From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V19 #59
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest        Tuesday, August 2 2011        Volume 19 : Number 059



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  bell house in november                   [sergeant redacted <woj@smoe.org>]
  Re: bell house in november            [michael wells <braneout@wowway.com>]
  Re: For What It Is Worth        ["Eddie Tews" <eddie@durianapocalypse.net>]
  RE: For What It Is Worth               ["Brian Huddell" <bhuddell@cox.net>]
  RE: For What It Is Worth                 ["Marc" <malberts1@earthlink.net>]
  Fwd: NEW on DIME: Robyn Hitchcock - Windsor Firestation Arts centre - 2nd June 2011 (reseed)  [lep <s]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:38:20 -0400
From: sergeant redacted <woj@smoe.org>
Subject: bell house in november

just noticed this:

<URL:http://www.thebellhouseny.com/list_all_shows_inc_press24.php?event_id=3287&event_day=SAT+11%2F19>

	ROBYN HITCHCOCK 

	For this special show, Robyn will be performing his 1990 solo
	album Eye (originally released on Twin Tone Records, later
	re-issued by Rhino).

tickets on sale at ticketweb:

<URL:http://www.ticketweb.com/t3/sale/SaleEventDetail?dispatch=loadSelectionData&eventId=3839645&REFERRAL_ID=tmfeed&crosssite=TM_US:735282:341009>

woj

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:48:11 -0500
From: michael wells <braneout@wowway.com>
Subject: Re: bell house in november

And it appears you can buy a combo ticket on discount to see JWH and  
Minus 5 later that evening...


On Jul 29, 2011, at 12:38 PM, sergeant redacted wrote:

just noticed this:

<URL:http://www.thebellhouseny.com/list_all_shows_inc_press24.php?event_id=3287&event_day=SAT+11%2F19 
 >

	ROBYN HITCHCOCK

	For this special show, Robyn will be performing his 1990 solo
	album Eye (originally released on Twin Tone Records, later
	re-issued by Rhino).

tickets on sale at ticketweb:

<URL:http://www.ticketweb.com/t3/sale/SaleEventDetail?dispatch=loadSelectionData&eventId=3839645&REFERRAL_ID=tmfeed&crosssite=TM_US:735282:341009 
 >

woj

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:34:04 -0700
From: "Eddie Tews" <eddie@durianapocalypse.net>
Subject: Re: For What It Is Worth

<The same is true with
Koch's postulates.  While they present a framework that can be used, there
are other lines of evidence that exist that can be used as well to prove
disease causation.>

postulates aren't "lines of evidence", they're logic.  if they can't be 
satisfied empirically, the theory is disproven.


<So what you're stuck with is that for you to toss out Pasteur, you not only
have to explain everything the germ theory explains but you have to be more
successful at doing so.>

nah, you could just say, "well, we don't know what *does* cause disease; but 
it's clear what *doesn't*."  but having said that, 
<URL:http://tinyurl.com/2foq29> does the trick.


<No one on the
scientific medicine side would ever suggest that eating fruits and veggies
is a bad thing.  In fact, scientific medicine has tested and retested the
hypothesis that fruits and veggies are good for you, and they found that
they are.  What they haven't found, however, is that just eating them will
keep you from getting an infection.>

genuinely curious: do you have a citation?  i mean to say, have there been 
studies of low-fat raw vegans' resistance to "infection"?

personally, i'm at three-and-a-half years and counting, bruddah.  not a long 
time, to be sure.  but considering the rate at which i used to take ill in 
my cooked vegan days, it seems to me significant.  doug graham claims to 
have not been sick in twenty-five years.  you can call him a liar, if you 
like, at his message board. 
<URL:http://www.vegsource.com/talk/raw/index.html>.

(should perhaps note that i did get sick once during the time period: ate a 
bad jakfruit; had a very rough night.  didn't taste "off" to me, though it 
was a bit tangy.  and do you know what?  i didn't eat any fucking drugs. 
didn't eat anything at all, for that matter: water fasted for twenny-four 
hours or so, and was fine after that.  didn't even miss a day of work --  
though i certainly didn't feel at my best *during* the workday...)

hey, my offer of a little experiment is still open.  i gather that you're no 
longer in seattle; but, no matter: i'll come to you.  set up the experiment, 
bro'!  round up a posse of illin' motherfuckers, and train them to expose 
the holy hell out of me.  i'll just laugh and laugh.  guaran-fuckin'-tee you 
i won't get a "infection".

