills.
Interesting point 1: I actually feel chilled when I am running a fever. I think it's because my elevated body temp makes the air feel colder than it really is.
Interesting point 2. Modern medicine has somewhat validated this Aristotle's point on fevers. A fever is not disease symptom, it is part of the bodies immune system reaction. As long as the fever isn't high enough to be medically dangerous (around 103), you are better off supporting it than fighting it.
Interesting point 2. Modern medicine has somewhat validated this Aristotle's point on fevers. A fever is not disease symptom, it is part of the bodies immune system reaction. As long as the fever isn't high enough to be medically dangerous (around 103), you are better off supporting it than fighting it.
That's why I stressed that it works in certain limited applications. The problem was, it created a culture war within the medical community which lasted almost two-thousand years over how to treat patients. It works in a few circumstances, but it hardly a 'universal treatment' for all conditions. In other words, for fevers it's OK, but not for use as a treatment philosophy for doctor's every decision.
By the way, treating fevers with hot peppers does no one any good, other than those who grow and sell the hot peppers.
Whenever you see a world as listed as being dialectic or regional or slang or some form of ancient usage you need to be damn careful about using, and making sure you include a way for the readers unfamiliar with it to understand what it means and how come it got there.
Whenever you see a world as listed as being dialectic or regional or slang or some form of ancient usage you need to be damn careful about using, and making sure you include a way for the readers unfamiliar with it to understand what it means and how come it got there.
True, but it's not always obvious that something is a regionalism, and everyone is aware of the alternatives.
A few years ago I was down in Atlanta, Georgia for a convention, and while there met up with some family for dinner. At one point I'd asked the waitress where the "bathroom" was, and on seeing her blank look tried "washroom" instead. At that point my sister, who grew up here in Canada but has lived in Wisconsin and Mississippi, interrupted and asked about the "restroom", then explained to me that you rarely hear any other word than that in the US, especially in the South. To me, "restroom" is something that you only see very occasionally in restaurants, usually the tourist types -- it's purely US slang.
Now I do know several international slang words for the "restroom", and had my sister not been there I would have gotten to that word eventually, though I likely would have tried "the head" next (Victoria is a Navy town), but the fact that the waitress clearly didn't understand what I was getting at is actually my point. Had she been writing a story, it never would have even occurred to her to explain the word "restroom", because it's the only word that she knows for that room and it probably wouldn't even occur to her that most people outside of the US don't use the word.
Similarly, words like "dove/ dived", "leaned/ leant", or "drug/ dragged" are slowly shifting away from the older forms to a standardised style of past tense, but if a writer lives in an area that has always used one form and isn't specifically educated in linguistics or writing, then it wouldn't be too surprising for someone to not consider flagging the archaic form, because to them it isn't archaic.
This is especially noticeable because of the American/British English situation. Many words which Americans consider archaic, because they've been replaced in the past few generations, have never stopped being used in the rest of the world. While places like Canada, Australia, and India do have their own slang and spelling variations, we also tend to be closer to British English use than to American in a lot of subtle little ways. So words which you might consider to be archaic are, to me, just the word for that thing.
True, but it's not always obvious that something is a regionalism, and everyone is aware of the alternatives.
That's why I have a bunch of dictionaries near my desk, one is International English. It's also why I read every email I get, due to people asking about what something means. However, the biggest help I have as an Aussie author is an editor who's lived almost all his life in Florida, recently moved to Yuma, Arizona for health reasons (drier climate). He questions everything that doesn't make immediate sense. Editors are a must, especially those from a distant location, in my mind, if for no other reason than to question regional usage words.
In your waitress example I might have tried "baño" at some point. BTW I was in Canada (bus tour of the Maritimes) for a few days before I figured out "washroom".
In your waitress example I might have tried "baño" at some point. BTW I was in Canada (bus tour of the Maritimes) for a few days before I figured out "washroom".
Many years ago (mid or possibly late 70's) there was an American visiting some friends here in Australia. He asked them where the John was and they responded with confused looks. Then he asked where the bathroom was, and they told him. He came back rather quickly saying that wasn't what he needed.
They managed to figure out he needed to use the Toilet before things got messy.
According to Very Well Aged's stories set in the Philippines, its Comfort Room, or more often, CR.
