To booze or not to booze . . .

I usually avoid newspaper articles about the dangers of alcohol consumption.

I don’t mind the one’s about teenage binge-ing. These tend to prompt a few minutes thought along the lines of: if we hadn’t put all our energies for the last twenty years into trying to keep the young off cigarettes and Class C recreational pharmaceuticals, then maybe they wouldn’t be going out to get slaughtered every Friday night. The kids have got to do something transgressive after all.

In the same vein I have some sympathy with the Moslem parents who opposed the ‘smoking in public places’ ban. Given that their children weren’t allowed to drink alcohol, there ought to be something a bit wicked they could go and do while they sipped their orange juice, without having to stand outside in the cold and rain.

It’s the doom-laden articles about middle-aged, middle-class women hitting the Sauvignon Blanc after a hard day in the office that I  prefer to avoid.

These  usually contain one of those self-help checklists – where answering ‘yes’ to more than two of the questions is supposed to indicate that you are already on the primrose path to fully fledged alcoholism.

Do you look forward to a drink in the evening?

Do you ever drink alone?

Have you had a hangover in the last 12 months?

And so on, with a range of questions a good half of which are what we classicists would call nonne? questions – that is to say, they expect the answer ‘yes’.

But this weekend, being entirely off the booze for Lent, I read all the anti-drink tirades (there’s a couple in the papers most Sundays) with a nicely clear conscience. Not just the ones about the women drinkers, but the sad little pieces about how 24 hour pub opening has failed -- surprise, surprise – to turn chilly Britain into a Mediterranean café culture.

Long term readers of this blog, with good memories, may recall that this is not my first attempt at taking forty days and forty nights off the bottle. Last year I had a pretty good go at it, but with a get-out clause: namely, I allowed myself to drink “abroad” (and abroad started the far side of security at the airport and included the Irish embassy).

The same get-out clause operates this year, but I’m not actually going away anywhere. So this time it really is wall-to-wall ginger beer. And just like last year, I am so far -- almost three weeks in -- feeling no different than when I was enjoying a glass or two of wine of an evening. No better and certainly no thinner (though I cant speak, of course, for my liver).

Reading them now in my confident state of abstinence, I sense something missing from all these well-meaning articles, and something a bit out of proportion. Of course some of the stories they tell are shocking: people dying of cirrhosis in their thirties can only be very bad news indeed. But, at the same time, this unmitigated finger-wagging is never going to hit the target.

Because the bottom line is that – while there are both sad and bad reasons for drinking, and some tragedies in its wake  – for the last 8000 years alcohol has, on balance, provided more pleasure than pain. It tastes nice, it oils the social wheels, it helps you put the screaming toddlers to bed without resorting to violence, and it hasn’t yet brought any civilisation to its knees. As drugs go, it’s really not got such a bad track record.

So when Easter comes, I shall be back on the old Falernian

Comments

[Tony Francis]

Dear Cec H: Of course, this is a good example of trying to answer philosophical or theological questions using mathematics or empiricism. Einstein preferred a "steady state" universe, and was notably perturbed when it became apparent that the universe began with Big Bang. This bothered a whole generation of cosmologists, because it smacked too much of creationism in Genesis. Now a new set of problems have emerged. Everything in the early quantum history of the Universe have to be set exactly like they are. Otherwise, life could never exist. It is the "anthropomorphic" or "anthropometric" problem. This has led various cosmologists who refuse to belief in a creator God of the Judeo-Christian variety to propose that multiple universes are created all the time, with different physical characteristics. In their view, this obviates the need for a creator God. If there are infinite universes, of course one will arise where life can occur. There is nothing in empirical science to justify this view. There is nothing in mathematics to support it, either. But this view is repeated over and over as proven fact. It is science fiction, based on the particular bias of those scientists.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[Tony Francis]

