Dying from "Old Age"

[PattdownManiac]

Sometimes I will hear about an old person dying, and I'll ask "how did they die?". I'm told, old age. Then I am like, yeah, but how did they actually die, a heart attack, a stroke? And I get told, "just old age".

Is old age a legit cause of death? It never made sense to me. I assume old age causes something, which causes death. But people wanna play hardball and stick with simply old age. A coroner wouldn't write old age as cause of death right?

What is this old age crap? I am right, right? People don't actually just die from being old.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I will hear about an old person dying, and I'll ask "how did they die?". I'm told, old age. Then I am like, yeah, but how did they actually die, a heart attack, a stroke? And I get told, "just old age".

Is old age a legit cause of death? It never made sense to me. I assume old age causes something, which causes death. But people wanna play hardball and stick with simply old age. A coroner wouldn't write old age as cause of death right?

What is this old age crap? I am right, right? People don't actually just die from being old.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sleep apnea. Really it probably means a whole host of things, most of them being cardiac arrest. Its a euphemism for someone who is old and dies for something they weren't being treated for.

[PattdownManiac]

So really they should be telling me sleep anea, cardiac arrest, etc. But they don't know the facts (like not knowing why half of earth doesn't freeze) so they just stick by this "old age" pile of bull crap.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
So really they should be telling me sleep anea, cardiac arrest, etc. But they don't know the facts (like not knowing why half of earth doesn't freeze) so they just stick by this "old age" pile of bull crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, a few problems. First, its often impossible to determine the true cause of death unless you do an autopsy. Obviously, a lot of people prefer not to have autopsies done on their parents, grandparents, or whatever, when foul play is extremely unlikely. So, they could randomly guess cardiac arrest, or they could just give a safe catch-all, and say 'natural causes.'

[PattdownManiac]

How do they know it was natural causes or old age if an autopsy wasn't done? It seems pretty suspicious these people refuse to have an autopsy performed and vehemently stand by the vague cause of death as "old age". Pretty convenient way to get rid of someone who may have become a financial burden on the family.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
How do they know it was natural causes or old age if an autopsy wasn't done? It seems pretty suspicious these people refuse to have an autopsy performed and vehemently stand by the vague cause of death as "old age". Pretty convenient way to get rid of someone who may have become a financial burden on the family.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. There are probably a not-insignificant number of deaths that could be attributed to this. Also, mercy killings. Not much we can really do about it, though. It would be pretty impractical to make autopsies mandatory, I think (although I don't know this for certain). Whats a better strategy? And who do you think is being lied to or deceived here? To whom does it really matter?

[PattdownManiac]

I think I am being lied to by these people who want me to think people are just randomly dying from old age and there is nothing behind it. But I see through their lies.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I am being lied to by these people who want me to think people are just randomly dying from old age and there is nothing behind it. But I see through their lies.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif Ok. Did I forget to mention that 10-15% (depending on the study you read) of old people die as a direct result of over-vigorous alien anal probes?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Very true. There are probably a not-insignificant number of deaths that could be attributed to this. Also, mercy killings. Not much we can really do about it, though. It would be pretty impractical to make autopsies mandatory, I think (although I don't know this for certain). Whats a better strategy? And who do you think is being lied to or deceived here? To whom does it really matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

People die. "Mercy killings"?The only lie and deceit is in your head.Breathtaking ignorance.Wish you luck.

carlo

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very true. There are probably a not-insignificant number of deaths that could be attributed to this. Also, mercy killings. Not much we can really do about it, though. It would be pretty impractical to make autopsies mandatory, I think (although I don't know this for certain). Whats a better strategy? And who do you think is being lied to or deceived here? To whom does it really matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

People die. "Mercy killings"?The only lie and deceit is in your head.Breathtaking ignorance.Wish you luck.

carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about? You don't think a significant amount of elderly, terminally ill patients ask their loved ones to end their suffering for them? What exactly am I ignorant about? No one ever offs their old burdens?

People die. And sometimes they are helped along. So what?

[kevin017]

As people get older, the function of their organs and bodies deteriorates. Eventually, they will just not have the energy and function left to keep surviving.

Why so critical of just the old age term. When someone dies from cancer, what do you think kills them? They have cancer for a while then boom they're dead? No, it has to spread to one or more organs that perform vital functions and impair them until the person can no longer sustain life. Same type of deal with aids. Same with old age, just with old age it is simply the body's natural loss of function rather than a disease impairing it.

Sure, sometimes "old age" is probably an unidentified disease, but there is such a thing as dying of old age. We could classify every death according to what organ failed. or we could just say aids, cancer, and old age.