According to Very Well Aged's stories set in the Philippines, its Comfort Room, or more often, CR.
And on most building plans in Australia it's WC which is short for Water Closet.
...in Australia it's WC ...
I remember a story I read once about a woman looking for a Wayside Church, but kept referring to it as a WC.
Wayside Church
From a religious perspective, down here the term WC is often taken as an abbreviation for the Wesleyan Church.
On that, I often wonder if the US Southern Baptist Church anoints the posterior for baptism instead of the head.
On that, I often wonder if the US Southern Baptist Church anoints the posterior for baptism instead of the head.
THE US SBC still does baptism by dunking, so they anoint both ends.
According to Very Well Aged's stories set in the Philippines, its Comfort Room, or more often, CR.
And on most building plans in Australia it's WC which is short for Water Closet.
That can refer to where the water heater is for some people in the United States. :)
That can refer to where the water heater is for some people in the United States. :)
For most of us in the northern states, that would be the basement.
The foundation footing has to be below the frost line. Once you go below around 4 or 5 feet, it doesn't make a lot of sense not to have a full basement and there aren't a lot of homes up here without a full basement.
Water heater, furnace, washer and dryer all go in the basement.
That can refer to where the water heater is for some people in the United States. :)
In my American drafting classes the purgatorium was labeled WC for Water Closet. The water heater closet might be labeled WH.
and making sure you include a way for the readers unfamiliar with it to understand what it means and how come it got there.
And, in the case of "dove", how it's pronounced (long "O").
and making sure you include a way for the readers unfamiliar with it to understand what it means and how come it got there.
And, in the case of "dove", how it's pronounced (long "O").
Oh, you should try the regional enunciations for "lava" and "roof" to see some rage come out from some people.
Oh, you should try the regional enunciations for "lava" and "roof" to see some rage come out from some people.
Well, it's two different words depending on the pronunciation. With a short "O" it's a bird, with a long "O" it's the past tense/participle of dive.
As to the "Restroom" vs "bathroom" thing in the United States, I think for some it became a differentiation that they're looking for a toilet(and sink), and don't need the other amenities. (Also called a "Half bath" in a home setting)
A bigger factor on this probably was the (Interstate) Highway System and public Rest areas, which included rooms with (often primitive) toilets, and sometimes sinks(usually both these days). Which is probably where the term started to really pick up widespread adoption within the United States.
But yeah, its a fun one to decide which term to use if I need to ask for it, particularly since I was in the Navy. So I have to decide if I want to ask for the toilet, John, Loo, head, bathroom, restroom, shitter, latrine, or start using other colloquialisms such as where to go to "go see a man about a dog," "drop a deuce," "drop the kiddies off at the pool," "pump and dump," and so on.
As to the "Restroom" vs "bathroom" thing in the United States, I think for some it became a differentiation that they're looking for a toilet(and sink), and don't need the other amenities. (Also called a "Half bath" in a home setting)
The restroom is also usually multi-occupancy.
The restroom is also usually multi-occupancy.
Restrooms are open to the public, usually at places of business, and may or may not be multi-occupancy.
Bathrooms are in people's homes, and usually also contain facilities for bathing. :)
Although a lot Americans will ask for the restroom while visiting somebody else's home, so there isn't a hard line on that.
Edit: One other term to add to the list. The restroom/bathroom can also be referenced to by "use/using the facilities" in some areas of the Untied States now.
To clarify my original comment:
The US foreign policy blunders in Iraq after the successful defeat of Saddam Hussein's army were stupendous. Paul Bremer's dismissal of the only domestic peace-keeping force out of hand because they were Sunni and former Baath Party, unleashed a pure hell of internal chaos, that quickly grew into a massive insurgence against the inadequately-numbered American occupation force.
The situation rapidly devolved into a conflict that was impossible for a "conventional" military occupying force to win: asymmetrical, guerrilla conflict of attrition.
Read up on that type of warfare. The only way to win is what British forces did many decades earlier: you go into rebel-sheltering areas, and totally annihilate the village populations. Scorched earth. Obviously, that was not acceptable under American public tastes.
Our leadership committed the ultimate sins of arrogance, thinking we were superior by every measure, and with a little time, we'd prevail.