Cec: I agree with you. I took Relativity using a text by Peter Bergmann who was a student of Einstein. He notes that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. If two objects (like two galaxies) are moving apart at some speed which is a fraction of c, then the distance is enlarging between them. The "new" theories say that "space" expands faster than the speed of light. Since "space" can consist of nothing, it is ridiculous to talk of space expanding. It wreaks of the old "ether" theories. But that is necessary to make the various forms of cosmic inflation work out. Either "space" has to expand at 61c, or the speed of light has to be variable with time. The problem of galaxies crossing each other, known as the "local turbulance problem", is explained by "quantum fluctuations" which supposedly occur during the faster than light expansion. This expansion is caused by gravity, which early on is repulsive, then becomes attractive. Cosmic gazers look on the Background Radiation, and see many things. It has become the "monkey bones" or the "sheep innards" of old: seers can predict all kinds of things by looking at the Cosmic Background Radiation. There are about 30 articles on wiki stating all this as proven fact. There are about 20 stating it is bunkum. Faster than light should be considered science fiction for the time being.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_background_radiation

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

[Cec Higarth]

OK, Tony. I give up.
Someone seems to be having a semantics problem. I think physicists need courses in English. Space is the infinite nothingness that the equally infinite somethingness expands into. Space itself doesn't expand, mainly because of what it already is, to wit infinite. It just is (or isn't).
So here's my personal working hypothesis: As the cameras start to roll, all the matter is in the form of unstable energy constrained by gravity or whatever in its pre-BANG infinitesimal cosmic black hole, and everything else is good old Democritean void. Then BANG! - and the energy blasts out into the space at (if the inflationists insist) hyper-light speeds in all directions bouncing into and off itself until it slows itself down enough to convert (back?) to matter. That makes some kind of sense.
Now we have atoms and void (again), and everything is flowing like mad. So Heraclitus is happy: Democritus is happy: Epicurus is happy: Einstein is happy. Since none of this is certain or complete, Heisenberg is happy and Goedel is as close to happy as he can allow himself to be. The cat still can't make up its mind. Pyrrho's judgement is not just suspended, but in free-fall; and Spinoza's God is back in business.
But it's not space that's expanding, just occupied space, outside which there's still "plenty o' nothin'". (Gershwin, thou shouldst be living at this hour.)

[Tony Francis]

The various theories claim that "space expands faster than the speed of light"; which is different than matter travelling faster than the speed of light:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_universe
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume

[Cec Hogarth]

I had quite forgotten. Jennifer for women is Toy Boy.
How can matter travel faster than light? I thought Einstein’s e-mc2 meant that it all becomes energy at light speed (or is that ridiculously naïve?), after which I don’t suppose velocity is much of a consideration, let alone measurable.

[Tony Francis]

Interesting animations of the n-body problem can be found (click the right column of the page for animation):
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~charlie/3body/

and (click the blue field at the bottom of the page):
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/math/multistep.html

For n-body in general (and interestingly, no mention that there is no solution):
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

[Tony Francis]

Dear Cec H: Ignore the mathematics in Ellis. I used to try to work all this out, and would never get past page 3 of any physics book. Just look for the big concepts. In my thesis I argued that the atomic theory of Leucipus and Democritus, being in contradistiction to the "Theory of the One" of Parmenides, Melissus and Zeno, inadvertantly led to the discovery of quantum mechanics. In other words, by disproving Zeno and the Eliatic School, the Greeks had invented quantum mechanics. I don't think anyone on my panel believed it, but no one could think of any way to refute it:
http://www.thebigview.com/greeks/parmenides.html

http://www.thebigview.com/greeks/democritus.html

The problem with quantum mechanics, as applied by chemists using the Schrodinger Equation, is the n-body problem. The Schrodinger Equation is a variant of the n-body problem. But the n-body problem has no solution. So Schrodinger has no solution. Furthermore, Schrodinger is doomed by at least two fatal problems: the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation and the Hartree-Fock Approximation. The problem can never be solved using our present understanding of mathematics:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Oppenheimer_Approximation

