Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jun 24, 2002
 Comments:
What is a tree? That is a question that has hounded me for a while. Well, after lots of consideration I have concluded that a tree is nothing more than a machine.
diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
Think about it, all trees do is suck water up and grow leaves. They don't have brains so they can't think or make decisions like living creatures can. They are so uncomplicated that they are fully documented in primary school science books.

So we must conclude that regardless of whether God or Evolution made them, trees are nothing more than simple machines which convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and vice versa.

So why does society constantly refer to them being alive? Why do school teachers insist on teaching kids that they are "alive"? Would these same morons call my computer alive? no, probably not.

It seems that if an object is biological it is automatically classed as alive by these fools. Do they plan carrying on this charade when we build biological computers? or when we invent artificial trees?

This doesn't just go for trees. Flowers, vegetables, shrubs, fruit, bushes and grass are all misrepresented and some of these are laughable. I mean, what the fuck does grass do? The only thing you can say about grass is that its green and points up. My wrist watch is far more complicated but noone would be dumb enough to state that it was alive in any context.

So why do we put up with this buffonary? Surely this makes our already mind bogglingly stupid species look even stupider. I propose that everyone who reads this holds this information in their heads and release it to which ever fool contradicts it in your present.

       
Tweet

A tree... (none / 0) (#1)
by hauntedattics on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 06:01:34 PM PST
may be just a machine, but I wouldn't go planting a motherboard or an alternator in the ground and expecting something to happen either. That only works in Narnia.



yuch (none / 0) (#4)
by nathan on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 06:52:39 PM PST
What kind of awful Narnia do you live in, anyway?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Obviously, (none / 0) (#23)
by hauntedattics on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 10:03:46 AM PST
the one with dongs.



 
Best comment ever (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 12:18:54 AM PST
^^^^^^^^

Indy


 
So go invent one already (none / 0) (#2)
by KingAzzy on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 06:01:42 PM PST
You assert that the entire schematic to a tree is well documented and discovered, so what is stopping you from going and creating a artificial but biological tree?

OR IS THIS JUST MORE BUTT TALK FROM POTATOTROLL?


indeed (3.33 / 3) (#6)
by PotatoError on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 07:47:04 PM PST
Yes, some of us passed primary school and learnt about trees and how they work. It's pretty damn simple - the oxygen goes into the leaves with the sunlight by photosynthesis and then turns into carbon dioxide. At night time it happens the other way round (although of course the sunlight doesnt come out obviously). The tree also sucks up lots of water through its roots using osmosis and turns the water into nutrients for energy. Energy means a source of power and it's needed to make seeds for the tree to reproduce. In autumn the seeds fall off the tree and some of the seeds become new trees (you know this already of course). Pretty damn simple really isn't it? There isn't much more to trees than that. However, as I don't have any building skills I will not be making an artificial tree any time soon. But theoretically I could make one and that's what is important.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

You can't build a tree. (none / 0) (#30)
by gordonjcp on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 11:32:58 AM PST
You've just described what a tree does. You haven't described how it does it.


Kurdt Kobain thought so (none / 0) (#61)
by Blarney on Sat Jun 29th, 2002 at 03:36:17 PM PST
In the song "Breed" on his famous Nevermind album - the one with the pedophiliac cover art - he offers to build a tree for his girlfriend. He also offers to plant a house! Of course, this is undoubtedly due to the drug-induced dementia which eventually induced him to take his own life.


 
It is not theoretically possible (none / 0) (#31)
by KingAzzy on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 12:01:40 PM PST
Maybe to an ignorant American dumb ass like you it is "theoretically possible" but please point out even a single instance where life has been artificially created in a laboratory from raw chemical compounds.

Scientists can't even create a single celled creature from scratch much less a complex organism like a tree.

Again, ye are full of SHITE.



 
Grasses. (none / 0) (#3)
by because it isnt on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 06:11:41 PM PST
You want to know what grasses do, Mr Wrongmash? Well, ask any hayfever sufferer and they'll jolly well tell you - the grasses are SHAGGING right at this minute. Unlike dainty little flowers, grasses are wind-pollinated, which means they just spray their seed to the wind and let it stick to virgin grasses' cheeks.