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:00:26 -0500
From: "Brian Huddell" <bhuddell@cox.net>
Subject: RE: For What It Is Worth

Eddie (goddamn you gotta love Eddie!) writ:

> hey, my offer of a little experiment is still open.  i gather that you're
no 
> longer in seattle; but, no matter: i'll come to you.  set up the
experiment, 
> bro'!  round up a posse of illin' motherfuckers, and train them to expose 
> the holy hell out of me.  i'll just laugh and laugh.  guaran-fuckin'-tee
you 
> i won't get a "infection".

Are there limits? Let's say we could get ahold of a coupla vials of Smallpox
or Ebola, and make some brownies out of that shit. You eat them, what
happens? (alright, maybe we don't cook the virus; smear it on your nose, I
guess)

More importantly, are you still sending dispatches from faraway lands? I
never found your journal site (probably my error).

+brian in New Orleans

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:41:06 -0400
From: "Marc" <malberts1@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: For What It Is Worth

Eddie wrote:
<<<The same is true with
Koch's postulates.  While they present a framework that can be used, there
are other lines of evidence that exist that can be used as well to prove
disease causation.>

postulates aren't "lines of evidence", they're logic.  if they can't be
satisfied empirically, the theory is disproven.>>

First of all, we're not dealing with formal logic.  In formal logic, you
have a set of logical rules that derive from each other and there is a
formal truth that you reach.  In science, you deal with evidence, hypothesis
generation, hypothesis testing, and hypothesis revision and the result is a
provisional truth subject to future study.  You're trying to establish a
standard to prove a point that absolutely no one involved in science would
accept and then trying to say "aaaaaaaa-HAAAAAAAA!"  What you're doing,
however, is what the Intelligent Design creationists do when they say "the
study couldn't explain exactly how proteins could sequence themselves on
their own to form a flagellum, so therefore they couldn't and it must have
been an Intelligent Designer who makes it work."  As I explained earlier,
science is about developing converging lines of evidence.  If you cannot
accept that this is the case, the argument is over because you're arguing
against a strawman of how science works.  

<<<So what you're stuck with is that for you to toss out Pasteur, you not
only
have to explain everything the germ theory explains but you have to be more
successful at doing so.>

nah, you could just say, "well, we don't know what *does* cause disease; but

it's clear what *doesn't*."  but having said that, 
<URL:http://tinyurl.com/2foq29> does the trick.>>

That would be something we could say if it were true.  It's not, so I'll
repeat--converging lines of evidence.  One study may not be able to
definitively say whatever is the hypothesis is definitively true (in fact, a
single study cannot, no matter how convincing--this is often forgotten by
proponents of pseudoscientific beliefs as they will ignore disconfirming
evidence by the bushel for one small study that confirms their pre-existing
belief).  As an example, let's assume we didn't know germs could cause
disease.  What evidence do we have that they do?  The answer is Koch's
postulates.  You treat them as an a priori logic test created out of whole
cloth to determine if germs cause disease, when instead you should look at
them as lines of evidence available to them that they saw over and over
again that converged with the germ theory being the only answer.  While they
couldn't be used unaltered going forward because of ethical reasons, they
were chosen in the first place because years of research prior showed that
the four postulates held together provided an adequate test.  When it was
determined afterwards there were conditions for which the tests failed, they
failed in such a way that they did not disprove the germ theory but rather
introduced additional refinements.  In other words, science took a look at
the body of evidence, said "our theory cannot explain everything we are
seeing, so we need to modify the theory."  

Tilden's toxemia theory is the exact opposite.  In order to accept toxemia
as the cause of all disease then you would have to literally say "ah, forget
that flu stuff--the bird flu and swine flu epidemics over the year were
caused by mass outbreaks of eating bacon and family bickering" because that
is exactly what Tilden says.  So while there is a neat theory there (one
cause for disease?  Boy, do I wish that were true.  Health care crisis would
be out the window tomorrow!), Tilden presents zero evidence for his case and
ignores the literal Grand Canyon full of disconfirming studies that
demonstrate the germ theory is at least correct enough that it has improved
life expectancy by about 130% over the last century or so.

