Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:33:01 -0700
From: maa32 
Subject: (urth) rationale for funky frogs and pedantic brush

Someone asked why I bothered with the trematode/frog thing.  Jerry previously 
commented that he hadn't seen anything that indicated these polyploid froggies 
X. Leavis might have multiple limbs... but that article indicates that this is 
a common mutation they experience.  Obviously it has nothing (or little) to do 
with their polyploidy and more to do with their regenerative powers.  
If I wanted to be a real jackass I could say that the liana's are like 
Trematodes to the trees, stimulating extra limb growth with their cysty 
presence (remember that the pit Horn fell into was covered with vines).  
However, I will do no such thing and just leave it as meaning nothing because 
that is pushing the realms of credibility and rationality far beyond anything 
I am willing to do.  (Of course, that was a nice little rhetorical occupatio 
right there, wasn't it?)

Incidentally, the first definition for "Brush" at merriam webster online is 
"Brushwood".  I am here going to imply that we use a test to see which of the 
following relationships hold: leaf: brushwood: tree or leaf: scrubbing brush: 
tree
 Can't brushwood be rough and brown if it's dead?
I shouldn't beat that to death.  I'll leave it alone.  I'm just saying that 
simple words often have more than one definition ... and in this case the 
context just seems to insinuate foliage of somekind.  If you still want to 
argue about the word, then I will copy all of the dictionary definitions over. 
We are both saying the same thing about new life to decayed things, I'm just 
saying the new sun is granting a different kind of life rather than a 
resurrection. I guess there is no sense discussing it further - we are "kind 
of" saying the same thing.
Marc



--