They're breeding, Badcrisps, and in the grand scheme of things that makes grasses better than you.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Maybe grasses are better than us all. (none / 0) (#5)
by PotatoError on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 07:39:17 PM PST
There is more grass on Earth than humans so I have to ask the question: Who rules the world? Humans or the grass?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

But (3.00 / 1) (#10)
by tkatchev on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 10:39:38 PM PST
If grass is just machines, how can they rule the world?


--
Peace and much love...




oh (none / 0) (#13)
by PotatoError on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 04:37:31 AM PST
yes you're right. Thank God that grass doesn't have a brain otherwise we would be in serious do-do. Imagine walking across a field and being harassed by the vegetation.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Apropos. (none / 0) (#15)
by tkatchev on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 05:41:14 AM PST
Did anybody else notice that American grass is physically different from all other sorts of grass? I smell a conspiracy... sort of like American "cheese", probably.


--
Peace and much love...




yea! (none / 0) (#20)
by PotatoError on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:12:19 AM PST
yes and also they won't let you take it back home with you. They probably don't want us studying it in European Labs. I guess that American grass probably gives off some sort of population control chemical.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I've got some Canadian grass, (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 10:17:32 AM PST
still stuck in my shoes, which is basically the same thing as American grass. I also have some Pacific Ocean salt on my teva sandals, as I was silly enough to go for a walk in the sea.
<BR><BR>
Talking of Canadian grass, the Vancouver kids billow hash smoke like chimney stacks. And they play frisbee half-naked.


 
Yes. (none / 0) (#26)
by tkatchev on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 10:17:39 AM PST
The psychotropic chemicals are released when you start mowing your lawn. (This is why they force you to mow your lawn so frequently in the U.S. -- in other places, mowing once a twice a year is the norm.)

Ever wonder why they call the police if you stop mowing your lawn? Somehow I doubt that it is out of concern for the look of your yard.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Do you mean... (none / 0) (#24)
by hauntedattics on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 10:10:53 AM PST
the "grass" that people buy from chemical companies that looks so nice and uniform, or the stuff that just sort of appears without any effort?

American "cheese" is a conspiracy, a conspiracy to make you believe you're eating something derived from milk.



 
yuh huh.... (none / 0) (#8)
by HatBot on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 07:59:53 PM PST
Hey there big fella, you uh, got your analysis of photosynthesis wrong. Photosynthesis is the process of plants using the raw materials Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to create simple chemical energy, glucose (C6H12O6). Then there is the waste, Oxygen (O2) which is expelled from the plant through pore like apparati. It isnt some form of demon magic as you make it sound. And unless your watch has a nuclear reactor in it it isnt anywhere near as complex as even the simplest plants. Now on to why we classify plants as living things! (hoo-ray for basic biology)

The Seven Characteristics of Living Things
--------------------------------------------

Feeding
-------------
All living organisms need to take substances from their environment to obtain energy, to grow and to stay healthy.

Movement
-------------
All living organisms show movement of one kind or another. All living organisms have internal movement, which means that they have the ability of moving substances from one part of their body to another. Some living organisms show external movement as well - they can move from place to place by walking, flying or swimming.

Breathing or Respiration
-------------
All living things exchange gases with their environment. Animals take in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.

Excretion
-------------
Excretion is the removal of waste from the body. If this waste was allowed to remain in the body it could be poisonous. Humans produce a liquid waste called urine. We also excrete waste when we breathe out. All living things need to remove waste from their bodies.

Growth
-------------
When living things feed they gain energy. Some of this energy is used in growth. Living things become larger and more complicated as they grow.

Sensitivity
-------------
Living things react to changes around them. We react to touch, light, heat, cold and sound, as do other living things.

Reproduction
-------------
All living things produce young. Humans make babies, cats produce kittens and pigeons lay eggs. Plants also reproduce. Many make seeds which can germinate and grow into new plants.

Plants fill all these qualifications, your computer doesn't. Gee Wiz! mabye thats why we wouldnt classify an innanimate object as living



Yet more crap (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by majubma on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 08:51:28 PM PST
made up by "scientists" who couldn't solve a mathamatical problem if their lives depended on it.

I could only imagine a conversation that could have led to this definition.

