At 08:19 PM 12/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Gene! :)  We were talking about an ENEMA.  Look it up.
>Since your reply is all about what humans could consume
>It would be logical to assume that you do not know what
>an enema is.
>
>Gene wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Bill Wilcox wrote:
>> > Mary wrote:
>> > > What is the paleo view of colonics ..
>> > Doesn't sound very paleolithic to me.  How would a
>> > caveman do an enema?
>> The problem I have with this answer is the logical fallacy
>> it utilizes.  It implies that *only* things that paleolithic
>> human *could* consume without technology are permitted.

Your logic is once again flawed.  Because I replied in terms
of consuming, which *does* happen in the course of an enema
:-), it does not logically follow that I did not know the
definition of "enema".

My comments were merely aimed at using the "caveman" test to
determine if anything is good for us.  Since *MOST* of what we
talk about here is about what we consume, I addressed my reply
in those terms.

The "caveman" test to determine something is *NOT* paleo is
equally invalid regardless of the orifice into which you are
inserting things.

Gene