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartree-Fock
There are other significant problems with it, like time dependency. All of this is relevant to Cosmic Mathematics. It doesn't matter whether the problem is sub-atomic particles, or stars in a galaxy. They are all n-body problems, and cannot be solved, except by approximation. The article by Ellis points this out. Also, he states that certain philosophical assumptions must be incorporated into any astrophysical mathematic theory. And there's the rub: philosophical assumptions can't be part of an empirical system. But don't write anything like this on blogs where they worsphip the theology of cosmic inflation. They say that matter can travel faster than the speed of light. But there is no proof this can happen. Then they point to the theory of cosmic inflation: "space", but not matter had to travel at 61 times the speed of light to make it work out. Therefore, space can expand at 61 times the speed of light. It has to be true, or cosmic inflation wouldn't be true. And we know cosmic inflation is true, because light can travel at 61 times the speed of light. Does this sound like a circular argument? Don't mention this on those sites.

[megafauna]

I raise my hat in respect to you - 40 days without alcohol is quite an achievement.

A few years ago when I first got out of uni I stayed at a place for a month which didn't allow alcohol - it was a really (and surprisingly) difficult month, one that I've never even considered repeating.

[Cec Hogarth]

Dear Tony.
A Wikiphile I ain't. Everything you find there you absolutely have to verify from reputable sources. There's plenty of rubbish in print, too, but at least we don't have PR people and maniacs altering it after publication to further their own viewpoints.
I've started reading the Ellis article - an undertaking made significantly less arduous by my skipping blithely over all the equations. I confess it: I'm no mathematician.
Most people haven't heard of hyves.net, which probably explains why they didn't get the Foska joke. (I hadn't either until I consulted ask.com.) A shade contrived, I thought, but definitely worth an esoteric giggle.
Meanwhile only one comment on the Big Bang and evolution v creationism (Oops! Silly me! I mean ID):- "And God said 'let there be light'. And there was light" - nearly half a billion years later. If this is the time-scale on which nature responds to divine commands, human prayer seems a little pointless, doesn't it?
I'm with Democritus - "atoms and void", however you define either of them, and "nothing is created from nothing".
It is at the least imprudent (not to mention rude) to insult those who require evidence before embracing the currently "in" theory. (Plastic bags killing sea creatures by the million? I rest my case.) The epithets may well rebound if cosmic inflation cannot in the end be convincingly demonstrated.
More anon when I've read Ellis.

Dear Mary,
Why so exercised about Lent? It's only the Old English for Spring, when in early mediaeval Europe food was always in short supply. The church was really making life easy for people when it told them to fast at a time when there wasn't much around to eat anyway (though perhaps it also helped them resist the temptation to nibble at their seed and breeding-stock?). Spring always reminds me of Ovid (AA) - "Promise lots. Promises cost you nothing."

[Tony Francis]

Dear Cec H: The Jennifer Syndrome probably has several sub-categories, including Trophy Wives. There is nothing much on the 'net about the J Syndrome. Even Wiki lacks an article. I would write one, but unfortunately, I am boycotting them. It is my little protest. Recently, one of the originators of Wiki posted details of the break-up with his girl friend. This was deemed worthy of a Wiki article. This only confirms my prejudices against this organization. Previously, I had accused one of their editors of being a high school student. Posting dirty details of your break-up with a girl friend is more worthy of junior high school. He was older than his girl friend: yet another case of J Syndrome! My boycott is done with complete altruism. Perhaps you could write an article on the Jennifer Syndrome? It appears to be a subject quite ripe for the plucking. Wiki needs your input! Henry VIII could form his own sub-category: Anne of Cleves, et al.

I have always been suspicious of the field of evolutionary psychology. Psychology (or at least large swathes of it) seem like a pseudo-science. Combining this with evolution is interesting, but likely fraught with many unseen pitfalls. I spent quite a bit of time in grad school researching the relation between mathematics and reality in the physical universe. It is an unresolved issue, dating back at least to the Pythaogoreans. Is the universe ultimately reducible to numbers? Probably not. But no one knows. Einstein, de broglie, Schrodinger, among others, were decidedly determinists. But if the Universe is deterministic, just how does free will fit in? Once again, an unanswered question. Heisenberg thought Einstein, et al were idiots. But that is another issue.