"Hey, Bert, I'm going to define life as a process which eats, whaddaya think?"
"Well. anything that gets energy from some kind of fuel 'eats,' Ernie, so that's not nearly sufficient."
"Okay, how about if I add movement?"
"My car consumes fuel and moves around, Ernie. Keep going."
"Okay, how about if I say that they must respirate and excrete, too?"
"My car does all those things, Ernie. How about something unique to living systems?"
"All right, Bert, I'll add growth and reproduction."
"Crystals grow too, so that's not unique. And you've just ruled out 99.5% of all hive insects, not to mention homosexuals and post-menopausal women."
"Okay, finally, I'll say that living things must react to their environment."
"Holy crap, what a non-criterion! Everything reacts to its environment! You've got seven poorly defined criteria and not even a semblance of a theory! Do you really expect to get this crap published?"
"Hey chill, Bert, I'm only writing a high school textbook."
"Oh, all right, Ernie, carry on."

-- All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

I'm sorry? (none / 0) (#17)
by DG on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 07:13:28 AM PST
Did you not read the no trolling sign, or are you just dense? Do crystals breath?, do cars grow? no so they can't be alive! The 7 points have to all be counted for something to be considered alive, everyone of the points work. Yes the only thing in debate is virii.

by the way hives are counted as one unit. They don't count every indivual insect in the hive. They count it as a whole.

On the note of homosexuals and post-menopausal women. They had the capability to reproduce, whether they can now or choose not to is irrelivent to the discussion. You are just making up bullshit to invalidate the points with no proof


2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Actual question and not an attack even... (none / 0) (#19)
by LLWhipist on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:10:00 AM PST
So, since all 7 criteria have to be met for something to be alive, simply meeting 6 out of 7 would classify something as non-living. y/n?

If so, does that go to the level of the individual human, or, are we considered as the hive is, 1 single entity (interesting, we could go somewhere with that).

That's a serious question actually.

My friend can't have kids. Genetic flaw in their make-up. Been that way from birth, simply never evolved that part of themselves. Are they non-living?

If the easy slam answer to this is that they are still creating DNA which can be used to replicate them outside of their body via mystical magical ways (science rules), then I figure it's a load of poopies, that doesn't fit the criteria properly.

I figure it would be pretty easy to find an example where a single classification is shut-out by an otherwise accepted 'living being' due to genetic screwup or accident or damage.

I still consider my friend alive by the way. They are a living being, no matter what, but they NEVER had the ability to produce offspring, and by your criteria are not alive.... unless they are members of the human hive and not counted as an individual.

ta


Hmm You maybe confused.. (none / 0) (#22)
by DG on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:46:53 AM PST
Depending how you view what I wrote, it may look like that, but no that wasn't what was trying to say, from what you say about your friend, He had the posibility to reproduce, has the organs and such, if some part is damaged that is irrelivent, he still is alive. He follows the seven basic points, just like a person in a coma, we don't stop believing someone is not alive becuse one of the lesser fuctions (i:e reproduction) stops working.

Of course unless like many others on this site you like to play with word meanings, rather than debating my post. You could say I am wrong, based on your options rather than on fact. I am not saying that you are like that, I just don't think it's very mature of people who do it.
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

I'm often confused... (none / 0) (#33)
by LLWhipist on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 01:49:27 PM PST
but usually by trying to figure out what other people are talking about.

As I stated, this was a serious question, not an attack. If I wanted to play word games with it, I would have done it elsewhere or specifically said in the subject or comment that I was tongue in cheek.

My friend, as I stated explicitly, has NEVER had the chance to reproduce. the equipment wasn't generated when life started. assume for the moment that an human is born in all ways the same as other humans, but without the fun parts, with me?

Since one of the criteria for life is the ability to spawn offspring, this human would not qualify. The only way around this would be in the hive distinction you mentioned... the human species as a whole can reproduce, so members of that species qualify as living.

Again, serious question.... with a fairly clear point. The criteria for life are flawed. Enough other posts have given ways in which they are flawed, the one I'll agree with closest would be that the people who made the list did NOT make it scientifically definable. There is room for interpretation. As Murphy has shown us, where there is more than one way... we get the idea, right?

Your criteria sound scientific and they convince many a layman that they are, but they aren't.