[Prodigy54321]

in The Selfish Gene, Dawkins mentions that old age is simply the accumulation of harful tendencies (diseases, etc) that only present themselves late in life..

the reason that these are sucessful in the population, whereas the same tendencies are not successful in the population if they present themselves earlier in life, is that people have had more time to procreate..so the harmful tendencies are not weeded out by natural selection to the extent that they would be if they presented themselves earlier in life..

Dawkins even speculated that we could theoretically make humans live much longer than we currently do by not allowing people to have children until a certain age.

I found it interesting

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
in The Selfish Gene, Dawkins mentions that old age is simply the accumulation of harful tendencies (diseases, etc) that only present themselves late in life..

the reason that these are sucessful in the population, whereas the same tendencies are not successful in the population if they present themselves earlier in life, is that people have had more time to procreate..so the harmful tendencies are not weeded out by natural selection to the extent that they would be if they presented themselves earlier in life..

Dawkins even speculated that we could theoretically make humans live much longer than we currently do by not allowing people to have children until a certain age.

I found it interesting

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. There are some people who naturally have much higher than normal values of good cholesterol and lower levels of bad cholesterol, but since this is extremely unlikely to make any difference until late in life, it carries no selective advantage? Interesting.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
People die. And sometimes they are helped along. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doctor Krekorian Hawk.You're living an illusion.Thankfully you'll someday see the hubris in these statements.You're talking about a criminal act being justified. This type of thing can't be debated.The doctor's work is to aid his patient in any all all circumstances. No compromise . In matters of dieing the doctor may come to the point where "nothing else can be done" and the family will know this. People will die and need no help. The bodily nature will take its course and the doctor will certainly be humbled at the majesty of the human condition.

carlo

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People die. And sometimes they are helped along. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doctor Krekorian Hawk.You're living an illusion.Thankfully you'll someday see the hubris in these statements.You're talking about a criminal act being justified. This type of thing can't be debated.The doctor's work is to aid his patient in any all all circumstances. No compromise . In matters of dieing the doctor may come to the point where "nothing else can be done" and the family will know this. People will die and need no help. The bodily nature will take its course and the doctor will certainly be humbled at the majesty of the human condition.

carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

Who in the world is talking about doctors? I personally think the vast majority of these patients should be dying at home. Breathtaking ignorance on your part?

It may very well not be the place of a doctor, but is it the place of a devoted son? Tell me I can't grant my father release from his agony when he is suffering every minute of every day. I dare you.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

As people get older, the function of their organs and bodies deteriorates. Eventually, they will just not have the energy and function left to keep surviving.

Why so critical of just the old age term. When someone dies from cancer, what do you think kills them? They have cancer for a while then boom they're dead? No, it has to spread to one or more organs that perform vital functions and impair them until the person can no longer sustain life. Same type of deal with aids. Same with old age, just with old age it is simply the body's natural loss of function rather than a disease impairing it.

Sure, sometimes "old age" is probably an unidentified disease, but there is such a thing as dying of old age. We could classify every death according to what organ failed. or we could just say aids, cancer, and old age.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice Hand.

A doctor has to sign a death certificate and based upon history and present situation the cause is delineated. This becomes a political matter for it is mandated by the state. Old age will not be on the death certificate.

Working example. A woman dies at age 95. You could say that the body can no longer promote life functions. The doctor may say "cardiac insufficiency". The family will say that this is due to "old age". Its a nice phrase which the family will most likely carry with them and will not be denied by the doctor.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
t may very well not be the place of a doctor, but is it the place of a devoted son? Tell me I can't grant my father release from his agony when he is suffering every minute of every day. I dare you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't and shouldn't command you to do anything. This is something that you have to figure out for yourself. But if you do do it, it would not be good for him or for YOU. This is like preaching to a stove expecting it to make the room warm. Wood and a match are needed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
t may very well not be the place of a doctor, but is it the place of a devoted son? Tell me I can't grant my father release from his agony when he is suffering every minute of every day. I dare you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't and shouldn't command you to do anything. This is something that you have to figure out for yourself. But if you do do it, it would not be good for him or for YOU. This is like preaching to a stove expecting it to make the room warm. Wood and a match are needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have some support for that assertion? How can you say it would not be good for either of us? I say it would be good for both of us.