I think Carl Sagan was a colorful showman, and less a scientist. I have enjoyed his work. Recently on another blog, I was accused of being (among other things) unqualified to discuss cosmology. Suffice it to say that string theory has proved to be less helpful than previously hoped. Cosmic inflation is all the rage. But it also has many unsolved (and apparently, insoluble) problems. But don't mention this to bloggers who think cosmic inflation answers everything. They are not nice, and have accused this writer of being a stupid retard for attacking their pet cosmological theology. I was referred by them to read the works of George Ellis. I found an interesting piece by that author which may be of interest to you. It deals with the limits of mathematical cosmology. (The stupid retard was pleased to present this article for their perusal, since it documented what I had been telling them.)
http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/enc2.pdf
No one commented on my little joke in the previous post: I called Foska an entymologist.

[Cec Hogarth]

Dear Tony F,
Here, off the top of my head,are a few possible examples of Jennifer Syndrome, though they all carry the caveat that the physical attraction and the need for self-validation may have been interwoven with desire for such other things as an heir, money, power, or simply an apparent soul-mate (is there a separate "trophy wife" syndrome?)
Pompey and Julia
Cicero and Publilia
Claudius and Messalina
Henry VIII and Catherine Howard
John Byrne and Tilda Swinton
I don't know if there is an equivalent phenomenon in women, but will throw Catherine the Great and the Duchess of Windsor into the ring just in case.

As for Edward O Wilson, he has written a great deal since his ants, and is the most important of the pioneers in the biological groundings of social behaviour. "Sociobiology" is a landmark book, but I think "Consilience" is his best recent work. The field is now called evolutionary psychology, and it most prominent current figure is probably Steven Pinker, to whom "The Blank Slate" is a fine introduction. Classicists should find this subject fascinating, since it comes at the end of a long line of philosophers starting with the Greek Atomists and progressing via the Epicureans, Spinoza, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Sagan (inter alios) to today's thinkers. You can add further dimensions by looking also at the related fields of molecular biology, genetics and computational neuroscience (Turing, van Neummann, Montague, et al), with its roots in Enigma and Bletchley Park, and at the physics of particle and string theory and thence of cosmology. All in all, a wonderfully wide-ranging but integrated set of explorations for classicists brought up in the broad intellectual tradition of studying complete civilisations.
"Nihil humani alienum a me puto", indeed!

At the same time, of course, we continue to read and love Horace.

[Tony Francis]

Dearest Cec H: I chose to devote my life to altruism based on the Cambridge Professor's reason for attending the television show: to present the Classics in a place where it might not be otherwise visited; that is, in the name of altruism. Altruism seemed to be the operative word. So I gave it a try. After a few days of altruism, I am quitting it. There is simply no profit in it at all. And I am sick of altruism. Still, it was a fruitful few days while I followed it. I have been thinking of historical cases of the Jennifer Syndrome. The most famous could be Abelard and Heloise:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelard
Others might be Lolita, and possibly even Caesar and Cleopatra. Can you think of any others?
Concerning Edward O Wilson: I had never heard of him. He seems a nice enough fellow, an entymologist, like dearest Foska. Only Wilson wrote a book about ants, and Foska hasn't.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson
Like you, I have found that being over the age of 50 has its benefits. Now, young girls (at my age, that is any female under the age of 40) come up and want to talk to the "cute, older guy." I just sit there in a non-threatening manner. It doesn't take much to get them talking. Usually something like: "Just what does that ring on your finger mean?"; or "Why did you wear pink today?' I get all the info I want, and sometimes too much. If I had only had this power when I was 20. But I didn't. I do now.

[Cec Hogarth]

Tony,
Altruism, indeed? Edward O Wilson would surely approve.