To be scientific it has to be testable. to be testable there has to be a binary state, on/off, right/wrong, meets criteria/doesn't meet criteria. There can be NO room for interpretation of the results, no room for discussion on what any given criteria mean.

other posters have already taken the argument and criteria apart with reductio ad absurdium. they have reduced parts of it to absurdity. I was trying to make a simple point with a real life example that asked a serious question to spawn real discussion.

ta...


Your Friend (none / 0) (#52)
by John Wainright on Wed Jun 26th, 2002 at 12:45:45 AM PST
May be classified as sub-human from your description.
The validity of its life may be suspect.
Because there is no possibility of natural reproduction it's time on this planet will leave no scars on the population.
Any attempt to artificially reproduce would still not have an impact of the human gene pool. Any offspring would likely be sterile as well.
Life has safeguards to ensure that any aberrations are dealt with appropriately.
Beneficial mutations may overtime find their way into the gene pool, but without the possibility of passing them on they will be lost.
This isn't saying that your friend isn't a decent or fine person. But it's time on this earth is as fleeting and curious as a summer rain.



 
Come on DG (none / 0) (#21)
by PotatoError on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:43:06 AM PST
Those seven criteria for life are ridiculous. Remember that the list was MADE to fit life on Earth. The list as it is, is flawed. You see, plants are not alive but the people who made the list believed they were. So the list was made to describe plants as alive.

This is the wrong way to make such a list. It should have been made with proper thought and then APPLIED to objects on Earth to find out what was alive and not.

A problem with making a list that describes a non living object (trees) as alive is that other non-living objects will get in. You'll find that Fire fulfills all of the catogories in the vague way they are explained (the vagueness is so that plants can get in).

Do trees really have Sensitivity? No, plants have no nervous system. But the list explains Sensitivity in such a loose way that plants pass the test. According to the list, sensitivity is just reacting to changes. In this amazingly stupid statement my computer now becomes sensitive as well as my thermometer and my air conditioning.

Do trees really have Movement? No, plants have no muscles in which to apply any sort of force. All internal water movement in a tree is done by pressure which is a side product of the trees design and not induced by the tree itself. Again, the definition for movement is loose enough to allow trees to pass. Unfortunately hose pipes pass the test too.

Frankly the list is a load of bull and im amazed you don't see it.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Odd (none / 0) (#32)
by DG on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 12:06:06 PM PST
Hmm, my post was a reactionary post.. much like a lot of stuff on here.. maybe it came off wrong, maybe I read it diffrently, I don't care anymore, I was exploring something I thought about alot.. guess I should have done it somewhere else? Hmm.. not much fun without imput from someone other than 14 year olds like on /.,
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
OK then, how about this: (none / 0) (#27)
by tkatchev on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 10:23:28 AM PST
What about open flame? That fits all seven criteria fully.

Or are your seven points a one-way induction? If so, then what good are they?


--
Peace and much love...




Wrong (none / 0) (#44)
by First Incision on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 08:52:29 PM PST
A flame, if the criteria are applied very generously, only meets 6. A flame has no sensitivity. It cannot react to stimuli.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Oh sure it does. (none / 0) (#45)
by tkatchev on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:03:51 PM PST
There are all sorts of things you can do to a flame and have it react in some way.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Missing the point entirely (none / 0) (#29)
by majubma on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 11:10:33 AM PST
The point isn't whether the definition works or not--the definition does more or less what is was designed to do. The point is that picking seven criteria with poor motivation is a sign that the underlying process has not been understood in the least. (Also, these seven criteria could easily be replaced by one, which I'll leave you to think about for the moment.)

These seven criteria do not constitute a scientific theory, since is impossible to make any predictions from them. They also lack explanatory power (Why must living things respirate? Why must they move? Et cetera.)

Adami[1] suggests an embryonic definition of life which, whle it has its own problems, is much simpler, more specific, and has predictive power:
Life is a property of an ensemble of units which share information coded in a physical substrate and which, in the presence of noise, manages to keep its entropy significantly lower than the maximal entropy of the ensemble, in timescales exceeding the natural timescale of decay of the information-bearing substrate by many orders of magnitude.


[1]Adami, Christoph. Introduction to Artificial Life. New York:Springer-Verlag, 1998.

