posted
I thought of putting this into a certain other forum, but then I noticed the existence of a *flame*board...
Once upon a time, there was a boy called Mike. Mike had a wonderful family and a bachelor degree from a renowned university. Mike's life could have been perfect - if there had not been one curse on it: he did not like apples and he shuddered at the mere idea that so many others could possibly find them appetizing. Not that he would have detested apples, but he saw them as mere nourishment compared to his beloved oranges. Mike frequently tried to talk people into agreeing with him, but he usually got to hear something like "Well, but I like apples better. You have to accept that they are just more popular, and better for your health anyway". No wonder that Mike grew tired of the repeated unproven assertions and the stupidity of these people who he called "appies".
In an attempt to prove that oranges are more delicious indeed, he argued that oranges must taste better, as he had observed that apples used to have strongly varying colors and became brownish after a few days, while oranges remained perfectly, uh, orange. Also, oranges were more expensive, so they must be of a higher quality as this predominantly determined the price according to the well-defined laws of the market. Being a serious scientist, Mike did not take into account what people were telling him about their personal taste. Most of them, in his view, were just not qualified to make a statement about taste, because they were lacking a sensitive tongue like he had one. But he did consider the shameless advertisements for apples which pathetically called them "Golden Delicious" although they were just ordinary apples - and, as he had proven, definitely not delicious. But most of all, he was upset how the name misused the designation of a chemical element which can not be found in apples. Mike found another blatant error in a book where the vitamin C content of an apple was given 21% too high - a clear violation of scientific principles. This must have been a rude "appie" attempt to come closer to the intrinsically high vitamin C content of oranges. Mike also felt bad about a computer company that had even chosen the apple as their corporate logo, totally undeservedly overstating the importance of this fruit.
As further proof for his cause, Mike decided to perform experiments, throwing the two types of fruit against a solid wall and against each other. While the apples were mostly getting smashed, the oranges often stayed intact because of their stronger shell. Mike, of course, maintained fair conditions by always using the same hand to throw them. He documented his experiments with photos he took with a digital camera, always at the exact moment of the impact. Based on this evidence, Mike spent many days and nights to ascertain the superiority of oranges with strength calculations.
One day, Mike proudly presented the results on his new website he christened "I Want You to Eat Oranges". He polemically demanded that all apple farms be burnt down to the ground, all apple farmers be executed and all apple eaters be re-educated to love oranges. Of course, he did not mean that seriously but it was only a style of presentation for his findings which were, as he frequently reaffirmed on the site, firmly based on scientific principles. He admitted that no fruit could possibly be perfect, but regarding oranges, bananas, raspberries and even pears, it was safe to say that apples just tasted the worst. As opposed to what people were always claiming about "healthful apples", Mike pointed out that there were often worms in them, which he believed was previously unknown evidence why "appies" would have to reconsider their opinion. Apples are dirty, they are cheap, there are far too many of them. Everyone is just talking about apples as if there was nothing better to eat. Moreover, they are grown in countries with communist and racist suppression. And apple trees are downright ugly anyway.
The apple is evil. Those who defend this abominable fruit must be blind morons, just like the Creationists in Kansas who dare to claim, with their laughable pseudoscientific arguments, that Adam and Eve once ate from, you guess it, an apple.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Adam and Eve never existed, therefore, a biblical myth about their eating an apple is irrelevent to the conversation. Danke.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Prismatic Faye Valentine Fanboy
Ex-Member
posted
it's relevant due to the fact that people in question believe in them, despite the fact that they never existed.
IP: Logged
posted
Facinating article. Or something. I'm not quite sure what the point is, but I guess that Snay "I'm open-minded"'s response is about as good a guess as any.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No. Common sense is nothing that may be considered of any relevance in a scientific discussion. Actually, common sense is only employed by those who don't have any calculations at hand (or are lacking the right education).
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why can't people eat both apples and oranges? Last I heard, a combination of the two helped with proper elimination from the body. Who doesn't want to have proper elimination?
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
I take it you originally wrote that in response to the current computer-bashing going on in the Officer's Lounge?
You're right, of course. If people want to eat apples, then they can. It's a matter of taste. (Literally!) Although you can't take the analogy perfectly when you bring in the Apple Companies and the Orange Companies... For instance, if the company that sells apples makes each consumer sign a "End-Comsumer Digestion Agreement" in which the hungry fellow must only eat that apple at certain times of the day, and in specified locations. He may not share part of the apple with a friend, or save it for later, or even give it away. If he decides not to eat the apple, then he must return it to the store.
Also, the apple company might use underhanded tactics to force other orchards to stop growing bananas, or oranges, or pears, and to grow only apples instead -- thus forcing people to eat more and more apples. They drop the prices of apples to absurdly low prices in order to draw more and more consumers. Eventually, most people eat apples out of sheer habit, without realizing that there's other tasty fruit out there. These apple-eaters are so sure that their apples are superior because they're the majority, and that everyone else should eat apples too. Some supermarkets stop selling oranges and bananas altogether, and so customers with wider tastes are forced to look elsewhere for the fruit of their choice.
Consider lunchtime at a computer firm. The coworkers in the cafeteria sit down with their lunches; most of them buy apples from the counter, but one guy -- considered a nerd by the rest -- brings an orange from home. Everyone else laughs at him for preferring oranges instead of apples. The man who prefers oranges might decide to start bringing apples to work instead, simply to fit in. Or he might just consume his oranges in the privacy of his cubicle instead.
Then there are the consumers who argue that apples are better for you because they weigh more than oranges. If they weigh more, than that must mean that they have more nutritional content, and make you more satisfied. They might think up some "fact" like "apples are easier to digest." Even though the government starts investigating the apple company because of its questionable marketing strategies, the public ignores these potential illegal actions because "apples are good for you"!
And most importantly, whenever those who eat oranges try to let their apple-eating friends know that there are alternatives, those orange-eaters are laughed away because of their "bad taste."
There's two sides to every story, folks.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Nectarines are tastier, at any rate.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey, I'm eating a nectarine right now. It sure is delicious and right now, I have no desire to eat either an apple or an orange. I also don't have any desire to prevent other people from eating apples, oranges or brussel sprouts. I just want to enjoy my nectarine in peace. Should someone ask me whether they think they should eat a nectarine, I'd tell them that mine was really good and that I was thoroughly enjoying it. If someone was asking me what kind of fruit to eat, I'd ask them what qualities they were looking for in a fruit. Some people find the rinds of oranges a little frustrating. An apple is easier because you don't have to peel it, but it isn't as juicy as an orange. Nectarines are pretty juicy too and you can eat the skin, but they can get kind of messy with the pit and all.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