<<No one on the
scientific medicine side would ever suggest that eating fruits and veggies
is a bad thing.  In fact, scientific medicine has tested and retested the
hypothesis that fruits and veggies are good for you, and they found that
they are.  What they haven't found, however, is that just eating them will
keep you from getting an infection.>

genuinely curious: do you have a citation?  i mean to say, have there been 
studies of low-fat raw vegans' resistance to "infection"?>>

Actually, yes:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2486444/

It's a small study, but it should give you insight into how science actually
works as opposed to Tilden's attempt.  Among the various concepts that are
involved are hypothesis testing, a willingness to explore benefits of a raw
vegan diet, and while the authors definitely expected to find no correlation
between immunoresponse and a raw vegan diet (their expectations were met)
they were willing to test the null hypothesis that there would be a benefit
and measured for that.  They even found some results that went against their
null hypothesis (they thought initially such a restrictive diet would reduce
quality of life measures, but believe after the study that increased QoL due
to the empowering nature of "being able to do something about health"
probably offset that).  And, of course, they didn't say this one study is
the "One and Only Truth!!!!!1!" (tm) or that because QoL didn't diminish
that everyone should immediately switch to a raw vegan diet.

There is, of course, room for more study.  I wasn't specifically referring
to immunoresponse in my comment above.  Rather, I was referring to the fact
that nutrition is something that pseudoscience proponents often suggest that
science doesn't look at nutrition.  The conclusion, therefore, is because
the pseudoscientific practitioner does include diet ("scientists don't want
you to know about this!" claims Kevin Trudeau, for example, a known con man
who makes hundreds of millions peddling this line of thinking) that anything
else that is wackier is on equally solid and logical  footing.  All I know
is that I have never seen a scientific medicine practitioner say "you know
what you really need?  More red meat, especially bacon!"  Well, maybe the
Bacontarians, but since they actually let people know about the joke they
don't count.

<<personally, i'm at three-and-a-half years and counting, bruddah.  not a
long 
time, to be sure.  but considering the rate at which i used to take ill in 
my cooked vegan days, it seems to me significant.  doug graham claims to 
have not been sick in twenty-five years.  you can call him a liar, if you 
like, at his message board. 
<URL:http://www.vegsource.com/talk/raw/index.html>.>>

I have no need to call him a liar.  Sometimes people do get lucky, and other
people don't get lucky.  But remember--the plural of anecdotes is not data.
Data requires careful control to ensure confounders are excluded.  In the
case of you and Doug Graham, we have no information on genetic
predisposition to disease, level of exercise before and after, how much
immunization people around you have compared to before, etc.  All of those
confounding factors could lead one to live a relatively disease-free life
without there being any direct relationship to diet.

I myself am much closer to Bacontarian than raw food vegan, for example, I'm
overweight, I don't exercise much (not since the last two knee injuries both
required surgery), and I haven't had as much as a cold in the last three
years.  Does that mean my diet and lifestyle should be applied en masse or
that the germ theory of disease should be thrown out the window?  I think
we'd agree the answer is no, so I'm not sure why you or Doug should serve as
anything other than a nice hypothesis that can certainly be scientifically
tested if people are interested in it.  My hunch is that Dr. Graham didn't
have something to sell (http://foodnsport.com/) he might be more interested
to know how true or not true the anecdotes turn out to be when subjected to
controlled study.

