# Straight Dope Syndrome **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2000, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565 "2000-02-21T12:29:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/21 "2000-02-26T01:30:00Z")
Spiritus already noted the switch of conclusions, from the emphatic, declarative, present-tense ‘leaders of gangs _are_ the _most vehement_ supporters’ (of the WoD besides politicians), to the weak, conditional ‘they would be opposed’. That’s a world of difference. Lib’s new conclusion might prove true, in some hypothetical world where legalization was being considered seriously enough for your typical urban drug lord to pay attention. Or might not. Lib’s original assertion is either true or false, right now. I don’t think humans fit very well into syllogisms. Among other things, we tend to get a lot of fallacies of equivocation involving people, since one thing is never quite like another with us complicated creatures. So rather than discuss Lib’s logic, let me explain why I felt a need to ask him for a cite to begin with, using the following thought experiment: Take your typical urban drug lord, for instance. He’s black, male, let’s say he’s maybe 27 years old. He’s grown up amidst violence, and doesn’t really expect to die of old age. He’s a businessman, sure - but not exactly Jack Welch of GE. He got where he is not only through savvy and ruthlessness of a different sort than practiced in corporate boardrooms, where the loser gets a golden parachute rather than several bullets in the gut, but also through plain old physical intimidation: most of his contemporaries wouldn’t want to take him on with fists or knives. His motivations are very different, too: he’s his own boss; he has no stockholders to dump him if earnings take a slow slide. He probably cares more about maintaining power in his part of town than about the money, as long as there’s enough money to suit him and maintain his posse. He’d probably rather have full control of his territory and be bringing in what he is now, than be sharing a financial pie ten times as big with two or three rivals that represent genuine threats to him. Different business, different risks, different attitude. He’s been in the drug business since he was eight (he was just a courier then ) and Len Bias died when he was, what, twelve? - so the War on Drugs had been going on for most of his life. He figures it will go on forever; legalization crosses his mind about as much as the possibility of America becoming an English colony again. Now how, exactly, can he be said to have a position on, let alone be ‘vehement’ about, something that likely never crosses his mind? He probably isn’t ‘for’ or ‘against’ legalization anymore than the typical Chicagoan is ‘for’ or ‘against’ the wind that gives the city its nickname. Vehemence about this issue is for Avenue-B Dude, not this dude. Lib says ‘simple common sense,’ as well as syllogistic logic, leads to his conclusion. Well, there’s _my_ ‘simple common sense,’ and it leads somewhere else entirely. That’s why Lib’s statement seemed improbable to me, and why I asked for a cite. Now, my ‘common sense’ may be wrong too; in an earlier post on this thread (which vanished in the recent chaos), I pointed out that logic can only carry us so far in realms where we can’t be completely sure of what’s true - i.e. everywhere besides mathematics. The further we get from known facts, the more shaky the conclusions of ‘logic’ become. In our respective attempts at reason, both Lib and I are a long way from home. I would feel justified in asking for a cite even if I had no alternative model to propose. * * * “Living in this complex world of the future is not unlike having bees live inside your head.” - F. Scott Firesign ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/22 "2000-02-26T01:34:00Z")
However, I couldn’t help but notice the following statements in Lib’s second and third syllogisms: > [@](#): > > Owners of businesses do not like sudden disruptions in their businesses. and > [@](#): > > Sudden disruption of business means loss of revenue and customer base. That must explain why nobody wants to invest in Internet businesses, where life is one disruption after another. * * * “Living in this complex world of the future is not unlike having bees live inside your head.” - F. Scott Firesign ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/23 "2000-02-26T19:24:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > **Has SDS turned some of us into hyperskeptics who believe nothing that hasn’t been said in a Straight Dope column? Or worse, has it turned us into hyperbelievers who question nothing that Straight Dope columns say?** You’re shooting from the hip here, Lib, as you are wont to do. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s neither inductive nor deductive, and folks will shoot back. I didn’t go back to the topic that you’ve mentioned about the War on Drugs, but it’s possible that the same thing happened there. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > **Actually, Einstein got some of his ideas from Planck and others. But as stated in the OP, I am not arguing for loosey goosey argument; I am arguing for solid deduction in matters that lend themselves to syllogism.** Let’s hear it for _solid_ deductions, then! But that’s not why I’m posting. I want to object to your slur on Einstein. Lay off my guy. * * * rocks ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/24 "2000-02-26T19:38:00Z")
