at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:14:20 GMT in <1112656460.213513.324600
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, (Sheldon) wrote :

>
>Alex Rast wrote:
>> at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:10:42 GMT in <1112620242.258434.124980
>> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, (Sheldon) wrote :
>>
>> >
>> >Alex Rast wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is the problem that you're gluten intolerant? ...
>> >
>> >Nope, buckwheat is a fruit, actually a berry (not a ceral grain) and
>is
>> >gluten free.
>>
>> What I meant was that such grains as are close substitutes for barley
>-
>> i.e. "true" grains - contain gluten. Buckwheat was one not in this
>category
>> inasmuch as it's not very similar to barley.
>
>That's not what you said, boy... try to act like a man, and stop your
>oozing.

Well, it is *exactly* what I said, but I apologise if you got confused
anyway. Here is the phrase:

>> >because the most similar substitutes for barley are all true
>> >grains,
>> >> and AFAIK all contain constituent proteins that at least to some
>> >extent can
>> >> form gluten (correct me anyone if I'm wrong)

Note that the "all" after "AFAIK" refers to "the most similar substitutes
for barley" just above, which I further qualify using the description "are
all true grains". Thus it refers only to the most similar substitutes and
not to any arbitrary substitute. If it were to have included buckwheat, I
would have had to make the stripping of the qualifiers explicit by saying
"AFAIK all substitutes contain constituent proteins..."

However, since what I said was confusing (and I'll agree that it's a maze
of qualifiers), how might you have worded it so that it wasn't so
confusing?

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)