<<(should perhaps note that i did get sick once during the time period: ate
a 
bad jakfruit; had a very rough night.  didn't taste "off" to me, though it 
was a bit tangy.  and do you know what?  i didn't eat any fucking drugs. 
didn't eat anything at all, for that matter: water fasted for twenny-four 
hours or so, and was fine after that.  didn't even miss a day of work --  
though i certainly didn't feel at my best *during* the workday...)>>

Sorry to hear that.  I eat jackfruit every time I go back to Vietnam--love
the stuff.  I'd hate to have a mental association with food-borne illness.
That said, I'm going to have to assume that you didn't have toxemia at the
time since you didn't mention eating a lot of red meat or having a fight
with someone, but rather one of the common food-borne illnesses:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodborneinfections_g.htm#mostcom
mon

<<hey, my offer of a little experiment is still open.  i gather that you're
no 
longer in seattle; but, no matter: i'll come to you.  set up the experiment,

bro'!  round up a posse of illin' motherfuckers, and train them to expose 
the holy hell out of me.  i'll just laugh and laugh.  guaran-fuckin'-tee you

i won't get a "infection".>>

Aside from the fact such grandstanding stunts are not proof (what is the
statistical power for a sample size of one, exactly?), in order to do such
an experiment we would literally have to break international laws governing
medical ethics.   The Declaration of Helsinki, for example, would prohibit
such a study, even by volunteers, as unethical as your rejection of existing
scientific evidence would not allow for true informed consent, and the
introduction of known harms just to see if they'll harm a specific group of
subjects is practically the reason why we have such international treaties
on health research in the first place (the Nazis, for example, had no such
ethical qualms about these sorts of studies, but the post-war world
determined that this is an example we don't want repeated).  

By the way--if you're inclined to do such a study on your own to prove to
yourself you're right (remember Richard Feynman's famous statement that the
first principle of science is to not fool yourself, because you're the
easiest one to fool), let me suggest loads of unprotected sex with
prostitutes.  At least then, when you do catch the disease despite eating
plenty of raw carrots, you'll have had fun catching it. :D

Seriously, though--don't do it.  You may not believe it, but the science is
settled to the point where there is no longer a doubt that germs can cause
disease.  I'd hate to think I encouraged you to get syphilis or something
just to prove a point.

Marc

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 03:45:56 -0400
From: lep <softboygirl@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: NEW on DIME: Robyn Hitchcock - Windsor Firestation Arts centre - 2nd June 2011 (reseed)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DIME <dimebot-31@dimeadozen.org>
Date: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM
Subject: NEW on DIME: Robyn Hitchcock - Windsor Firestation Arts
centre - 2nd June 2011 (reseed)
To: DIME <dimebot-31@dimeadozen.org>



A new torrent has been uploaded to DIME.

Torrent: 367540
Title: Robyn Hitchcock - Windsor Firestation Arts centre - 2nd June
2011 (reseed)
Size: 460.21 MB
Category: Acoustic
Uploaded by: funkygibbon

Info hash: b05f20ade94b94c01822347fe59954a42c4abc8f

Description
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn Hitchcock
The Firestation Arts Centre ,
Windsor, 2nd June 2011

Intro
Queen Elvis
Only The Stones Remain
I Love The Idea Of You
I Often Dream Of Trains
The Wreck Of The Arthur Lee
Luckiness
Museum Of Sex
Old Man Weather
Sinister But She Was Happy
You And Oblivion
Dismal City
Sounds Great When You're Dead

Encore:
<post break chat>
The Crystal Ship
My Head Is My Only House Unless It Rains
Ole Tarantula

From Terry Edwards support slot
Hey Louie, Let's Do Lunch (w\ Robyn on harmonica)

VOCALS\GUITAR - Robyn Hitchcock
CELLO -  Jenny Adejayan
SAX\GUITAR\VOCALS - Terry Edwards

R-09 recorder - Sound Pro SP-CMC-8 cards with mini battery box
SD Card--Wav--edited with CD wave--Flac Frontend
Taped from front row

A warm up show for the Beefheart sets but w\o band so a nice solo
acoustic show with Robyns usual in between song flights of fanastical
non sequitors

SORRY ABOUT THE 1ST ATTEMPT F**K UP! Share and enjoy!
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can use the URL below to download the torrent (you may have to login).

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=367540&hit=1

Take care!

dimeadozen.org


### Mail queued to EzTorrent v0.6.5r383 async outbound mailer on
2011-07-31 at 21:50:04 GMT
### Mail forwarded to MTA by EzTorrent v0.6.5r383 async outbound
mailer on 2011-07-31 at 21:51:03 GMT



- -- 
"people with opinions just go around bothering one another."  -- the buddha

------------------------------

End of fegmaniax-digest V19 #59
*******************************