A better question, rather than asking if I should be allowed to do it to my father...should I be allowed to do it to myself? I'm curious to how you would justify a position that claims I have no right to end my life, at any time that I see fit.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
A better question, rather than asking if I should be allowed to do it to my father...should I be allowed to do it to myself? I'm curious to how you would justify a position that claims I have no right to end my life, at any time that I see fit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just trying to help, Hawk. I am not the judge in these matters. Taking one's life is a tragedy for all concerned. Heartbreaking, and for this one cannot perceive only intellectually as the intellect can justify anything. The intellect is cold but can be warmed in action and feeling.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A better question, rather than asking if I should be allowed to do it to my father...should I be allowed to do it to myself? I'm curious to how you would justify a position that claims I have no right to end my life, at any time that I see fit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just trying to help, Hawk. I am not the judge in these matters. Taking one's life is a tragedy for all concerned. Heartbreaking, and for this one cannot perceive only intellectually as the intellect can justify anything. The intellect is cold but can be warmed in action and feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, just wondering if you have any support for these assertions. I can say having a loving relationship with the woman of your dreams is a horrible thing for all involved, but I think many would disagree. Why is ending my life at the age of 90 when I am suffering horrible agony every second 'a tragedy for all concerned?' You might be using these words in some non-standard ways, I figured I'd give you a chance to explain. I've asked three times now and you just keep repeating your assertion, but perhaps there is more?

[MidGe]

vhawk1,

You are right about mercy killings, but, I think, that more important, and probably lrger in number are voluntary and assisted euthanasias, which are legitimate in many progressive societies but do occur, quite rightly, even where it is not legal. You just need find a compassionate doctor that will allow you the choice to die with dignity.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk1,

You are right about mercy killings, but, I think, that more important, and probably lrger in number are voluntary and assisted euthanasias, which are legitimate in many progressive societies but do occur, quite rightly, even where it is not legal. You just need find a compassionate doctor that will allow you the choice to die with dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly, because what you are talking about is exactly what I meant. Unfortunately, in this country, the majority of people die in the hospital. This, IMO, is a tragedy. When surveyed, the vast majority of people say they would choose to die at home, and yet this is almost never the case. Ideally, doctors would have little say in this decision, as it is only tangentially a medical one.

That being said, I am more on the Burger King end of the spectrum than a lot of other people in the health field. I generally come down on the side of the patient 'having it their way.'

[daryn]

basically all death is caused from lack of oxygen to the brain.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in The Selfish Gene, Dawkins mentions that old age is simply the accumulation of harful tendencies (diseases, etc) that only present themselves late in life..

the reason that these are sucessful in the population, whereas the same tendencies are not successful in the population if they present themselves earlier in life, is that people have had more time to procreate..so the harmful tendencies are not weeded out by natural selection to the extent that they would be if they presented themselves earlier in life..

Dawkins even speculated that we could theoretically make humans live much longer than we currently do by not allowing people to have children until a certain age.

I found it interesting

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. There are some people who naturally have much higher than normal values of good cholesterol and lower levels of bad cholesterol, but since this is extremely unlikely to make any difference until late in life, it carries no selective advantage? Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, death at older ages is an evolutionary advantage. It's not just no selective 'advantage'. It would be a disadvantage to have a large number of people around using up resources after they had become too damaged to reproduce or even help the society. Lots of species have very clear timed deaths, presumably for this reason?

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People die. And sometimes they are helped along. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doctor Krekorian Hawk.You're living an illusion.Thankfully you'll someday see the hubris in these statements.You're talking about a criminal act being justified. This type of thing can't be debated.The doctor's work is to aid his patient in any all all circumstances. No compromise . In matters of dieing the doctor may come to the point where "nothing else can be done" and the family will know this. People will die and need no help. The bodily nature will take its course and the doctor will certainly be humbled at the majesty of the human condition.

carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you so sure this doesn't go on in hospitals all over the country?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People die. And sometimes they are helped along. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doctor Krekorian Hawk.You're living an illusion.Thankfully you'll someday see the hubris in these statements.You're talking about a criminal act being justified. This type of thing can't be debated.The doctor's work is to aid his patient in any all all circumstances. No compromise . In matters of dieing the doctor may come to the point where "nothing else can be done" and the family will know this. People will die and need no help. The bodily nature will take its course and the doctor will certainly be humbled at the majesty of the human condition.

carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you so sure this doesn't go on in hospitals all over the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt he will answer your direct questions. I've asked him the same one three times and he just comes back with the same assertion, that ending human life is wrong in all possible scenarios and that everyone is always hurt by such a thing.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you so sure this doesn't go on in hospitals all over the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not up to me to deny such a statement as yours. Its up to you to prove that this does happen.You don't really think that because you pull something out of the woodwork you can confirm reality by sitting in front of a computer.Can't deny a denial for there no room for truth.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt he will answer your direct questions. I've asked him the same one three times and he just comes back with the same assertion, that ending human life is wrong in all possible scenarios and that everyone is always hurt by such a thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've given you good answers but you refuse to consider the consequences of your statements in consideration of reality.You're speculating and in that you also have to prove your speculations.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt he will answer your direct questions. I've asked him the same one three times and he just comes back with the same assertion, that ending human life is wrong in all possible scenarios and that everyone is always hurt by such a thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've given you good answers but you refuse to consider the consequences of your statements in consideration of reality.You're speculating and in that you also have to prove your speculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider my speculation proven. I would prefer to die in the scenarios listed above. So, at least 1 person would benefit. You've made the claim that all people are hurt in all situations where someone is helped into death. Please support this.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
onsider my speculation proven. I would prefer to die in the scenarios listed above. So, at least 1 person would benefit. You've made the claim that all people are hurt in all situations where someone is helped into death. Please support this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I won't consider your speculation. You made statements about reality and old age and its up to you to prove them right(as if that were at all possible-using your methodology here). One thing I would like to make clear is that I am not threatening some type of everlasting punishment for you in this dialogue but asking you to experience the reactions of the persons involved in such deeds. A person may like expresso but the experience of dizziness, uneasiness and being in a downright funk may prove to him that expresso is not for him(quite often he continues to imbibe but frequently does learn expresso's relationship to him and acts accordingly).

To put it succinctly there is no joy nor celebration in euthanasia or suicide. This is tragedy that can be experienced by all. The tragedy is inherent in the act. As a flower can give off an essence the act will present its own experience. That this experience will differ in different people is obvious but the act itself can be clearly seen by in its own concrete realityirrespective of mine or your particular relationship to it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
onsider my speculation proven. I would prefer to die in the scenarios listed above. So, at least 1 person would benefit. You've made the claim that all people are hurt in all situations where someone is helped into death. Please support this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I won't consider your speculation. You made statements about reality and old age and its up to you to prove them right(as if that were at all possible-using your methodology here). One thing I would like to make clear is that I am not threatening some type of everlasting punishment for you in this dialogue but asking you to experience the reactions of the persons involved in such deeds. A person may like expresso but the experience of dizziness, uneasiness and being in a downright funk may prove to him that expresso is not for him(quite often he continues to imbibe but frequently does learn expresso's relationship to him and acts accordingly).

To put it succinctly there is no joy nor celebration in euthanasia or suicide. This is tragedy that can be experienced by all. The tragedy is inherent in the act. As a flower can give off an essence the act will present its own experience. That this experience will differ in different people is obvious but the act itself can be clearly seen by in its own concrete realityirrespective of mine or your particular relationship to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you are being deliberate imprecise, or if that is just your writing style. Unfortunately, the end result seems to be that I spend most of my reponses to you rephrasing what I THINK you are saying and then responding to that, only to have you tell me that isn't what you were saying at all, and then refusing to clarify. I guess I'll give it another go.

You seem to be saynig that euthenasia and suicide are ALWAYS a tragedy. You say things like "The tragedy is inherent in the act," which is a fantastic supposition, but I for one reject it. You are going to need to do more than simply state it as if it were fact. I am still patiently awaiting your arguments for this assertion. You've made it several times, and then you make a bunch of condescending comments about my naivete. For instance, your last sentence is entirely gibberish.

[arahant]

I'm once again impressed by your patience. You do realize that he can't think straight, right?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saynig that euthenasia and suicide are ALWAYS a tragedy. You say things like "The tragedy is inherent in the act," which is a fantastic supposition, but I for one reject it. You are going to need to do more than simply state it as if it were fact. I am still patiently awaiting your arguments for this assertion. You've made it several times, and then you make a bunch of condescending comments about my naivete. For instance, your last sentence is entirely gibberish.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Always"? A trick for no "straight thinking" individual would every say "always" to anything according to the trickster.Of course I could say 'always" and have no difficulty with that. The "always" I refer to is in the same nature as seeing an explosion, not all the same, but no doubt an explosion. But, more to the point, I am speaking to YOU, the personal Hawk, not to the world. When I come from the mount with my tablets of stone i"ll let you know but right now this is between YOU and ME.

Concerning this "gibberish". let me make this clearer.Since this is personal I'll use you and I as examples. One spring day you walk through a field full of flowers and to you this may be an exhilirating experience in which you are welled. You are buoyed by the beauty of the field and nature sings in you. I,to the contrary, while walking throught the same field,feel an unease, have some difficulty with breathing and begin to sneeze. I feel terrible. You're right, I have allergies and the field of flowers doesn't agree with me.