Sophocles is rumoured to have said that one of the few benefits of being eighty was that he could enjoy looking at beautiful young things without having to lust after them. "There ought to have been a law against love, in order that a great deal of energy might not have been wasted".

Horace, I think, was more in tune with the Jennifer syndrome -
"O quae beatum diva tenes Cyprum et
Memphin carentem Sithonia nive,
regina, sublimi flagello
tange Chloen semel arrogantem."
But he was only 42, and clearly the "mater saeva Cupidinum" was by no means finished with him!

My own years (71) lie between the two, but I find Horace's problem preferable by far to Sophocles' resolution of it. It keeps a firm hold on uncertainty, which is surely the whole point of life, and the reason why we keep our interest in living. I rejoice in wine, friendship, love, golf, music, crosswords, philosophy, science, Horace, food, travel, etc. not in fixed order of importance or preference, but with variable priority according to what's on offer at the particular moment. I don't prescribe it for anyone else. It just happens to suit me. Of course, one aims at "moderation in all things", but loses no sleep over the occasional excess.

As for the water- and wine-drinkers among poets, that's a well-taken point, Christopher K; but it opens another subject altogether, on which I once wrote a Valentine doggerel. Here is its summation stanza (the whole is too long). It reflects, again, my middle-of the-road attitude:

Let it pour out while half-seas over.
Edit it later when you're sober.
Draft it in rough while quaffing often;
But polish after ibuprophen.

... which is about where I came in a day or two ago:- "dulce est desipere in loco".

[Christopher Kelk]

Let's not forget Horace's comment at Epistulae, I. 19. 1-3:
Prisco si credis, Maecenas docte, Cratino,/nulla placere diu nec vivere carmina possunt/quae scribuntur aquae potoribus.

[Tony Francis]

Dear Cec H: I have been thinking of your black book for a few days.
Concerning women who are like butterlies: Some years ago, I got a call to treat a lady who had been drinking and riding a motorcycle. The result was fractures of both legs. In the operating room (it was 3 AM), I noticed a tattoo on her thigh which consisted of two bright red cherries and the scripted word "Bitch". The anesthesiologist, who was a bit of a prude and a goody-goody two shoes said, "Look at the beautiful tattoo of a butterfly!" I responded, "That isn't a butterfly, it's a bitch." He came over to examine it more closely. He was appalled. I spontaneously said, "Don't feel bad, lots of guys have seen a bitch and thought it was a butterfly." I thought it was funny. But no one else did. The nurses treated me like a pariah. It is a warning: Don't be a smart-aleck. Women don't like it. And neither do men. The whole affair has soured me on women and butterflies. Still, it is a good idea to examine carefully, any woman who might appear to be a butterfly.
Concerning Chloe being too young: When I was at Princeton, I was drinking with an old professor. A comely, seemly (and very young) waitress caught our eyes. The conversation immediately stopped. I asked him, "Why is it, now that I am over 30, all these young girls appeal to me?" He said, "It is the natural order of things." I said, "It just seems to be getting worse, the older I get." He replied, "And so it is, it will only get worse. It is called the 'Jennifer Syndrome'." Actually, the old Princeton professor was right and wrong. It is called the Jennifer Syndrome, but the effects of the PADAM syndrome are taking their toll on me:
http://www.midlife-men.com/Midlife_Wisdom_for_Men-midlife-wisdom-for-men0057.html
I am giving up on women of any age, and alcohol. I am devoting my life to altruism.

[Cec Hogarth]

Darn, Tony.

It's supposed to be the wine that's strained, not you paralysed.

Butterfly? (Not the Pinafore one, I hope.) I wonder if her horoscope forecast that. She certainly hasn't flown over here, and unless she's suicidal (the Puccini one?) she shouldn't. It's far too cold.

Let me see ... Where's my little black book? ...

Pyrrha? More into spelunking than wine. Anyway, we have an unfortunate history: and she has a violent and mercurial temper.

Chloe? One's too young by far. The other plays guitar all the time.

