william wrote:

>On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 12:28, Todd Moody wrote:
>
>
>> So it doesn't
>>depend on the definition, unless you're suggesting that the definition
>>of food is "edible to william."  But of course, that *isn't* the
>>definition of food.
>>
>>
>
>It is for me. I can't speak for you.
>
>
No, that isn't the definition of the English word "food."  Period.  Not
for you, not for anybody.

>Strawberries found in supermarket are NOT food. Stawberries found in my
>front yard are edible (and taste much better), but I'd starve depending
>on them for food.
>
>

Once again, you seem to be lapsing into some strange parallel language
that bears a superficial resemblance to English.  Supermarket
strawberries are food, even if they happen to be food that you don't like.

>IMO wheat is fodder. Weston A. Price showed the consequence of using it
>as food. I can eat small quantities of wheat depending on what's in it,
>but I can also eat gravel without harm (avoid chewing). The fact that
>people eat something is no proof that it is food, but rather that there
>is not enough food available.
>
>
Some foods are better than others.  Everyone knows this.

>Definition time? I'll start: Food is something that supports a long and
>healthy life, and does no harm.
>
>

What makes you think it's up to you to define the word "food"?  It is
already part of the English language and has a perfectly good
definition.  Here's a nice compact one, from Princeton WordNet: "any
substance that can be metabolized by an organism to give energy or build
tissue."  There you are.  Wheat, suitably processed, is food.  Gravel
isn't.  This list is about discussing the theory that the *best* foods
for human beings are the foods that they or their hominid predecessors
have been eating for a very long time.  But we all know that the best
foods aren't the only foods there are.  There is no need to engage in
the cult-like practice of redefining words to glorify the theory.  It's
not definition time.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]



>William
>
>