We have both responded to the field of flowers and in sharply different ways.We return the next year and have the same response. Our memories of yesteryear are with us and we react the same.

But we do have something in which we can agree and that is that part of our experience that is "germane to the field of flowers" which goes beyond our individual reactions to the field.That is the eternal in the field of flowers which was there the year before and this year in which we can come to agreement. This"eternal" is present irrespective of how we react to it and contains its own objectivity. Human beings find this "eternal' through thought and thinking,even if "circuitous"(Araphant) /images/graemlins/grin.gif. This post is 100% over!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saynig that euthenasia and suicide are ALWAYS a tragedy. You say things like "The tragedy is inherent in the act," which is a fantastic supposition, but I for one reject it. You are going to need to do more than simply state it as if it were fact. I am still patiently awaiting your arguments for this assertion. You've made it several times, and then you make a bunch of condescending comments about my naivete. For instance, your last sentence is entirely gibberish.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Always"? A trick for no "straight thinking" individual would every say "always" to anything according to the trickster.Of course I could say 'always" and have no difficulty with that. The "always" I refer to is in the same nature as seeing an explosion, not all the same, but no doubt an explosion. But, more to the point, I am speaking to YOU, the personal Hawk, not to the world. When I come from the mount with my tablets of stone i"ll let you know but right now this is between YOU and ME.

Concerning this "gibberish". let me make this clearer.Since this is personal I'll use you and I as examples. One spring day you walk through a field full of flowers and to you this may be an exhilirating experience in which you are welled. You are buoyed by the beauty of the field and nature sings in you. I,to the contrary, while walking throught the same field,feel an unease, have some difficulty with breathing and begin to sneeze. I feel terrible. You're right, I have allergies and the field of flowers doesn't agree with me.

We have both responded to the field of flowers and in sharply different ways.We return the next year and have the same response. Our memories of yesteryear are with us and we react the same.

But we do have something in which we can agree and that is that part of our experience that is "germane to the field of flowers" which goes beyond our individual reactions to the field.That is the eternal in the field of flowers which was there the year before and this year in which we can come to agreement. This"eternal" is present irrespective of how we react to it and contains its own objectivity. Human beings find this "eternal' through thought and thinking,even if "circuitous"(Araphant) /images/graemlins/grin.gif. This post is 100% over!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I appreciate the expounding, but that wasn't the part I was having trouble with at all. I am pretty comfortable with the difference between subjective and objective experience/reality. My problem is with what you happen to put in which box. To YOU, euthenasia is a tragedy. But you don't get to just claim this is some universal, objective truth. You understand the difference, right? To use your analogy, you sneeze at euthenasia, I don't, but the shared experience of a field of flowers != euthenasia is bad.

You are basically saying, "I think its a tragedy, you don't, but, although we may experience things differently, the one thing that is eternally true is that I am right."

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
You are basically saying, "I think its a tragedy, you don't, but, although we may experience things differently, the one thing that is eternally true is that I am right."

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, yes,its a tragedy. I think that the use of words is not quite right here so perhaps a better word is "pathos". Yes the experience in the act of suicide or euthanasia would better be relegated to the realm of "pathos". I really must tell you that I am not presenting this in a manner in which I like apples and you like oranges. I experience the "pathos' in the same manner as I can experience roar of a lion. Yes, it can affect me individually, but am quite able to experience that "lion-like" moment.

[Sephus]

you're the only poster, maybe be the only person, i know of who i think would be understood more clearly if he never used any metaphors of any sort.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
you're the only poster, maybe be the only person, i know of who i think would be understood more clearly if he never used any metaphors of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad its not just me. I really dislike the standard copout of "Thats a horrible analogy" or "WTF are you saying" but I honestly try to understand and I feel like its a different language.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
you're the only poster, maybe be the only person, i know of who i think would be understood more clearly if he never used any metaphors of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I have never experienced “that ‘lion-like’ moment”, but I just experienced what it is like to be a hyena. I just finished rolling with laughter.

[JussiUt]

I think Carlo is some 55-year old eccentric ex-professor who retired because he started to have mental problems. No offense.

EDIT: And also sorry for bumping this old post. Didn't notice it was that old.

[MidGe]

Definitely not ex-professor unless at a university of dubious academic quality.


Sorry Carlo, not intended as a personal attack, but just as a derisive comment about you early 20th century parlours games and salons ideas (to wit from Steiner et al.). /images/graemlins/smile.gif