Glycera? She's turned professional, and she's expensive.

Tyndaris? Her steady boy-friend's a thug and I don't care to annoy him again.

There was a really pretty one with an only slightly less gorgeous mum - but I can't remember her name or number.

Lalage? Talks too much. Enormous Wolves fan.

Lyde? Probably has another gig.

Lydia? Some risk to my liver, but worth a try. Maybe she's over her young men by now. Sybaris, was it, or Telephus, or Calais? I lose count.) Still, she's probably lost count of my young women. Yes, definitely worth a try. She sent me an email - "tecum obeam lubens." I'd prefer "tecum obeam bibens", but I'll at least leave her a message. No "viridis arbutus" at this time of year (nor, metaphorically, at this time of life!). In fact Mt. Princeton "stat nive candida" so "ligna super foco large reponam" and to the devil with my "vestigium carbonarium".

Then again, "vixi puellis nuper idoneus." Ah! But that was then, and this is now. Perhaps the Venetian Pinot Grigio will suffice on its own after all.

[Tony Francis]

It should be noted that there is a link between heavy drinking and anxiety/depressive disorders. The WHO has recently designated depressive disorders as the most disabling conditions in the world:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6981678.stm
Depression and anxiety disorders tend to run in families, so there is usually a history of it in relatives. Depression and anxiety are the two sides of the same coin.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/complete-publication.shtml

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/anxiety-disorders/index.shtml

Alcohol temporarily relieves deprssion. But during the withdrawal, both depression and anxiety are increased. There is a subset of persons who slowly increase drinking over a period of months or years. Despite the common belief, these are usually not at great risk for cirrhosis, but rather will die from coronary artery disease (heart attacks), cancer and accidents. There is an increased risk of suicides in this group. Over a long time, alcohol, like narcotics, tends to erode personality, leading to somnolence, irritability, loss of concentration, reclusive behavior, loss of intellectual functioning, among others. But then, these are the symptoms of a depressive disorder. If you are slamming four or more drinks every night, you are probably significantly depressed. Once the decision has been made to stop drinking, a short (2 to 6 month) course of the old tricyclic anti-depressants can work wonders. Once the depression is corrected, most lose the desire to drink. In other words, the desire to drink every night is a sign of a depressive illness.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricyclic_antidepressants
Most commonly used are Doxipin and Elavil (amitriptyline). They tend to restore sleep, in particular REM (dream sleep) which is important in treating depression. These old anti-depressants are inexpensive, usually work well and should be distinguished from the newer, more commonly used SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) anti-depressants, such as Paxil and Lexapro.

[Tony Francis]

Dear Cec H. Leuconoe is with me. She is very beautiful. She is in a room in my house. Unfortunately, I drank so much wine, I can't recall just which room it is, and she isn't telling:
http://www.skyways.org/kansas/poetry/sflr1888/leuconoe.html
Hey wait, I found her. But she has turned into a butterfly:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_leuconoe
Just my luck! Why have you all quit posting? Are you drunk, or gone into severe alcohol withdrawal, or simply spending so much time praying in church you can't be bothered with this blog?

[Shocker]

Good Grief.

It's just wine. It's just Lent.

I fulfill the required criteria folks, but don't you necks get sore in that position?

[Cec Hogarth]

Dulce est desipere in loco.

Sapias, vina liques, et spatio brevi spem longam reseces.

A flask of wine, a book of verse, and thou...

It's not just the wine. It's the company. Where's Leuconoe when I need her?

[abc]

We've got champagne. "Chair big bollocks to Australia!" said the Dike.