Meanwhile, our men and women, stretched thin and poorly equipped for guerrilla threats, were systematically decimated* in a never-ending series of booby-traps and hit-and-run attacks. It was in response to criticism of the "horrific" losses we were experiencing that Rumsfeld made the insanely insensitive remark, implying that American troops should basically "suck it up" and continue being slaughtered along the Iraq roadways by IED's while riding in sheet-metal death traps.
*decimated=one in ten
Every time we've gotten into an asymmetrical conflict, we've had our asses handed to us because the political and military leadership are focused on tanks, bombs, and airstrikes, not seeming to realize that unless you want to field half a million troops to screen every house in every village all at the same time, so none escape; or lacking that, trace the insurgents to the village and then turn loose the gunships and leave only when every last hut is a smoking ruin.
We did neither. Now we have ISIS. And we're still getting our arrogant asses handed to us. We have no business being in conflicts we don't have the political or military will to win. Worse yet, we don't respect or understand the culture or the history or the mindset of those we've engaged.
"Know your enemy" if you choose to engage him. We'd have been better to stay home. To this day, how many in the Defense Department or Agencies speak the languages or have any expert knowledge of the cultures of the Middle East?
My grandson was in diapers when all this shit started. Now he's just enlisted in the Army. Chances are good he'll be maimed or killed over there. What a senseless, tragic waste.
decimated=one in ten
The origin of the word is interesting.
The Wiki entry, rewritten to delete glue words, states:
For discipline in the Roman Army, any large group to be punished for cowardice was divided into groups of ten. They drew lots and one was then executed by his nine comrades. The remaining soldiers might be punished with poor food and camping sites.
Note: According to the above, the best thing you can do for the current overly pampered kids is to shove their face into the mud--and it wouldn't hurt doing it to the parents either! 'D
Note: According to the above, the best thing you can do for the current overly pampered kids is to shove their face into the mud--and it wouldn't hurt doing it to the parents either! 'D
LOL but include politicians and rabble rousers with your penultimate word.
As for living with "small amounts" of allergens, been doing it for many years and the severity and list is growing.
I had heard of that treatment but also heard that it doesn't always work and can make the effects of the allergy worse(hence the epi pen) . A school friend handled bees and their stings OK until he woke up in hospital with the master telling him that he had to keep away from them in future. (It was voluntary at school)
I had heard of that treatment but also heard that it doesn't always work and can make the effects of the allergy worse(hence the epi pen)
Yep.
Once you've got the allergy many treatments to no longer be allergic are, generally, ineffective.
It's when you're young & your immune system is developing that you need the exposure, in small doses.
Once you've got the allergy many treatments to no longer be allergic are, generally, ineffective.
It's when you're young & your immune system is developing that you need the exposure, in small doses.
I believe he was referring to the specific treatment (as in my example with swallowing parasites) by adults, rather than the underlying research regarding exposing young children to allergies so their immune systems will recognize the common allegens and NOT attack them as if it's a life-or-death threat.
I had heard of that treatment but also heard that it doesn't always work and can make the effects of the allergy worse(hence the epi pen) . A school friend handled bees and their stings OK until he woke up in hospital with the master telling him that he had to keep away from them in future.
Bees are a special case, as the majority of experts agree that no one is allergic to bees, but instead to the individual flowers they've visited. Thus you might be allergic to one bee string, but not be affected by any others. However, when faced with a life-or-death situation, most medical professionals simply say "Never do that again!"
On a related note, one of the best suggestions for combating allergies is to eat local honey (within 50 miles of their nest and your home). Since honey is utterly non-allergenic, it'll confer (supposedly) immunities to the local pollens from a variety of flowering plants. (Note: I've never tested this myself, so I can't attest to this myself.)
@John Demille
You jest, but in fact, ingesting small amounts of garden dirt does wonders for allergic people. It's been proven that the small white gut worms that you could contract from dirt help greatly in the regulation of histamine over-reaction to foreign agents.
To be more specific, the worm (as do many pests) inject chemicals into their prey which weakens their immune systems so they won't be attacked as they feed. Thus, by ingesting these worms (or eating dirt inhabited from them) you'll pick up some of this supposed immunity. However, while this sounds good and got a lot of press attention when initially suggested, the few official studies prove it to be non-effective, specifically because, in the few successful cases, the immunity wears off within a short time and produces even worse reactions thereafter. So it's no longer suggested for anyone!
