Re: OT: Worcestershire sauce

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> En réponse à Tristan McLeay :
>
>
> >Yes, but who's to say you are who you say you are? You might really be a
> >troll _pretending_ to be a human, stealing someone elses' identity!
>
> Ever heard the word "paranoia"? ;))))
It comes up a few times when reading about psychoses, but I'm not entirely
sure what it is :)

> > > If pica is defined as "the eating of non-nutritive substances"
> >
> >If you care enough, I have to borrow the DSM-IV tomorrow anyway :) (Well,
> >don't have to, but it might help with a paper I'm writing).
You know you spend too much time on the Internet when ... you starting
talking like an American in ways that none of your peers would. The word I
was looking for is 'essay'.

> Well, it was not a hypothetical "if" anyway. I trust this definition. I
> just wanted to give the consequences of it :)) .
I didn't think you'd care enough :) (But you have made _me_ care enough :)

> >Heh :) But I reckon there's probably always something at least remotely
> >nutritive :) (Take a look at the nutritional info on a bottle of water,
> >though: everything except the sodium is 0.
>
> Do you mean sodium is considered nutritive?
Well, no, I mean that sodium is listed in the nutritional information
section on bottles of water as being the only non-zero thing. If it is
only what the body can use as an energy source, the energy in bottles of
(unflavored) water is 0 kJ (0 Cal). (The energy in bottles of unflavored
water is still 0 kJ even if nutritive has a different defn :)

> I thought what was considered
> nutritive was only what the human body could use as energy source (so that
> we need nutritive food, but not only. Candies are nutritive, and yet don't
> cover everything we need :) ). Because if sodium is considered nutritive,
> so is calcium (we need it) and chalk contains calcium that the body can
> process (not easily, but it can do it!), so according to such a definition,
> chalk is a nutritive substance, and eating chalk doesn't fall under the
> pica definition.
>
> There's something fishy going on here. The fact that the article Padraic
> gave said that most pica was found in non-Western cultures should have been
> a clue. It seems that pica means more exactly "the eating of substances we
> Westerners don't find acceptable" :))) .
For the most part, the DSM has comments in it like 'that the subject's
culture considers magical' (not actually from the DSM). While someone
might give a diagnosis of pica to someone from a non-Western culture on
the grounds that eating rocks isn't acceptible by _us_, that doesn't mean
it's actually DSM-IV pica. Care enough now? :)

> >  Why you'd buy bottled water
> >(here at least---the tap water is often of a better quality, and gives
> >you free fluoride to boot!), I don't know, though...)
>
> Well, tap water is usually good in France as in the Netherlands, but it
> often contains things that some people just cannot take. Babies, people
> suffering from some diseases or allergies, people with anemia, those people
> need to drink a water which is more controlled than tap water. That's the
> purpose of bottled water to me.
Well, I did add '(here at least...)' (referring to Melbourne---country
water is a totally different matter. Which is funny when you consider
that our water _comes_ from the country).

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere.
                                -- Dr. Seuss