-- All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

 
Dead or Alive (none / 0) (#14)
by richie roo on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 05:22:47 AM PST
Unfortunately, your so beautifully crafted criteria fail to cover the biggest area of contention when it comes to determining whether something is alive or dead.

Virii.

The simple fact is, no-one knows whether they're alive or dead.

I think a better "rule" for living things would be to ask whether that object can think and make decisions (from simple biochemical reactions in a tree to enable its' leaves to follow the sun, to massive cascade pathways in a human that regulate blood glucose levels).

In this day and age, computers have been developed that can learn and make decisions for themselves. (After all, a computer could be likened to a human in a coma being kept alive via life-support equipment).

Computers are alive. Think twice before flicking that switch.

RR.


Dead or Alive 3 for Xbox (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Phssthpok on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 10:46:34 PM PST
Unfortunately, your so beautifully crafted criteria fail to cover the biggest area of contention when it comes to determining whether something is alive or dead.
HatBot's criteria are not beautifully crafted; they are plagiarized and poorly-formatted examples of pseudoscience. The "area of contention" you refer to is blatantly off-topic, largely uncontended, and nowhere near as large as the (topical) question regarding trees. Also, dead is not the opposite of alive. Had you simply said "alive or not," you might have maintained the appearance that you were at least capable of communication.
Virii.
And there goes any chance of you fooling someone into thinking you possessed language skills. The word you meant to use was viruses, the correct plural of virus. If you haven't studied Latin, you can only make a fool of yourself by incorrectly pluralizing a word that does not even have an attributed plural form to begin with.
The simple fact is, no-one knows whether they're alive or dead.
The simple fact is that you do not know whether they are alive or not, and you have not bothered to provide the slightest argument. Had you merely attempted to apply the seven "beautifully crafted criteria" to a typical virus, you would have seen that it passes every one with no ambiguity.
I think a better "rule" for living things would be to ask whether that object can think and make decisions (from simple biochemical reactions in a tree to enable its' leaves to follow the sun, to massive cascade pathways in a human that regulate blood glucose levels).
This barbarically untopical suggestion demonstrates such a complete lack of understanding of decision theory, game theory, biological tropism, and the nature of consciousness, I would only bring myself down to your level by acknowledging it as anything but evasion of the subject matter.
In this day and age, computers have been developed that can learn and make decisions for themselves. (After all, a computer could be likened to a human in a coma being kept alive via life-support equipment).

Computers are alive. Think twice before flicking that switch.
This is more rubbish. Your entire argument was constructed with no support, simply to provide an excuse to say something stupid about computers. It is as contrived as saying "Think twice before burning that piece of paper with 'I am alive.' written on it."
RR.
What the fuck kind of name is Richie Roo? Are you a spoiled 12-year-old marsupial?


Virus. Virii. Study your declension tables. (1.00 / 1) (#55)
by richie roo on Wed Jun 26th, 2002 at 05:16:12 AM PST
As a holder of a degree in biochemistry (specialising in biodegradation and genetic manipulation), I feel I'm somewhat more qualified to talk about this than someone who feels it's necessary to rubbish someones's opinion.

As for studying Latin, yep. I'm afraid you're wrong again. I have qualifications in that too... now pay attention at the back there:

Virus comes from the latin for "poison", a 2nd declension noun (mainly masculine) and therefore becomes plural by adding an "i" to the root.

Virii (or for those ignorant of latin grammar, viruses) are not considered alive due to the fact they are merely a core of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat and require host cells to replicate (NB. "replicate", not "reproduce" - hence the continuing debate on their status).

Now then "Phssthpok" (can I buy another vowel please?) - I expect a few more "fuck" words in your next reply, because you must be getting real angry by now.

RR.


Full of it as usual. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 26th, 2002 at 06:35:59 AM PST
If you were really a Latin scholar, you'd know fine well that "ii" pluralises words ending in "ius", not "us". You'd know that the Latin "virus" is a neuter noun, not "mainly masculine". How many male and female viruses have you met?

You'd also know that scholars argue about "virus", because they don't have a definitive usage of the pluralised form -- some people (wrongly) think it's "virora", as both "virus" and "corpus" are neuter nouns, and the plural of corpus is "corpora". But corpus is 3rd declension and virus is 2nd declension. Many people believe the plural of virus is also "virus", like fructus.