**RM Mentock** With all due respect, Father, I will “lay” wheresoever I damn well please, and upon whomsoever. But as it happens, in this instance, I did not “lay on” Einstein. I merely recounted what is common knowledge, namely, that he was inspired, to some extent, by Planck and others. **Spiritus** > [@](#): > > Please provide a set definition for the class “entrepeneurs” so that we can know exactly those traits necessary and sufficient for membership. Regardless, though, I would happily accept the proposition that crime leaders like making money. The dictionary definition will do fine, Spiritus. > [@](#): > > Persuasive, but not necessarily tight. It is conceivable, for instance, that a business owner would not mind a short-term disruption in his business (assuming he has enough capital to weather the storm) providing he expects a significant long-term benefit. Remember the oil embargo? And what the heck is short term about legalizing drugs? You are changing the subject. > [@](#): > > It depends upon the disruption, really. Why do you do this? What disruption do you _think_ I’m talking about. What have we been talking about this whole friggin’ time? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > More importantly, though, © does not follow from (a) + (b). It follows from a synthesis of premises before it. You know very well that that is acceptable in informal arguments like these. Being pretentious is not an honest way to argue, and is therefore beneath you because you are not a dishonest man. > [@](#): > > Now, to address your argument as a whole, you have changed your final conclusion from “the most vehement supporters of the War on Americans I Mean Drugs, aside from politicians, are leaders of gangs and organized crime” to “leaders of organized crime would oppose the legalization of drugs.” Oh, well, duh. You’re so “good” (prolific, anyway) at digging and parsing, how did you miss this? > [@](#): > > Yes, I’m willing to revisit my argument. As I conceded, I agree with Bricker that its rhetoric is faulty. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/25 "2000-02-26T21:24:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > \*\*But as it happens, in this instance, I did not “lay on” Einstein. I merely recounted what is common knowledge, namely, that he was inspired, to some extent, by Planck and others. > > Spiritus > > Oh, well, duh. > \*\* OK, if all you’re saying is that _everyone_ is inspired by _someone_ for _something_, then I’d not argue against that, but it would seem to be a point hardly worth making in the first place. On the other hand, if you’re implying that Einstein’s ideas about general relativity derive from somebody else’s ideas, then I’d have to disagree. If it were just an inane comment, then I’d just shrug it off–but if you intended it to _mean_ something, then I’m there for the boy. He’s not capable of defending himself–some problem with rigor something or other–but he’s got lots of friends. * * * rocks ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/26 "2000-02-27T03:22:00Z")
Lib: **en·tre·pre·neur** (ntr-pr-nûr, -nr) n. _A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture._ Since this definition includes philanthorpic business ventures and non-profit organizations, I would have to say that the trait “like making money” can be applied to the set only in a very weak sense. Certainly it can not be asserted as an overriding or controlling element. > [@](#): > > And what the heck is short term about legalizing drugs? You are changing the subject. Your syllogism used the premise, “Owners of businesses do not like sudden disruptions in their businesses.” This is a class statement. You now try to defend its validity by appealing to the supposed characteristics of one element of the class. Once again, I find myself needing to remind the logician of the methodology of his vocation. Do you find that as annoying as I do? Also, regarding that element, “legalization of drugs” could be very short term. Laws change, and this would not be the first time this republic has changed its mind about what is legal for its citizens. > [@](#): > > **mr** More importantly, though, © does not follow from (a) + (b). > > **you** It follows from a synthesis of premises before it. You know very well that that is acceptable in informal arguments like these. Being pretentious is not an honest way to argue, and is therefore beneath you because you are not a dishonest man. It does not follow. You have not offered any reasoning to support deduction of the attitude “opposition”. I even offered a helpful little analogy of the difference between dislike and opposition. It seems that you overlooked that in your rush to raise charges pretentiousness and dishonesty. > [@](#): > > You’re so “good” (prolific, anyway) at digging and parsing, how did you miss this? > quote: > Yes, I’m willing to revisit my argument. As I conceded, I agree with Bricker that its rhetoric is faulty. I did not miss it. Nor did I miss: > [@](#): > > But I’m not sure I get the rest of your protests. > > Yet again, you misstate what I said, and then attack the straw man. > > Well, I’m still trying to get you to understand what I’ve actually said. Statements like those, the last of which immediately preceded your new syllogisms, gave me the impression that you would be simply restating your argument in new terms. You did not, and I pointed that fact out. I remain somewhat confused, though. You state that you agree with Bricker’s position, which was simply that the descriptor “[2nd] most vehement” was not justified in your conclusion. If you have conceded any other points I must have missed them. Your new conclusion, however, is not the same as your first with only Bricker’s caveat. You do see that, don’t you? Or is the false dichotomy still tripping you up? BTW, are you still arguing that supporting the War on Drugs (or opposing drug legalization for that matter) is an apolitical position? You seem to have neglected that part of our discussion in your last post. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![JillGat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9fc29f/32.png) [@JillGat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JillGat)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/27 "2000-02-27T04:00:00Z")