According to the above, the best thing you can do for the current overly pampered kids is to shove their face into the mud--and it wouldn't hurt doing it to the parents either! 'D
Note: the following will sound totally whack. Read at your own discretion.
You jest, but in fact, ingesting small amounts of garden dirt does wonders for allergic people. It's been proven that the small white gut worms that you could contract from dirt help greatly in the regulation of histamine over-reaction to foreign agents.
Washing food and the over-sanitation of things is the main cause in developing allergies. That and antibiotics. For every course of antibiotics that you take for some infection, you lose on average one strain of beneficial gut bacteria. Gut bacteria help control allergies too.
Read at your own discretion
How do you make a judgement call like that without having read it first to find out if you shouldn't?
true tale: when I was a toddler (about 1960), I was entered into a baby competition of some sort. The other kid's mothers kept them under strict control to keep them clean and tidy, whereas mine let me wander, play in the grass etc. then (I think) just wiped me down at judging time. Because of this I was cheerful and not stressed, whereas the other kids, who presumably had wanted to play in the sunshine, were sullen, fretful, upset - so, I won. My mother still has the cup, somewhere.
Local viral infections are a thing, and the locals would eventually develop some kind of immunity to it at some point(as they would have become infected by it, and either fought it off, or found ways to "live with it"). Now as to their being carriers for it, that's another question entirely, but for many tourist areas, the other tourists would likely be your major concern for catching local viral samples at that point.
As to the local bacteria and getting sick or not, sometimes that could boil down to menu selections. Maybe the shellfish was bad, or the sauce for the pasta was improperly prepared. Sometimes it really is just luck of the draw.
Should we go for triple posting?
No, go fence posting, you can get paid for doing that if you ask them first.
Should we go for triple posting?
No, that's reserved for self-important government drones.
AJ
self-important government drones.
Oxymoron. No that isn't a moron on oxygen. Its a phrase that is redundant or self contradictory, like military intelligence.
NOUN
1.a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction
OK maybe self-important and government drones aren't contradictory, they are only redundant.
Redundant expressions are called pleonasms. (new, to me, word for the day.)
Redundant expressions are called pleonasms. (new, to me, word for the day.)
Itself redundant and completely unnecessary. More people understand "redundant", so I see no benefit using a Greek based word that's little understood.
Should we go for triple posting?
No, that's reserved for self-important government drones.
Ever wonder why the government always does paperwork in triplicate?
The original is filed away
Copy 1 is given to the originator for their files.
Copy 2 is destroyed so nobody finds out about it.
:) CZ
You can actually delete a post.
the poster can delete post by using the icon that looks like a rubbish bin or a glass (depends on your display codes) - or you can just edit the content out and post another message in its place.
Thank you. I learned something today I didn't know. Its a trash basket type icon, and it worked, somewhat to my surprise.
An interesting side note, according to a report in today's NY Times, the biggest language complaint about language found in books and the general media, isn't "drug" or "dove", it's the use of "theory" meaning "guess" or "conjecture". Apparently for anyone who's ever studied the scientific method, it's a complete non-starter.
(and no, I didn't see any references they used to back up this claim.)
That's interesting, since "theory" meaning "testable hypothesis" is the less used of it's definition, and only applies to science papers within the subgroup of the scientific establishment. I'd guess that the meaning of theory as "guestimate" predates it's use as a specific type are argument. It's sort of like weather men claiming only they are allowed to use the term "rain".
But it is a big problem, and I've been called on it a couple of times (since my books tend heavily towards the scientific).
I've participated in some very robust discussions in which pointy-heads have tried to claim their meaning of 'theory' as the only one valid, but after reading your post several times the only way I can make sense of it is if 'testable hypothesis' is a poor synonym of 'accepted principles' as in eg Theory of Relativity or Information Theory.
That begs the question, what is an untestable hypothesis?
AJ
That begs the question, what is an untestable hypothesis?
Politicians care about the people and / or the country over their pocket.
That begs the question, what is an untestable hypothesis?
The existence of God(s), as an example. Replace "testable" with "falsifiable".
I've participated in some very robust discussions in which pointy-heads have tried to claim their meaning of 'theory' as the only one valid, but after reading your post several times the only way I can make sense of it is if 'testable hypothesis' is a poor synonym of 'accepted principles' as in eg Theory of Relativity or Information Theory.
That begs the question, what is an untestable hypothesis?
Theory (as defined by Dictionary.doc
noun, plural "theories"
1) a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Before a theory becomes "accepted as established fact", someone has to present a 'theory', which is a 'testable hypothesis' which can be either accepted or rejected based on subsequent testing.
The use of the term "theory" in general use refers only to 'a wild-assed guess' ("It's my theory that ...").
If it's not testable (ex: that aliens planted life on this planet billions of years ago) then it can never be considered a legitimate theory.
And no, not all theories are 'accepted principals'. Relativity was only deemed 'accepted' when Einstein laid the framework by making a variety of claims, backed up by mathematics, which would eventually be tested (over the next 50+ years).
So, no, "accepted principals" doesn't cut it as a valid definition of 'theory'.
If it's not testable (ex: that aliens planted life on this planet billions of years ago) then it can never be considered a legitimate theory.
Some theories are only not testable at our current level of science and technology. At some point in the future, science may develop a way to test it.
Some theories are only not testable at our current level of science and technology. At some point in the future, science may develop a way to test it.
The point isn't that a theory must be proven, only that it's "testable" (i.e. there's a specific way to either confirm or reject it). Many of Einstein's ideas have only recently been confirmed, but that doesn't mean his 'theory' wasn't valid. That's why 'accepted' isn't a valid definition of "scientific theory".
@awnlee jacking
Even pointyheads sometimes use 'theory' to mean something as yet unproven.
Again, we're getting off-track. A scientific theory doesn't need to be either "proven" or "accepted", instead it meaning means to be something which others can test to determine--over time--whether it fits reality or not.
If scientific theory dictated "certainty", then we'd never have advanced since the Middle Ages. The Scientific Method doesn't dictate truth, instead it define an approach to understanding our knowledge of the things surrounding us.
@Ernest
He may have tried to do that, but don't forget he was an arrogant arse hole whole caused the needless deaths of many thousands due to his vanity because he never told anyone he major reading issues and never read any of the reports handed to him beyond the first page or so.
But it was a great put-down and a powerful statement. By the way, I love your run-on sentence!
I'm not getting your drift here. You seem to be saying that to qualify as a scientific theory, something need only be testable, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. What is a 'theory' called when it has passed all possible tests available to the current level of technology, and accepted by the scientific community as the foundation on which to base future research?
AJ
You asked "What is a 'theory' called when it has passed all possible tests available to the current level of technology, and accepted by the scientific community as the foundation on which to base future research?"
It's called a theory.
Facts are things you can measure. Theories explain (or fail to explain) facts. If a theory is tested and found not to explain the observed facts, the theory is then regarded as disproved, or at least challenged.
I'm not getting your drift here. You seem to be saying that to qualify as a scientific theory, something need only be testable, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. What is a 'theory' called when it has passed all possible tests available to the current level of technology, and accepted by the scientific community as the foundation on which to base future research?
There are two accepted definitions for "Scientific Theory": Accepted Theory, and Proposed Theory. No theory has even been accepted as 'generally true' until it's been thoroughly tested on real-world conditions, so all scientific theories start with the 'testable' restriction. Hell, Einstein's General Relativity theory is still being testing and confirmed decades after his death.
The most recent test of Einstein's General Relativity was just this past year, when they (the practical scientists) finally measured gravitational waves cast off by one black hole swallowing another. Hell, they even recorded it. Not terribly musical, but it's fascinating to listen to.
Note: I read up on the topic after an editor/reader called me on my use of the term. Thus, when I read the article I mentioned, it struck a nerve, reinforcing why it's essential to ensure you use the correct terms so you don't turn off readers.
The point isn't that a theory must be proven, only that it's "testable"
According to Random House, Collins, and American Heritage, your theory has been tested and dis-proven.
They ALL include a SECOND meaning of theory as: hypothesis, conjecture, idea, abstract reasoning, postulate.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory?s=t
In debates with pointy-heads, I argue that there are two classes of meaning for 'theory' and the context is all important. Even pointyheads sometimes use 'theory' to mean something as yet unproven.
'Testable hypothesis' is unhelpful because it could refer to either class of meanings. The Theory of Relativity progessed from one class to the other but at no point was it 'untestable'
Your dictionary says 'propositions', mine says 'principles'. I prefer 'principles because it implies greater certainty.