Of course, that's all Latin. If you're writing wholly in English, use the English pluralisation - viruses. Anything else makes you a pretentious twit.

Given your lacklustre "qualifications in latin", I highly doubt your professed "degree in biochemistry".


 
My my my... (none / 0) (#35)
by HatBot on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 02:12:21 PM PST
Wow, you people seem bent on deeming anything and everything that is alive, not and vice versa. As far as the fire comment goes, fire does not reproduce, it only grows. As for all the confusion of the list being incomplete, wrong, etc. i took it off of a a childrens web site and upon looking at it now, i realize they got something mixed up, excretion goes under the respiration category, and in actual science there is one about a living thing needing to have genetic information (DNA) in order to be considered living. Although i will admit that the list is flawed, as it is still debatable as to whether or not virii are living or non-living.


They're not out to get you. (none / 0) (#37)
by because it isnt on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 02:30:56 PM PST
But as you admit, your list is from a kid's site. In school teaching, science is dumbed down to introduce it to kids. Chemistry is basically a continual process of "Remember what we taught you last year? That was a lie. Now, ...". For example, in the UK, 5 to 8 year olds are taught that all gases are poisonous. What's wrong with this picture?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Very true point (none / 0) (#39)
by HatBot on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 02:43:37 PM PST
although i think several of these people never made it passed grade school so they still hold true to the simple minded, ''what mommy tells me has to be true'' mentallity.


 
Where? I wasn't taught that (none / 0) (#41)
by gordonjcp on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 04:46:28 PM PST
Then again, I already knew quite a lot about different gases by then anyway. Comes from growing up with one parent who's a teacher and the other is a motor mechanic studying particle physics. I had an "interesting" skill set when I started school - I could read better than most of the 10-year-olds in my school, and could change a tyre in 2 minutes flat.


I have the anecdotal evidence (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by because it isnt on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 04:56:38 PM PST
of a student teacher, when she brought up the matter in polite company. Do they call you Baby Driver?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
It is also worth (none / 0) (#57)
by Amitabh Bachan on Thu Jun 27th, 2002 at 07:27:59 AM PST
bearing in mind that the majority of the UK adult population have 'learnt' from the left wing media that all chemicals are poisonous and should be replaced by nice organic alternatives.


Munch on this (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by KingAzzy on Thu Jun 27th, 2002 at 11:20:35 AM PST
Here's a yummy asbestos and DDT salad sandwich for you to munch on!


It appears (none / 0) (#59)
by Amitabh Bachan on Thu Jun 27th, 2002 at 01:18:45 PM PST
that harmful chemicals have interfered with your intellectual abilities. Please post again sometime later when you have recovered - thanks.


 
This is frightening. (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 10:52:31 PM PST
Is it just me, or is PotatoError getting more and more coherent? Almost intelligent?

The mind boggles.

Of course, it could also be the drugs and alcohol.


Yours or his? [n/t] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 05:45:16 AM PST



 
Leaves of Grass? (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 08:21:30 AM PST
Huh, something about Walt Whitman? Oh, Trees and Grass. Never mind.


Talking of summer poetry: (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 11:07:53 AM PST
A cookie goes to the first person to tell me the poet, the title, and the rest of the poem because I can't find it on Google:

Cottonwool clouds loiter
A lawnmower, very far, birrs
The a bee comes, to a crimson rose
And softly, deftly and fatly, crams
A velvet body in


I'm so confused. (none / 0) (#34)
by tkatchev on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 01:59:44 PM PST
Please explain to me where the rhyming lines in this piece of "poetry" are.

Much thanks.


--
Peace and much love...




That's from memory, (none / 0) (#36)
by because it isnt on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 02:27:03 PM PST
so I may have the wrong line endings, and it's not the whole stanza.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
etc. (none / 0) (#38)
by HatBot on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 02:32:26 PM PST
the lines in poetry don't always have to rhyme, though they often do. Poetry is just an artistic
expression, similar to writing a creative story, only with a more awkward wording and it's ususally short.


Yes they do. (none / 0) (#46)
by tkatchev on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:08:49 PM PST
Yes, poetry does have to rhyme for it to be poetry.