I’m an epidemiologist. Somebody gave me a refrigerator magnet recently that shows a picture of a line graph, and says below, “I got charts and graphs to back me up, so fuck off.” Jill ---
**Author:** ![the\_first\_supraliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f475e1/32.png) [@the\_first\_supraliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_first_supraliminal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/28 "2000-02-27T15:42:00Z")
Shit, you guys can seriously debate! (Although it gets a bit anal sometimes.) Don’t mind me, I’ll just sit back here and take some notes. * * * There’s always another beer. ---
**Author:** ![the\_first\_supraliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f475e1/32.png) [@the\_first\_supraliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_first_supraliminal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/29 "2000-02-27T15:46:00Z")
Oh. I feel kinda dumb for asking this. But what’s the difference between “politics” and “economics”? * * * There’s always another beer. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/30 "2000-02-27T16:13:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by JillGat: > **I’m an epidemiologist.** An _HIV_ epidemiologist. What’s the latest version of the story about that dentist in Florida? It was Florida, wasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/31 "2000-02-27T16:41:00Z")
**RM Mentock** “No man ever had an original thought.” — Poe **Spiritus** > [@](#): > > Since this definition includes philanthorpic business ventures and non-profit organizations, I would have to say that the trait “like making money” can be applied to the set only in a very weak sense. Certainly it can not be asserted as an overriding or controlling element. Now you have me curious. What do _you_ think people take risks in business ventures _for_? Sure, there’s a few blips in the curve, I guess. Say, if a guy inherited a bazillion dollars, he might put some of his throw-away money into a busin… Oops. But that wouldn’t be a risk. > [@](#): > > Once again, I find myself needing to remind the logician of the methodology of his vocation. Do you find that as annoying as I do? Like a rat gnawing on a hemorrhoid. Especially when they’re wrong the way you are. Extrapolating from the general to the specific is classic deduction. > [@](#): > > Also, regarding that element, “legalization of drugs” could be very short term. Laws change, and this would not be the first time this republic has changed its mind about what is legal for its citizens. Well, I don’t think “this republic” has a mind to change, but I won’t pick at meaningless nits the way you do. But you’re right: assuming they don’t start a Department of Somethingorother, they politicians could change the law every other day. > [@](#): > > It seems that you overlooked that in your rush to raise charges pretentiousness and dishonesty. Damn. Too bad I only just now saw this. I could have saved a lot of time. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2000, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/32 "2000-02-27T16:44:00Z")
**Beeruser** [Here ya go.](http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/33 "2000-02-28T06:35:00Z")
I’ve been called worse than a rat, you bloody hemmorhoid. 😉 > [@](#): > > Especially when they’re wrong the way you are. > > Extrapolating from the general to the specific is classic deduction. Shall we review the chain of reasoning? **Lib** : Owners of businesses do not like sudden disruptions in their businesses. **SM** : It is conceivable, for instance, that a business owner would not mind a short-term disruption in his business (assuming he has enough capital to weather the storm) providing he expects a significant long-term benefit. **Lib** : And what the heck is short term about legalizing drugs? **SM** : Your syllogism used the premise, “Owners of businesses do not like sudden disruptions in their businesses.” This is a class statement. You now try to defend its validity by appealing to the supposed characteristics of one element of the class. **Lib** : Extrapolating from the general to the specific is classic deduction. [/quote] True, but that is not what you are doing. You made a class statement. I mentioned possible exceptions to that statement. You pointed to a specific element and said, “it’s true here”. Thet is not classic deduction, it is incomplete induction. _gnaw_ _gnaw_. > [@](#): > > Once again, I find myself needing to remind the logician of the methodology of his vocation. Do you find that as annoying as I do? On to other issues . . . > [@](#): > > What do you think people take risks in business ventures for? People risk capital for a number of reasons. I have one friend who has sunk several hundred thousand dollars into various electronic and alternative publishing ventures. His primary motivation is not capital gain, though he certainly would like to recoup his investment. His primary motive is a sense of artistic community. He very muc hwants to provide other authors with the means to get their work to the public. I have another acquaintance who regularly risks losses that he cannot easily absorb trying to help his son find financial succes in _any_ venture. These examples most likely represent an extreme minority among entrepreneurs as a whole, but your syllogisms rely upon universal set properties. A single counterexample is all that is necessary to weaken them. > [@](#): > > No man ever had an original thought." — Poe The fact that it was written by a man whose work I often admire in no way mitigates the absurdity of this statement. Nice quip; bad logic. hmmmm . . . List of eagerly awaited responses: 1. apolitical advocacy/opposition to a legislative initiative. 2. difference between dislike and opposition. Damn thing keeps growing. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/34 "2000-02-28T01:58:00Z")
