|
posted by dennisn on September 7th, 2010 at 1:31PM
It was more a criticism of the article. It was a completely useless (meaningless and unscientific) statement. There's now way that sentence would have made it into wikipedia :b.
|
|
posted by dennisn on September 7th, 2010 at 2:19PM
Je sais, and I did.
The article was supposed to be an informative one about the benefits of cinnamon. Not only was that claim *wrong* (scientifically wrong too, not hand-wavingly wrong), but was purely based on hearsay. If I wanted hearsay, I would have asked a palm-reader.
In fact, the author of the article knew full well that the claim was false, as pretty much all aphrodisiac-claimists know -- he lied to us, for a little titillation. (And not even good titillation -- but that stupid kind that dumbass tourguides give to tourists on vacation.)
|
posted by dennisn on September 7th, 2010 at 2:21PM
(Background: When I went to the Dominican Republic, on a stupid toured guide, I can't (and don't care to) remember how many times these jackass Dominicans offered us products, claiming to be aphrodisiacs, and stupidly winking and innuendoing at us. So I have a strong personal repulsion to these morons :b.)
(Also, no differentiation was made between our real knowledge of the spice and "traditional belief" (aka. WRONG/FALSE belief) :b.)
|
|
|
|