[Michael Bulley]

Boasting, I think, to say you'll be back on the old Falernian. I didn't know Cambridge professors were that well off. It's a bit like like saying you'll soon be knocking back the Meursault Premier Cru. Me, I can just about afford a Santenay Premier Cru, for example. For Horace, in winter, a basic four year-old Sabine was good enough:

To melt the cold, build up the fire and fill
The hearth with logs; warm-hearted with the wine,
Take down the four year-old Sabinian jar
With its two-eared handle.
(Odes, I, 9)

[Tony Francis]

Dearest Foska: I have read your intersting post, but one question remains unanswered: Just how long is lent in Dennis years? Concerning my troubles with Wiki, I shall recount my experience, and let you decide for yourself. About a year ago, I became enamored with the Romantic Idea of Wiki: a world-wide forum where people could post what they knew about a given subject. The whole thing would be self-policing. My neighbor (the one of heirloom tomatoes) has a PhD in Computer Science. He makes a living trading antique glass and china on-line. He said the Wiki sites concerning glass and china are interesting, but woefully lacking. He had thought of adding to them. But being an AOL user, he was automatically blocked from writing on Wiki. There were so many problems with vandalism from AOL users, they are not allowed to write anything on Wiki, except by special dispensation. I told him he could use my computer, if he wanted. His reply was telling: "Are you kidding? I really don't care!"

I wrote some articles, starting by adding to pre-existing stubs. I soon discovered that most of these articles are little feudal baronages, with ugly trolls defending their turf. So I broke my artilces off into separate entries. Then I was barraged by roving editors telling me I was vandalizing the sites I was leaving, and other roving editors telling me my articles weren't worthy of inclusion in Wiki. Some people have added to my articles, or deleted irrelevant material, corrected spelling, revised clunky language. All good enough. But vandals have repetitively added an unwanted content to these articles, usually pornographic in nature. These are corrected easily. But one must watch their articles continuously to avoid unwanted content being added. Most recently, I have been turned in to the "Administration" for "personally attacking" a roving editor. I told him his ideas were worthy of a high school student. As I asked him, "How can a person who is anonymous, and hiding behind a pseudonym, be the victim of a personal attack?" No answer has been forthcoming from him. There are numerous articles that I could add to: Statute Quia Emptores, Statute of Glocester, Statute Quo Warranto, Hilbert Space, C'est A Qui Use in the Middle Ages, and dozens of others. But I am not going to do it. How many others are there like me out there? No doubt, there are some good articles on Wiki. There are some excellent ones. But many of them are lacking, and are likely to remain that way. That is why Wiki will always be good, but never great or excellent: APATHY! One further word to you: If you are getting your theology from Wiki: CAVEAT EMPTOR!

[abc]

No. It didn't work for me!

Typing @ 00.10

[Mary]

OK guys, I please guilty to the wrong apostrophes.
Can I have typing at midnight as my plea in mitigation?

[Geoff Realname]

Lee: just move it down to :...a few moments thought".

[LEE]

I am shocked by the apostrophe in "I don’t mind the one’s about teenage binge-ing."

[abc]

Morning all ! Just don't expect me to shovel the shit, or someone else for that matter. Two of us have just about had enough of these arguments. I suggest a wheelbarrow. In fact, purchasing one for the 1st Jan. 9.36. The perfect choice thing stands.

[Mary]

Thanks Foska for helping with the maths. I had spotted the problem. But now that you have solved it, I shall feel absolutely OK about taking the unorthodox decision to break the abstinence on Good Friday.. or even Maunday Thursday ....or...

Just so long as I get to 40

[abc]

It wouldn't work unless you were an academic and the right choice.

[SW Foska]

One tricky part of Lent is learning to count. From Ash Wednesday to Easter Saturday (inclusive) there are not forty days and forty nights but forty-six. This is because the six Sundays don't count and you are allowed - presumably positively encouraged - to uncork once a week. At least that's what it says on Tony Francis's favourite internet encyclopedia & I'm sticking to it.

[Shocker]

Being a Cambridge resident myself, I understand the philosophy.. especially when yer local wine merchant ("Offy" lost its touch in polite society?) has a big fat sign outside that says "Rehab is for Quitters".

Course, I ain't no academic but I perfectly willing do do as the Romans do, with very little prompting.

[abc]

Fun aged 5-6. No beer.