Saying that poetry is "just some text with awkward linebreaks" is like saying that being able to finger-paint makes you an artist.

No, sorry, being able to write poetry is much more than learning how to use the 'enter' key creatively.


--
Peace and much love...




why do you hate China? nt (none / 0) (#47)
by nathan on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:27:50 PM PST
n/t
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I don't. (0.00 / 1) (#49)
by tkatchev on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:33:29 PM PST
Like I said, the thing called "poetry" in Chinese culture bears absolutely no resemblance to the thing Indo-European cultures call "poetry".

Citing Chinese poetry in this context is a non-sequitur; sort of like if I started quoting a calculus textbook during a discussion of literary merits of various authors. Technically, a calculus textbook is also "literature", but in reality, for all intents and purposes, nobody cares.


--
Peace and much love...




 
I'm confused too. (none / 0) (#40)
by nathan on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 04:03:25 PM PST
The oar rips apart the spring water

On which the leaf-like boat is floating.

A tiny hook dangles

At the end of a silk cord.

The islet is covered with blossoms

And my jug is full of wine.

Upon these thousand acres of waves there is freedom.

WTF is with this Li Yu stuff?! It's nuts!!

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Oh my. (none / 0) (#43)
by hauntedattics on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 08:02:14 PM PST
That was, like, so beautiful. My soul swooned softly just reading it.



 
Uhm. (none / 0) (#48)
by tkatchev on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:28:12 PM PST
The oar rips apart the spring water on which the leaf-like boat is floating; a tiny hook dangles at the end of a silk cord. The islet is covered with blossoms, and my jug is full of wine. Upon these thousand acres there is freedom.

Hm, looks a little suspicious, don't you think? I can cite thousands upon thousands of lines of "poetry" of this kind; for example, how about this "brilliant" verse:

riverrun, past Eve and Adam's
From swerve of shore
To bend of bay
Brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation
Back
To Howth Castle and Environs.
Sir Tristan,
Violer d'Amores...


Brilliant, don't you think? Shouldn't I get the Nobel prize for this sort of stuff?

P.S. This is by no means meant to be a put-down on chinese poetry; being completely out of the Chinese cultural context (of which being able to read Chinese I consider to be a necessary first pre-requisite) I cannot comment on the subject.

However, what I do know is that the thing called "poetry" in Chinese bears little, if any, resemblance to the thing we call "poetry" in the "Western World".


--
Peace and much love...




care to explain (none / 0) (#50)
by nathan on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:34:09 PM PST
Why the term 'poetry' was chosen by translators to describe something so obviously dissimilar to Western poetry? I'd say Chinese and Western poetry have obvious similarities, and that the term 'poetry' can bear a broader definition than you have chosen.

Anglo-Saxon poetry didn't rhyme either, and today Yevtushenko alternates rhyming and unrhymed sections within single poems. I'm totally confused here.

OT: are there good translations of Mihai Eminescu in Russian?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Well duh. (0.00 / 1) (#53)
by tkatchev on Wed Jun 26th, 2002 at 02:05:10 AM PST
What else are you going to call it? I doubt anybody is going to invent a new word for the concept of "structured text written in Chinese characters".

Also, what you deem "unrhymed Anglo-Saxon poetry" was an oral form that was meant to be sung or recited. (Think rap music.) The oral epic poem is a genre common to almost all Indo-European cultures, and includes very difficult and involved rules on how the text must be structured. In fact, rhyming lines were invented because the original rules for composing oral poetry were too difficult; rhymes were supposed to make the life of the author easier.

As for Yevtushenko, the example is not quite correct since 99.9% of what he writes is rhymed.

As for translations -- sadly, I do not know of any.


--
Peace and much love...




does this mean I win? (none / 0) (#54)
by nathan on Wed Jun 26th, 2002 at 03:53:49 AM PST
*KISS*!

A link for you!!! The translation is almost totally great, especially considering the translator died at only 19 years of age. I think he did this version when he was 17.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
A relevant poem (none / 0) (#60)
by Blarney on Sat Jun 29th, 2002 at 03:27:09 PM PST
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all.

 Ogden Nash


 
mmmm... (none / 0) (#62)
by Fako on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 10:12:51 PM PST
Interesting...


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.