Beeruser - if you can find a clear line between politics and economics, you’d be the first. Lib and SM - how about Internet businesses? People are investing like wildfire in an arena of our economy where constant disruption is the norm to be expected. Some of these disruptions harm market share, some increase it. ::ducks back out:: ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/35 "2000-02-28T20:19:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > **"No man ever had an original thought." — Poe** That wasn’t original with Poe. On the other hand, Einstein’s theories about general relativity come closest to original thought. Many scientific and technological (and artistic) advances have risen from fertile ground–if the person credited hadn’t done it, someone else surely would have, soon if not before but unheralded. Special relativity is a case in point. It was in the air at the start of the twentieth century. However, if Einstein hadn’t have persisted with general relativity (he had to overcome even his own proofs of impossibility), no one else would have. At least, there is no evidence that they would have. So, with Poe, you can pick on pretty much anybody when you want to cite examples of derivative work–leave ol’ Einstein alone. * * * rocks ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/36 "2000-02-28T22:11:00Z")
Father, if you would clear the fog that impedes the view below your nostrils, you would see that I am not attacking Einstein. I love Einstein. You are not only straining a gnat, good Father, you are straining an _imaginary_ one. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/37 "2000-02-28T23:44:00Z")
Lib, I love you, but you’re wrong about Einstein. His great work was _not_ inspired by Planck, except in the most trivial sense (the same as I am inspired by Grover Cleveland). The only person that Einstein credited was Mach, and Mach denied it. Unless, you know, you can show me otherwise. And then I would suck up that fog, and apologize. * * * rocks ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/38 "2000-02-29T00:10:00Z")
Well, Father, my understanding is that the examination and subsequent discovery of the photoelectric effect was inspired by Planck’s work in quanta. Here’s one [citation](http://sci.hkbu.edu.hk/math/einstein.html) that shows prior trailblazing from both Planck and Maxwell. > [@](#): > > In the first of three papers (1905) Einstein examined the phenomenon discovered by Max Planck, according to which electromagnetic energy seemed to be emitted from radiating objects in discrete quantities. The energy of these quanta was directly proportional to the frequency of the radiation. This seemed at odds with the classical electromagnetic theory, based on Maxwell’s equations and the laws of thermodynamics which assumed that electromagnetic energy consisted of waves which could contain any small amount of energy. Einstein used Planck’s quantum hypothesis to describe the electromagnetic radiation of light. > > Einstein’s second 1905 paper proposed what is today called the special theory of relativity. He based his new theory on a reinterpretation of the classical principle of relativity, namely that the laws of physics had to have the same form in any frame of reference. As a second fundamental hypothesis, Einstein assumed that the speed of light remained constant in all frames of reference, as required by Maxwell’s theory. > > Later in 1905 Einstein showed how mass and energy were equivalent. Einstein was not the first to propose all the components of special theory of relativity. His contribution is unifying important parts of classical mechanics and Maxwell’s electrodynamics. Father, frankly, I find your bristling at the notion that Einstein could never be inspired externally to be weird. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/39 "2000-02-29T01:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Some arguments are getting just as mired in emotion, personal opinion, > morality, philosophy, or just limited perceptions (not meant to be an insult). Emotion/morality: essential bases of human thought. Reason is perfectly happy with outrageous abuses of human freedom and rights as long as they can be somehow rationally justified. Personal opinion: whose else opinion would it be? Even if your opinion is rational, it’s still your opinion. For more discussion, please see John Ralston Saul’s _Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West._ ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/40 "2000-02-29T06:23:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > **Father, frankly, I find your bristling at the notion that Einstein could never be inspired externally to be weird.** That would be weird, if it were true. What I objected to is your dismissing BlakJak’s comment (posted 02-21-2000 07:59 AM) that Einstein had rejected the “scientific stigma” of the day, by quoting Poe that no one ever had an original thought (trivially true, as I said) and claiming that “Actually, Einstein got some of his ideas from Planck.” So, \, what kinda logical argument is that??? Where’s the “sound reason and solid syllogism?” I was amazed that anyone would try to argue against Einstein’s theories being antiestablishment, but you did. You key in on one piece of work that didn’t directly buck all previous theories–and it was the work for which he won a Noble prize, because they were afraid to give it to him for anything else! Everything else was too scary. * * * rocks [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565.md?page=3)