From: Michael Wojcik on
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> I guess it is a matter of semantics. Even the pages that refute [Poe's]
> being an "addict" said he used both opium and Laudunum (tincture of
> opium). I am sure if you asked most opium users today they would
> insist that they were not addicted. The science of opium use seems
> to disagree.

As does the science of addiction. The DSM-IV standards for addiction
seem to differ from those used by the American Society of Addiction
Medicine, for example. (If my quick web research is at all accurate,
it looks like the DSM-IV includes substance-seeking, binge use, and
tolerance/withdrawal among addiction categories, while the ASAM
considers addiction, dependence, and tolerance distinct syndromes.)

Other medical researchers and groups probably use other definitions.

Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Howard Brazee on
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:19:30 -0500, Michael Wojcik
<mwojcik(a)> wrote:

>Yes. It's really pretty formalized and affected, not a "working"
>dialect like txt. That's partly what makes things like the Lolcat
>Bible interesting - the amount of work that went into a novelty. It's
>another example of how you can find a sizable group of people who
>share pretty much any interest, no matter how odd, on the Internet.[1]
>And how much that group can collectively get done.

One of the big interests that pushed the use of home use of the
Internet was genealogy. It was a hobby held by people who didn't
live close - but who were interested in things far away (like my
great-great-grandmother's grave).

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison