wandjina

Oh, and EN, I had the image sobriquet posted in 'show yourself' in my mind...sorry for thinking you were missing a 1/4 chromosome

There is a whole thread dedicated to this crap paper and you are not doing yourself any favours by quoting it. Come on, you are a scientist, you know better than this!!! Even a cursory read of this paper clearly shows they are talking about betel quids, not Areca betle nuts. There are many things in betel quids which have been shown to be carcinogenic, but betel itself HAS NEVER!! Adducts have been found with myristicin, tobacco and safrole, all of which are present in the quid. But most telling is probably that all studies in areas where tobacco is added have extremely high incidence of OSCC while all studies in areas where tobacco is NOT added have insiginificant incidence of OSCC. That alone is a pretty good indicator that tobacco is the problem. However, this is complicated by the fact that betel pepper flowers and to a lesser degree betele leaf contains allylbenzenes, including safrole, which shows some activity at forming adducts. For a start, though I have been scientifically trained, I am not a scientist. I was not aware of the thread you refer to, but before i posted regarding betel chewing and dental hygeine, I did some research as i wasnt 100% sure of the details re tooth decay (remembering betel was once an ingredient in toothpastes)...and found hundreds of articles re areca and oral cancers. There are literally hundreds of articles, in reputable peer reviewed journals, that refer to betel as being carcinogenic (alone as extracts and in quids). I was not aware of the debate here and presumedly elsewhere, and those I know with an interest/experience with betel (bonafide scientists themselves), have taken its carcinogenicity as a given. Of course, many truths taken as givens in science are later shown to be fallacies....that betel is not may be another. Anyhoo, whilst i am not a scientist, a big part of what scientists do is research. I'm sorry, but in the heirarchy of information sources, peer-reveiwed journals come before web-forums in my mind. I had no reason to doubt the sources...to my knowledge there is no debate evident re carcinogenictity in the orthodox literature. I would like to say that i stand corrected to appease, but I'm not convinced of the evidence either way....even if that particular paper is crap, before making an absolute judgement I would have to read them all. Based on what ive seen in the data bases, and current status of research, I cant see how anyone could be absolutley sure about betels carcinogenicity one way or the other, even is that particular paper is flawed, it was more the reefernces I was interested in. More, OSCC is only one type of oral cancer that seems to be correlated with betel chewing....as far as I can tell more research needs to be done to make a conclusion. So now i don't know....but I don't think it any stretch to say that i do know for certain that betel chewing is not good dental hygiene, which was my main point, the cancer issue being an aside. Anyhoo, still waiting to see if i get erased/edited....and I will have to go if that occurs. And no, I do not recall ever being edited by Darklight, or her deleting rampages. Guess ive never caused enough offence to warrant such action. But I'd be surprised if she deleted posts in this thread. Unless something is seriously offensive, I dont agree with this deleting palaver. I believe in cautions etc and fairness, but I for one don't agree with anyones posts in this thread being deleted or edited. I'm sorry Apo, but I'm really dissapointed...I just don't agree. Nothing here is that offensive as to warrant such action IMO. Overkill. I strongly object to being 'lumped' in this instance, but the main issue is being edited/deleted, and if it happens, I have to go...guess ill post 'n' see in a sec...

wandjina, I'm seriously not gonna bother trying to explain myself or the meaning of my posts anymore. You've obviously formed some conception in your head of my intent and nothing I say will change it. I clearly warned sobriquet that such antagonistic posts are neither constructive nor welcome, and I believe I even mentioned the delete button in the same sentence. I'm sorry Sina, but I do not and can not agree. As far as I'm concerned I've been tarred with the same brush, and i'm very dissapointed. After I get home from dinner I am going to town on this thread with the delete button, I don't care how insightful a post is, any of which contain a personal insult will be deleted, so y'all better get to editing. I say with all sincerity Sina that if you edit or delete any of my posts without my consent, then I have no choice but to cancel my membership. That is how strongly I feel about this, and about what I feel is grossly unfair treatment. I can no longer participate and contribute to these forums if this is how they're going to be 'moderated'. Boy do I miss you Darklight... So if I'm edited/deleted, and looks like there's no way around that, then goodbye and thanks for all the fish ... and so close to 1000!

I thought that given the issue was teeth afterall, and wandjina's well known appreciation of art, that the images subtle message might not have been so easily missed. still don't buy it...

1. Introduction Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is a world-wide disease and the third most common malignancy in developing countries. Its high incidence in South Asians is due to the popularity of areca (betel) chewing habit. Around 200–600 million Asians chew areca [1], [2], [3] and [4]. OSCC is also a prevalent disease in Taiwan as the fourth leading malignancy in male population [1], [4], [5] and [6]. Areca was recently proved to be a carcinogen that produces oxidative stress and genotoxicity to various cells [1], [2], [3], [4], [7] and [8]. from: Lin SC, Liu CJ, Yeh WI, et al. Functional polymorphism in NFKB1 promoter is related to the risks of oral squamous cell carcinoma occurring on older male areca (betel) chewers CANCER LETTERS 243 (1): 47-54 NOV 8 2006 A few more from literally hundreds of other papers: Lai KC, Lee TC Genetic damage in cultured human keratinocytes stressed by long-term exposure to areca nut extracts MUTATION RESEARCH-FUNDAMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MECHANISMS OF MUTAGENESIS 599 (1-2): 66-75 JUL 25 2006 Lu SY, Chang KW, Liu CJ, et al. Ripe areca nut extract induces G(1) phase arrests and senescence-associated phenotypes in normal human oral keratinocyte CARCINOGENESIS 27 (6): 1273-1284 JUN 2006 Lin YS, Jen YM, Wang BB, et al. Epidemiology of oral cavity cancer in Taiwan with emphasis on the role of betel nut chewing ORL-JOURNAL FOR OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY AND ITS RELATED SPECIALTIES 67 (4): 230-236 2005 Lee JM, Liu TY, Wu DC, et al. Safrole-DNA adducts in tissues from esophageal cancer patients: clues to areca-related esophageal carcinogenesis MUTATION RESEARCH-GENETIC TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MUTAGENESIS 565 (2): 121-128 JAN 3 2005 Gupta PC, Ray CS Epidemiology of betel quid usage ANNALS ACADEMY OF MEDICINE SINGAPORE 33 (4): 31-36 Suppl. S JUL 2004

If you find ENs stance to not 'exactly be taking the high ground', how does sobriquets posting an image of a toothed vagina in responce to my post not warrant specific comment? I thought I did. If you say so, not how it reads though, in my opinion. No mention of that particular image, that came straight after my post and was obviously directed at me...would it have rated more attention if he had verbalised the image? He has done something quite clever actually, by posting his insult visually, he can get around the SAB 'personal attack' rules. Easy enough to say he meant 'x' instaed of 'y'. The post wasn't directed solely at EN, why are you making it out like it was? I didn't, and apologise for giving that impression. I wasn't referring to the whole post actually, but your choice to single out EN in regards to a post I didnt agree deserved special treatment. More, EN is a white boy himself, judging by the pictures he posted, so I dont see his use of 'white boy' as offensive in this instance, just as some black people call eachother niggers. lalalala. I am agreeing with you entirely here, except for the last line, again what the hell is it with the personal insults? Is it so difficult to keep it civil? My previous assertions stand, I make no apologies for any misconceptions people may have had. Fix your shit up, or I will. lalalala? but you're agreeing with me entirely? Doesn't seem to me you're taking my comments seriously at all when you say 'lalalala'? If an image of a toothed anus was posted after a homosexual persons post in a similar context would 'lalalala' fly? Whether or not someone is gay has nothing to do with the value of their argument, and nor does a persons gender. For this reason Sobriquets post is unacceptable, and my responce to it more than justified...yet we're being lumped together? This is grossly unfair IMO. I argue that the toothed vagina image is much more offensive and 'personal' than me saying sobriquet is a pussy (which was word-play incidentally, and no, I will not change it). I have said worse in the past and no-one has batted an eye-lid. This censoring business is getting silly if 'pussy' isn't even allowed. For Christs sake...oh shit, is taking the lords name in vain still permitted? I think sobriquets posts here are of poor quality, that his argument in responce to EN was pitiful....and I think his behaviour is deplorable in posting that image, and quantitatively and qualitatively more offensive than anything I have said. I will hold back from now on, but i stand by my posts...and my dissapointment at my behaviour being somehow equated with Sobriquets in this instance.

Lastly, evolutionNth (is it Nth as in "to the nth degree" or as in North?), when you want to tell someone off then maybe personal insults (presumptive ones at that) aren't exactly taking the high ground. I don't think EN said anything overly personal or particularly insulting. I know I've posted my fair share of insulting material, some most definately personal in nature, and so have you at times Apo. If I think someones acting like a tosser, and this is reflected in their posts, I don't see the problem in saying so...it's my opinion...as long as I don't go overboard and become downright abusive. It happens all the time here. Why is EN getting pulled up on it? If you find ENs stance to not 'exactly be taking the high ground', how does sobriquets posting an image of a toothed vagina in responce to my post not warrant specific comment? The connotation is obvious....seems like double standards to me. I think posting that work can be construed as much more insulting to me as a person and member of these forums than anything EN wrote. Funny how when a woman is assertive, she's labelled a bitch or a cow...or in this instance implicitly labelled using an abject image of a toothed vagina. I feel that I made an informed and well-considered post, and expressed opinion re betel most educated and intelligent people would see as reasonable, to be met with this pathetic rejoinder insinuating my argument is biased by my gender. This is a deliberate attempt to provoke an emotional response by deliberatly causing offence... I realise this started off a 'joke thread', and I have no issue with that...but I do take issue with people speaking autgoritatvely on subjects of which they clearly possess little knowledge. Is it really necessary to take it to this level Sobriquet? Unless you really are an imbecile you knew full well how this could be taken...or is it that you simply are not able to argue the point? I suspect you are annoyed at having being proved wrong, especially by a mere woman. I am not offended by the image per se, but by the intention with which it was posted. You would not have posted an equivalent image if a male had disagreed with, or criticised, you...just goes to show you do have some issues there. Obviously you do not regard me in the same way as you regard non-female members. Sure, you may argue that your choice to post the image is rooted in irony or 'innocent mischief' : I accuse you of being low-brow and anachronistic so why not ham it up and post a wacky pic! I don't buy it for a second. Too many of your posts have chauvinistic tones, and I don't just mean in reference to gender. Look it up in the dictionary. Be a 'gentleman' Sobriquet, and at least have the courage and decency to admit you were off the mark re betel and dental health, or argue your case. Resorting to cheap provocation in lieu of intelligent debate shows what a [edited for rudeness] you really are.

haha funny! she can't afford dental care and hasn't been born to privilege like the white boy who finds her photo amusing!! ahahahaha! that's the funniest thing i've seen all day! good onya sobriquet, another enlightened post that had me in stitches!! Hah... ahah... ha... Rather than showing my 'white boy privilege' it shows your enslavement to Western ideals of what good teeth look like. They have to be white and straight like in those magazines people read at cosmetic surgery clinics right? Wrong. Ironically the betel nut use which is the cause of this ladies' teeth staining is probably what has kept her teeth so good and intact. Many women her age in the same situation who don't use betel, would probably have lost all their teeth by their 40th birthday. What was this thread about again? *scratches head* oh come on sobriquet I agree with Evolution North, bad taste. The context in which that photo was posted was low brow to say the least, dont try and cover your arse with this specious crap. And FYI, although moderate/low consumption of Areca has been associated with lower incidence of dental caries (it was once added to tooth pastes and other preparations) , betel chewing also directly causes an increase in mouth ulcers and deterioration of the gums, which eventually results in total loss of teeth. That the benefits of such a habit far outweigh any positive effects is very well documented....and don't bother saying you were only referring to 'responsible' or 'traditional' use, the woman in question (and btw, your repeated use of the word 'lady'/'ladies' is growing tiresome, so anachronistic it's cringeworthy. You sound like my grandfather) is obviously a regular consumer. And this is to say nothing of Arecas carcinogenicity....if your teeth dont fall out, theres oral cancers to contend with. The fact is, that woman does not have 'good teeth' (and lets not get into some relativistic bullcrap re 'third world standards' or some romantic fluff about ethno-medicines to sugar coat the realities of life in impoverished communties) the fact is, ....she is almost certainly poor, aged beyond her years, and suffering from other illnesses endemic in the developing world. I for one do not feel she, or anyone else in similar circumstances or appearance should be the subject of cheap jokes. Not impressed.

Probably said this before but ill say it again ive not found saffron of any potency being top grade form SAB or low grade from Ebay to potentate opiates to any great effect, i have found grape fruit juice to be much more effective and a shit load cheaper. Grape juice...is it superior to other fruit juices, or just because it's inexpensive? Interested, Could you please elaborate?

LOL...classic!! I'm honoured to be put in charge of the art studio and library....yowzers! My daughter wants to know if you can squeeze in a 'super arcade, computer room and kitten counter' (A what? '...a counter filled with kittens that you can take without paying').

The idea that life on earth is of extraterrestrial origin has long been posited, but is most often associated with the work of English astronomer Fred Hoyle. Interesting and attractive theory. I'm not sold either way Panspermia

don't think this warrants a repot though? repot? nah...the sage is lovin it...seems symbiotic...though if the fungus aint 'capping out'?? Perhaps the sage is taking advantage?

actually, maybe you're right Deicide... from the link you posted: "I have a bright yellow cespitose fungi growing in the dirt of my fig tree in my house. It begins as a yellow-white fuzzy film and then shoots out about two inches high with the stems/stalk about 1/4 inch in diameter with the appearance of a cap not much bigger than the stem itself. Any clues as to what it is and how I get it out of the dirt without killing the plant. I know I could just repot. But if it is not harmful can I leave it ... any suggestions are welcome." they're getting as much light and water as before (outside part shade) began fruiting...why no stereotypical mushroom caps?

hmmm, no, I don't think so, though they look quite similar. Of the 4-5 clumps of mushies in the pot, maximun height has been ~45mm , then they turn brown and decompose. I don't know the proper mycologial terminology sorry...but they don't appear to have flat circular caps...just look phallic....unless they're carkin it before they get the chance to mature?

Im feeling a littl strange now.. umm thanks for reading this far!! Sorry if im clogging up the boards in any way just delete all this crap if i am haha!! Ill try not to rant on and on in my next posts..i promise lol!! Please don't worry about clogging up the boards, you have articulated clearly and honestly what I, and I think many others members, have experienced at one time or other. It's admirable you can express these feelings, nothing to be ashamed of , and you'll not find a more empathetic audience. I could really relate to alot of what you wrote in that first post, especially what you said about the times you feel like the real you, the person you want to be and are inside...when you can really be unencumbered by all the pain, anxiety, fear....only to have it slip away. Know that it is possible to feel content without recourse to DXM or other similar substances...and there are many options. In tandem with supplements (and perhaps prudent use of pharmaceuticals), I for one would recommend finding someone to talk to. I've tried antidepressants of different types, but have found a combo of diet, natural/vit & mineral supplements, exercise and talk has been the most effective for me. The latter has helped me immensely, and I know of several other members who've benefited. If you can find a good psychiatrist who's not too much of a pill-pusher (you could start by asking here), its bulk-billing (free), whilst some other therapists charge on a sliding scale. There's still quite a stigma in Australia to being 'in therapy', but don't buy into it. It can really help you feel less alone and more supported. The fact you're willing to fight says alot about your character Mick, and I admire your attitude. Also, you're young and aware...have hope...and remember we are here for you

Found these growing with one of my Sages...soil in pot seems chockers with mycelia, fruiting around margin of pot, and at base. Guessing recent rain was appreciated. They really are curiously yellow, more so in the flesh.....but what are they? The largest mushroom is approx 35mm. thanks

So, you can't really say that pronunciation born out of ignorance is 'correct'. I studied some Latin in high school, then independently as an undergrad, and have also learnt a great deal from your good self on the subject...hence I and am well aware of the proper pronunciation of -aceae. However, I (and several other botanists I know, including two educated in the UK) say it the same way you choose to say it, largely because, as noted earlier, for the sake of ease/convienience and in lieu of 'uphill shit pushing'. While it may not be written in stone, this pronunciation is implicitly agreed upon by bonafide Australian botanists as being correct (or at least the closest approximation). Thus, ending in an 'ee' sound is the most 'correct' way to say it in this country. Also, please note my (over-usage) of inverted commas...I've made clear my social constructivist leanings. In this instance I take 'correct' as meaning most useful or practically efficaceous in a given context, as opposed to representing a clearly distinct and mutually exclusive category of absolute truth. There are some standards in science that are 'constructed' this way, pronunication being one of them (the finer points of behavioural norms another example). The main point is, end of plant-family names does not rhyme with 'say' in Australia....yet it is a very,very common mis-pronunciation here, and this is best cleared up IMO, if only on a pragmatic (as opposed to complex linguistic) basis.

Given there is consensus in regards to Latin pronunciation per se , there is no need to argue the point in that regard....however, the title of this thread concerns Australian pronunciation of botanical names. Bearing this in mind, the 'correct' (or, alternatively, implicitly agreed upon) pronounciation of -aceae, in Australia, is as Torsten has clearly indicated phoenetically (notwithstanding corner cutting). This is how -aceae is pronouned in the Australian scientific community, and in its tertiary educational institutions. In my experience, in this context, there is consensus....it's Rose-ay-see, not Rose-ace-ee-ay, or Rose-aish-ah as some people say. No need to pfaff around endlessly with tonal tid-bits....uneccessary circumlocution IMO. In Stearn's Botanical Latin (considered the text on pronunciation) a pragmatic approach is taken: "How they are pronounced really matters little provided they sound pleasant and are understood by all." Probably most people would understand what one meant if one said 'Rose-ace-ee-ay', but then you'd come across 'out of the loop' in some circles. In part it's academic snobbery I suppose, in fact, there may even be an interesting research project in there for a sociologist of science, but its also about standardisation (and hence communication) within a given scientific research community. In an ideal world 'pure' botanical Latin would be used by all, making communication easier on an international level, but in reality (and contingent upon history, politics, culture etc etc), there is regional variation.... And hence, for want of a better term, we belong to the 'Anglo-Saxon' research community, and share its rules of pronunciation....even when there may be no 'absolute', universal rule beyond a certain point... right or wrong, whatever subtleties you wanna garnish it with, for all intents and purposes, the 'correct' pronunciation in Oz is 'ee'/ 'see'.

Aizoaceae = iee-so-A-see > ay-so-A-see Fouquieriaceae = foo-ki-eri-AY-see > foo-ki-ri-AY-see Lecythidaceae = le-see-tee-da-see > ?? Caesalpiniaceae = says-al-pin-i-A-see > says-al-pin-A-see Xanthorrhoeaceae = ksan-tor-ro-e-A-see > san-to-ree-AY-see thanks T Torsten I think the end of all these family names are pronounced with an "AY" (rhyming with 'say') at the end. Thus: Aizoaceae - > Eye-zo-ay-see-ay Nup, it's definately 'ee' (ê) at the end of -aceae...academic botanists usually pronouce it this way (3 yrs undergrad botany). One lecturer advised we think of -aceae as A-C-E, ie, Rosaceae = Rose-A-C-E. and Ace, I'm pretty sure it's ver-mick-u-lite

listen to sinead oconners(princes) nothing compares to you, on mushrooms lol, great idea. always had a soft spot for that song. I just downloaded the theme from one of my all-time favourite shows, Monkey magic, which I honestly feel has had an influence on my life. Prolly seen each episode at least 4-5 times Born from an egg on a mountain top, the punkiest Monkey that ever popped, He knew every magic trick under the sun, to tease the gods and everyone can have some fun. Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic ooh What a cocky, saucy Monkey this one is. All the Gods were angry and they punished him. Until he was saved by a kindly priest, and that was the start of their pilgrimage quest. Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic, Monkey magic ooh! dig that 2nd verse!

While we're on the topic, I have trouble with some of the plant families....for example: Aizoaceae, Fouquieriaceae, Lecythidaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, and Xanthorrhoeaceae. And what about the 'o' and 'cyn' in Apocynaceae? An old mate of mine made an arse of himself once by pronoucing the scientific name of the staghorn incorrectly....Platycerium superbum heheh

'Man', 'He'....sigh. Gimme that ol' time religion!!!

I can see Dr Grof, and i think Myron Stolaroff? Who's the guy on the right wearing what looks like a red skull cap? Looks like Colonel Sanders. And the man in his shoulder blade?

I like number 3...aesthetically, the position of the methyl groups appeals. If I were going to compose an artwork, I would choose this one...nice proportions and interesting structure relative to page. To my eyes there is movement, appears more dynamic and abstract than the other molecules IMO (though to be nit-picky...these are diagrams, representations of molecules). I'm curious, what prompted this thread ? lol