[Simone]

Alcohol "helps you put the screaming toddlers to bed without resorting to violence"???
Er- you aren't suggesting giving the brats - sorry, the little darlings - a wee dram, are you?

[Xjy]

Back in the day, the most fun classes were had over a guinness in the pub just down from the department.

[abc]

On the subject of booze and total crap, and having come back from the loo myself, a friend of mine did work for one of the top advertising TV stations and she got so fed up with the rubbish she experienced in the job for seven years that she did actually go on a mission-type thing for two years (unemployed, or missionarily employed) and it wasn't until she felt true poverty and illness and stuff that things started to get better. She just felt sick of the wine and the non-caring media gunk, yet she herself would readily drink wine at home. When I saw her then, her face was full of sun marks and she had a defo "I don't give a turd about anything other than real turd" look on her face.

[abc]

Well, I thought Beard was becoming a nun (nonne?). I've got to put "." "." in my work now.

[anthony alcock]

My strategy at school for translating nonne and num questions was to use the standard bipartite English structure:
(a) nonne intellexisti ? = "you understand, don't you ?"
(b) num dubium est ? = "there's no doubt, is there ?"
When my wife says to me, "You haven't finished that bottle of wine already, have you", nonne and num briefly struggle with each other in my befuddled head for hermeneutic clarity, before I change the subject.

[Michael Bulley]

In my post below "auscultabis" should have been "auscultabas". Obviously, I was asleep when I was explaining these things to myself. Num dormiebam...

[Ann]

I remember having to give a speech in my Japanese class in college, and our teacher advised us all to come to class a little drunk...it would help us speak more fluently. (And she had a point, if you're just a little buzzed you don't worry so much about saying the wrong thing, you just relax and say it.)

Something to add to the positive side.

[abc]

And if you are a young person who has done well, you can become a tiny bit more stupid, not completely stupid, but slow down a little bit so that the race ends when you are 70 or 80. Achievement tends to be relative. I know people who are chairs young and one still goes - and your success is measured against what - what is the yarkstick, ultimately? Where did you start, for example?

[abc]

Most people (latently) wouldn't resort to violence with their kids. That tends to be a knock-on effect of some genetic disorder or an off-shoot of some other kind of abuse. A good example is the Spanish banker who kicked his child to death and went to jail. That was environmental and a point relevant to the corporate brutality of his job. The story shocked a lot of people and young workers are increasingly avoiding that kind of scenario. He'll probably be out in a few years but he'll have to live with the death of his child, caused by his work, for the rest of his life. The story was all over the press. And alcohol - it depends who can control it for a long time. There was a young success story (aged 33) in a top job. She was dead by the time she was 39. The power, money, alcoholic lifestyle etc killed her. Point is to be able to handle it all until you are 70, or become a bum at a young age too because you have "done it" (like Britney should retire for a long time).

[abc]

Wine vs pills:#

A friend's daughter was on Lithium. She is absolutely stunning and is a qualified doctor and she keeps on having to come off her pills, or forgets to take them, and she then goes high. Her brother has to ring her up again when she starts chattering. She (obviously) came off all drugs prior to and during pregnancy and she has some terrific children. She may drink, but the concoction wouldn't be great for her. She is a good mother and a fantastic doctor too.

[Michael Bulley]

Just an additional word on "nonne" questions, mentioned above. While some do, indeed, expect the answer "yes", you know with some others, pessimistically, that the truthful answer would be "no". If the pupil has given a stupid reply and the teacher asks "Nonne me auscultabis dum haec explicabam?" - "Weren't you listening to me when I was explaining these things?", the teacher will be sceptical if the answer is "yes". The "num" question works the same way: "Num dormiebas cum haec explicabam?" - "Were you asleep when I was explaining these things?"

[abc]

Wheeling old, upper chair fart

:)

[Jackie]

It's very strange but I always envisage Falernian as red, while the description given is 'sweet white.' I wonder if this is because I usually tend to drink red, so sort of assume everyone else does too, even the ancients?

[Xjy]

naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret...