Sightly OT - Juicers

Good point, but several say that they're dishwasher safe.

Mary

Where?

:-)

Mary

As opposed to a linear induction motor, I suppose.

I wondered about that too but didn't want to have derision heaped on me so didn't mention it :-)

Mary

It's probably one of those expressions, like "quality" where the adjective "high" is expected to be implicit.

I have a windmill to sell you for your house and three used bridges over the Thames in London that are a real bargain.

It's actually very good (don't know about the colours) and does both citrus and other fruits very well. Relatively easy to clean, well made and a nice powerful motor.

I've never felt the need to try it on grass but on all fruit it is very effective.

Yes ... :-(

Mary

Pot, kettle.. you know the rest. ;-)

I still don't know what wheatgrass is.

Perhaps nobody else does either.

Have you forgotten the answers you got to your "What's ICSTIS" question already? It was all of 6 days ago...

(wikipedia seems to have a sensible answer btw)

cheers, clive

I still don't know what wheatgrass is.

============================ As supplied by an earlier respondent in this thread:

No, that's just a promotion of wheatgrass juice. It doesn't define "wheatgrass".

Mary

============================

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Go look at the wikipedia page.

I don't know why people recommend wikipedia. As far as I know it's not authoritative, anyone can put anything there.

I could be wrong, it has been known :-)

But I asked people here, doesn't anyone know, first hand?

It's not all that important, from what I HAVE seen in the links the stuff itself doesn't interest me. It seems to be the latest in miracle 'foods' - they come and they go. I've never used any and I'm still here :-)

I do, however, like to know the meaning of a word I don't know so that I can use it authoritatively.

Mary

only people who clicked the link would stand a chance but for the benefit of the hard of clicking

It's good enough - remember the study which made it out to be more accurate than Britannica?. If you look at the 'history' page for a topic, you'll see how controversial it is. You can also make intelligent guesses about what is likely to be accurate - eg "what it is" will be easy, precise health claims may be rather more dodgy.

It's the same process as filtering posts on here - eg you know some people normally post sense, and others normally post drivel.

Sure, people can put up spurious entries/vandalise existing ones. But there are a lot of people out there watching for this kind of thing, so the resulting content tends to end up being quite good.

Obviously it will fail some tests of 'authoritative', but in practice this isn't actually a problem - the community-based process comes up with results which are as good as a formal professional process.

And in that context, it gives a pretty good answer.

cheers, clive

No - but I don't consult that either.

That's true of all history sources :-(

Not necessarily.

I have expertise in a few matters yet still see lots of misinformation on the web and in newsgroups.

You're not kidding!

I like your style!

That's your opinion. It might be right, I don't know.

But it IS a problem if one wants a factual definition. I accept that nobody here knows what wheatgrass is, I can wait until I meet someone who does. I don't think it will take long, with my agricultural contacts and now that I know what to ask. I'd never heard of wheatgrass before :-)

Thanks anyway,

Mary