AJ
There used to be a rule of grammar not to end a sentence with a proposition. I think Winston Churchill demolished it with "That is a piece of nonsense up with which I shall not put."
Winston Churchill demolished
He may have tried to do that, but don't forget he was an arrogant arse hole whole caused the needless deaths of many thousands due to his vanity because he never told anyone he major reading issues and never read any of the reports handed to him beyond the first page or so.
I've participated in some very robust discussions in which pointy-heads have tried to claim their meaning of 'theory' as the only one valid, but after reading your post several times the only way I can make sense of it is if 'testable hypothesis' is a poor synonym of 'accepted principles' as in eg Theory of Relativity or Information Theory.
I was always the impression there was "theory" and then there was "Theory" and the word police keep getting hung up on not being able to tell the difference between the two.
That begs the question, what is an untestable hypothesis?
OK Try this.
FACT: The moon is slowly moving away from the earth according to laser ranging studies carried out over many years.
Using the standard equation the attraction which keeps the moon in orbit is tied to the square of the distance between the two and assuming that neither loses any mass then eventually the moon will fly out of earth orbit.
I reckon that there is some basic physics behind that but it is untestable; theory or hypothesis?
I think the Theory of Gravitation has been pretty well tested, so the conclusion that the moon and earth will be less firmly tied to each other is fact. However it will be a long long time before they stop revolving around their mutual center of gravity. Tides due to the moon will not be as strong as they have been in the past. Even when the distances between the moon and earth are extremely long, there will still be gravitational attraction between them. They are both in orbit around the sun, and the distance between the earth and moon won't change that. We will always be neighbors, unless something catastrophic happens to either the moon, the earth, or the sun. Like impact of another body, or the sun running out of hydrogen and going nova.
Like impact of another body, or the sun running out of hydrogen and going nova.
Last I heard out sun lack sufficient material to go nova. Its future is to ultimately become a dwarf star and fade away into the background. After incinerating the Earth and probably Mars as well during its Red Giant stage, of course.
Edit: But the sun will have long since boiled off our oceans long before the Red Giant gets to us. The earth is projected to be a very uncomfortably warm place (for us) over a billion years from now, greenhouse effect or not.
I reckon that there is some basic physics behind that but it is untestable; theory or hypothesis?
Why the hell is that "untestable"? If the moon doesn't fly off into space, it's disproven. Over and done!
But you're way off base here. The standard equation specifies a lot more detail than the distance and the two masses (though I'm sure the simplified version discounts the other factors). The fact the moon is moving away discounts, but doesn't necessarily disprove the theory, it simply points to another counter force at work. Sometimes theories are disproven if they're clearly wrong. More often, further testing provides additional information, which either leads to a better formulated theory, or an entirely new replacement theory. But they're ALL testable, otherwise they'd be called 'hunches' or 'guesses', which is the laymen's interpretation of "theory".
Why the hell is that "untestable"? If the moon doesn't fly off into space, it's disproven. Over and done!
Pray, explain how you would test that theory / hypothesis / whatever. Failing that, within our lifetimes it is untestable.
ISTR that Copernicus did an experiment that "proved" that gravity was different between a feather and a metal weight. That has since been disproved but hopefully the mass/distance concept of attraction will not be totally disproved at some time in the future.
But you're way off base here. The standard equation specifies a lot more detail than the distance and the two masses (though I'm sure the simplified version discounts the other factors). The fact the moon is moving away discounts, but doesn't necessarily disprove the theory, it simply points to another counter force at work.
Angular momentum and drag are two big ones generally speaking for near earth/other planetary bodies. Otherwise our satellites would just fall out of the sky. :)
Instead they travel just fast enough at an angle to the earth that they "fall" back to the earth in the form of a stable orbit. Drag obviously is only an issue if near a planetary atmosphere, however thin it may be where you're at.
Basically the moon is orbiting the earth at a speed slightly faster than is currently needed to maintain a stable orbit.
One of the moon's orbiting Mars(Phobos) has the opposite issue. It is in a slowly descending orbit and should eventually impact Mars. About 30 to 50 million years from now. Although they think it's a rubble pile and will likely break apart and create a planetary ring around Mars before that happens.