Gout, Dammit!

Emma Thackery said:

What I don't
understand is why Outlook would have a problem with text wrapped at 72
if it wraps at 80 or why a URL enclosed by the standard angle brackets
would not be kept intact. I thought all news readers were supposed to
do that. When I read posts that are shorter than 72 character lines,
they just read like narrower columns.

I think the reason Outlook Express doesn't handle the links is they figure
people should be using html rather than plain text if they want to put things
like links in their posts. Of course with html format everything works fine.
Microsoft can be stubborn, and they figure they can dictate how things are
supposed to work.

Quoted message said:

Thanks. For how long does the tiny URL remain valid?

I tried looking some old ones up from back in 2005 and they seem to work just
fine. The more likely issue is the target web page is gone after a few months
(or even less). That will happen no matter whether one puts the original link in
or the tinyurl link. When I post links for newspapers, etc. I tend to have the
web site email the link to me and then I use the link in the email rather than
the one in my browser. I get the feeling that the emailed links have more
permanence.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

In article <pV_5i.126$d63.25@trnddc06>,

wff_ng_7 said:

Emma Thackery said:

What I don't understand is why Outlook would have a problem with
text wrapped at 72 if it wraps at 80 or why a URL enclosed by the
standard angle brackets would not be kept intact. I thought all
news readers were supposed to do that. When I read posts that are
shorter than 72 character lines, they just read like narrower
columns.

I think the reason Outlook Express doesn't handle the links is they
figure people should be using html rather than plain text if they
want to put things like links in their posts. Of course with html
format everything works fine. Microsoft can be stubborn, and they
figure they can dictate how things are supposed to work.

I'll say. And thanks again.

Emma Thackery said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

George Shirley said:

The Joneses wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe goiter was more common away from the iodine rich coasts.
Now a lot of our table salt has iodine in it, we eat a more varied
diet, and we take more vitamins. Here in the US anyway. Edrena

Yer right as usual Sister Edrena. My Dad had a goiter and the
subsequent removal of the thyroid glands when he was a young man.
Sometime in the mid-thirties if I remember what he told me correctly.
He was from Central Louisiana, salt was local from a "lick", no
seafood of any kind, etc. Haven't heard of one since that one.

That sounds like Graves or one of the other thyroid conditions, not lack
of iodine.

Goiters were more common back in the 30's and before. We didn't always
add iodine to our salt (yet you can still buy some sans iodine) and
people particularly in the midwest were more prone to develop goiters.
Everyone has seen those old pictures with the big bulging necks, right?
Those were goiters. As our diets have become increasingly diversified,
and with the addition of iodine to commercial salt, goiters are much
more rare.
Graves does not always produce an enlarged gland of goiter proportions.
I see Graves disease expressed more in the exopthalmos eyes.

Emma Thackery said:

[email hidden] (Steve Pope) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was beginning to trust this reseach piece until the authors
started talking about "phytochemicals".

Quoted message said:

phytochemistry - The chemistry of plants and plant products. (OED)

So what exactly are you saying? The article is bogus because they use
the term "phytochemicals"?

In a word, yes. When I studied biology and botany nobody talked
about "phytochemicals". I believe it's a buzzword of the newage.

Steve

I am just a lerker here, however I have had gout many times, I got up
this a.m. with it in my hand, normally I get it in my big toe----and let
me tell you something, it is a hurting thing, that is for sure. I feel
for you.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Goomba38 said:

Emma Thackery said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

George Shirley said:

The Joneses wrote:

Quoted message said:

> I believe goiter was more common away from the iodine rich coasts.
> Now a lot of our table salt has iodine in it, we eat a more varied
> diet, and we take more vitamins. Here in the US anyway. Edrena
>
Yer right as usual Sister Edrena. My Dad had a goiter and the
subsequent removal of the thyroid glands when he was a young man.
Sometime in the mid-thirties if I remember what he told me correctly.
He was from Central Louisiana, salt was local from a "lick", no
seafood of any kind, etc. Haven't heard of one since that one.

That sounds like Graves or one of the other thyroid conditions, not lack
of iodine.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Graves does not always produce an enlarged gland of goiter proportions.

I did not say it always did. Goiter due to lack of iodine rarely
required surgery if iodine treatment was commenced--- let alone removal
of the entire gland. Iodized salt was ubiquitous in the US by the
1930s. Surgery for Graves (hyperthyroid) was essentially replaced by
radioactive iodine treatment in the 1950s.

"Emma Thackery" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I did not say it always did. Goiter due to lack of iodine rarely
required surgery if iodine treatment was commenced--- let alone removal
of the entire gland. Iodized salt was ubiquitous in the US by the
1930s. Surgery for Graves (hyperthyroid) was essentially replaced by
radioactive iodine treatment in the 1950s.

I wouldn't say "replaced." It was supplemented by the use of radioactive
iodine beginnning in the late 1950s. Even today, the standard procedure
is to do a biopsy while the patient is under and remove the growth
and surrounding tissue that looks suspicious, then destroy the rest
with radioactive iodine.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

Emma Thackery said:

[email hidden] (Steve Pope) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was beginning to trust this reseach piece until the authors
started talking about "phytochemicals".

Quoted message said:

phytochemistry - The chemistry of plants and plant products. (OED)

So what exactly are you saying? The article is bogus because they use
the term "phytochemicals"?

In a word, yes. When I studied biology and botany nobody talked
about "phytochemicals". I believe it's a buzzword of the newage.

Shall we assume, then, that the many thousands of references to
phytochemicals in the standard medical and pharmaceutical literature are
due to the "new age" influence?

Emma Thackery said:

[email hidden] (Steve Pope) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When I studied biology and botany nobody talked
about "phytochemicals". I believe it's a buzzword of the newage.

Quoted message said:

Shall we assume, then, that the many thousands of references to
phytochemicals in the standard medical and pharmaceutical literature are
due to the "new age" influence?

Not necessarily, but it's still a buzzword I don't trust.

Steve

"Goomba38" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Goiters were more common back in the 30's and before. We didn't always add
iodine to our salt (yet you can still buy some sans iodine)

We need iodine, but we certainly don't need much salt. I buy salt with no
iodine.

Milk, yogurt, strawberries, mozzarella cheese, and eggs contain iodine. The
soil in Australia and the NW parts of the US are low in iodine so if that is
all you eat from, you may need a supplement.

In article <[email hidden]>, "cybercat" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Emma Thackery" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I did not say it always did. Goiter due to lack of iodine rarely
required surgery if iodine treatment was commenced--- let alone removal
of the entire gland. Iodized salt was ubiquitous in the US by the
1930s. Surgery for Graves (hyperthyroid) was essentially replaced by
radioactive iodine treatment in the 1950s.

I wouldn't say "replaced." It was supplemented by the use of radioactive
iodine beginnning in the late 1950s. Even today, the standard procedure
is to do a biopsy while the patient is under and remove the growth
and surrounding tissue that looks suspicious, then destroy the rest
with radioactive iodine.

AFAIK, in the US, biopsy isn't typical for Graves unless the endo has
some reason to suspect cancer or additional pathology. They would more
likely do a thyroid scan first to detect any enlargement or nodules.
Ultrasound is also used.

"Emma Thackery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "cybercat" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Emma Thackery" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I did not say it always did. Goiter due to lack of iodine rarely
required surgery if iodine treatment was commenced--- let alone removal
of the entire gland. Iodized salt was ubiquitous in the US by the
1930s. Surgery for Graves (hyperthyroid) was essentially replaced by
radioactive iodine treatment in the 1950s.

I wouldn't say "replaced." It was supplemented by the use of radioactive
iodine beginnning in the late 1950s. Even today, the standard procedure
is to do a biopsy while the patient is under and remove the growth
and surrounding tissue that looks suspicious, then destroy the rest
with radioactive iodine.

AFAIK, in the US, biopsy isn't typical for Graves unless the endo has
some reason to suspect cancer or additional pathology. They would more
likely do a thyroid scan first to detect any enlargement or nodules.
Ultrasound is also used.

Yes, I was talking about those who have a confirmed growth.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:04:51 -0500, Emma Thackery <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <GbK5i.307$9G3.283@trnddc07>,

wff_ng_7 said:

Emma Thackery said:

Consumption of Cherries Lowers Plasma Urate in Healthy Women

<http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/6/1826?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&h
its=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=(uric+acid)+and+(cherries)&searchid=1&FIRST
INDEX=0&volume=133&issue=6&resourcetype=HWCIT>

Thanks for the link. Here's a clickable short version of the link for
those not wanting to paste the above back together:

http://tinyurl.com/2lv93x

Thanks. BTW, I have no trouble clicking on any link as long as it is
enclosed in angle brackets. No copying, no pasting and certainly no
piecing. I just click on it and it opens in my browser or whatever.
I've never understood why some people have problems or the need to
convert URLs. What's the deal?

Emma

just a click worked for me, too. i think you do need to use the angle
brackets, but for some reason a newsreader (in my case, agent) may not
colorize the whole u.r.l. strangely (if i recall correctly), the page
came up, but in the firefox window only the colorized portion of the
u.r.l. was showing. i'm not sure what the scoop is.

but the angle bracket thing ( <url> ) is very useful. i wish more
people would use it. it works for most mail readers, too.

(i know some person will chime in here and say, 'well why not be nice
and supply a tinyurl?' well, i'm already nice, but i'm a lazy
[censored]. besides, when i'm on the other end, i like to see the whole
u.r.l. and know i'm being pointed to, say, the *new york times* and
not some fruitcake site. (i also know someone else will chime in here
and say the *new york times* *is* a fruitcake site. save your
breath.) )

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 26 May 2007 05:48:29 GMT, "wff_ng_7" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

notbob said:

wff_ng_7 said:

When long lines in posts go out, they get wrapped by the sender's news
program.

Yes, but enclosing them in brackets - <link> - retains the integrity
of the URL even if it is wrapped. I have to admit, even I forgot
about this little trick and mentioned tinyurl, also. But, turns out
even though my newreader client (slrn) did wrap it to 3 lines, it
still workd just fine when I tried it. The problen is, most folks
don't know about this trick and would see it as a broken wrapped link
and not try and use it. There's couple more syntax tricks that will
accomplish the same thing, but makeashorter and tinyurl have spoiled
us all rotten and I've forgotten those, too. Live and relearn.

The angle bracket thing doesn't work in Outlook Express (or its newer
incarnation, Windows Vista Mail), which is a news reader that many are using. In
Outlook Express, only the first line of the link is highlighted, and that is
what gets opened in the browser. Obviously using only the first line won't work.

I know some would say get a real news reader, but there is only so much time in
a day to fool with such things.

and some would say (like me, for example) that i'm not going to put
myself out for someone foolish enough to use o.e. to read usenet. let
them cut and paste (presumably that's not beyond them).

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:41:19 -0500, Emma Thackery <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <NSP5i.1866$XC3.669@trnddc04>,

wff_ng_7 said:

The angle bracket thing doesn't work in Outlook Express...

Oh I see. Well that sucks.

if by 'that' you mean o.e., i agree. it's too bad you can't drive a
screw with a hammer, either, but it doesn't mean you should be trying
to do such a thing.

your pal,
blake

notbob said:

Emma Thackery said:

<http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/6/1826?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&h
its=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=(uric+acid)+and+(cherries)&searchid=1&FIRST
INDEX=0&volume=133&issue=6&resourcetype=HWCIT>

http://tinyurl.com/

nb

and the bracketed u.r.l. displays fine, just the whole thing is not
colorized (agent) and the whole u.r.l. does not show in the firefox
window.

your retro pal,
blake

"blake murphy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 05:48:29 GMT, "wff_ng_7" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

notbob said:

On 2007-05-26, wff_ng_7 <[email hidden]> wrote:

> When long lines in posts go out, they get wrapped by the sender's news
> program.

Yes, but enclosing them in brackets - <link> - retains the integrity
of the URL even if it is wrapped. I have to admit, even I forgot
about this little trick and mentioned tinyurl, also. But, turns out
even though my newreader client (slrn) did wrap it to 3 lines, it
still workd just fine when I tried it. The problen is, most folks
don't know about this trick and would see it as a broken wrapped link
and not try and use it. There's couple more syntax tricks that will
accomplish the same thing, but makeashorter and tinyurl have spoiled
us all rotten and I've forgotten those, too. Live and relearn.

The angle bracket thing doesn't work in Outlook Express (or its newer
incarnation, Windows Vista Mail), which is a news reader that many are
using. In
Outlook Express, only the first line of the link is highlighted, and that
is
what gets opened in the browser. Obviously using only the first line won't
work.

I know some would say get a real news reader, but there is only so much
time in
a day to fool with such things.

and some would say (like me, for example) that i'm not going to put
myself out for someone foolish enough to use o.e. to read usenet. let
them cut and paste (presumably that's not beyond them).

I love OE. I tried Firefox and Agent and others, and they just do not
compare for ease of use. People talk about security risks associated
with OE, but it's a moot point with the right firewall and other security
measures in place.

I care a whole lot more about ease and efficiency of mail
and groups than I care about clicking on any links any of you [censored]
supply. If it looks stupid, I don't bother. And many look stupid whether
they present as a clickable link or not. MUhahaha!

Your pal, cyber

In article <[email hidden]>,

blake murphy said:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:41:19 -0500, Emma Thackery <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <NSP5i.1866$XC3.669@trnddc04>,

wff_ng_7 said:

The angle bracket thing doesn't work in Outlook Express...

Oh I see. Well that sucks.

if by 'that' you mean o.e., i agree. it's too bad you can't drive a
screw with a hammer, either, but it doesn't mean you should be trying
to do such a thing.

Yes exactly. I can't be responsible for 'The World According to
Microsoft'.

(Carole) said:

I am just a lerker here, however I have had gout many times, I got up
this a.m. with it in my hand, normally I get it in my big toe----and let
me tell you something, it is a hurting thing, that is for sure. I feel
for you.

I know what you mean about "gout", but I think this thread was talking
about "goiters". Very different ailments.

Alexis
www.goutquestions.blogspot.com