u/invalid_user_name

Yeah, it's weird since my resident USologist can't hear the difference either, and doesn't think Canadians say dagger or dragon any differently than Americans (she's from the midwest).

And speaking of the midwest, I am suprised at some of the questions not in that accent test. Specifically roof and root are dead give-aways for midwestern accents.

Actually, technically I just lied again. I looked it up, and BC has mandatory second language classes, but doesn't specify it has to be french. Most schools don't offer any other options, but still.

The vast majority do. Only the praries (and yes, we count alberta in there despite those mountain thingies) don't have mandatory french classes in public school. Every other province does.

Except that's not what is happening, like I just said. When the wife says "take out the garbage" and I go "uh huh" without really listening and then never do it, that is selective hearing. This is a case of not realizing your own accent, which everyone does.

I think the issue is in the phonetic spelling we're using

I wish, I am now convinced I can't hear ;)

See, every audio pronounciation I can find sounds like "day", "hay", "say", "weigh" to me. The audio clip I linked to is how I say it, and how everyone I have ever met says it (I am in Canada). But apparently those same audio pronounciations sound like "dah" as in "bad" or "cat" to everyone else?

Again, WTF? Did you read your link? This isn't selective hearing at all.

really? That sounds like DAY-GER to me, and is also the only way I have ever heard it pronounced by anyone, including people from all over canada and the US, australia, new zealand, china, south korea, russia, romania and israel. Am I being wooshed here or what?

Honestly, WTF? Those are both exactly as you just described. "DAY-GER" and "DRAY-GON". A soft "a" would be "DAH-GER" and "DRAH-GON".

day-ger (dagger), and dray-gon

I would really love to know how you think dagger and dragon are supposed to be pronounced.

Weird, I figured the opposite. Canadians have to take french in school as kids, we should all know how to say melee properly. It's always Americans I hear say it "mee-lee".

Look, you're saying things that are wrong and unscientific

No, you are being needlessly pedantic. Anyone knows exactly what I meant, and the same phrasing is used constantly by gasp actual biochemists. The statement "Sucrose is 50% fructose." is perfectly fine in the context of a discussion of the fructose and glucose contents of various sugars. It would be wrong taken out of context, but that was actually the last line of an entire post, not an isolated statement.

If you're going to resort to an ad hominem attack and ignore the issue at hand

It isn't ad hominem if you are actually a pedantic douche. And I didn't ignore the issue at hand, I responded. You aren't saying anything new, you said "but sucrose is a molecule". I said "yes I know, we are discussing sugar content, are you hard of reading?". Ignoring the response doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Again, when did he try to stop other people from maintaining it? He said he doesn't like the bastardized version of markdown. That isn't an "incident" and it doesn't stop anyone from offering "markdown++" or whatever they want to call it.

When has he tried to stop other people from maintaining it?

Saying that "sucrose is 50% fructose" grates on the ears of anyone with any biochemical knowledge at all

No it doesn't, I don't mind at all.

as does your misuse of "its" and "You're"

This does however. It seems to get worse the more I read reddit. I think today I will blame you. Your needlessly pedantic post which adds nothing to the conversation wasn't worth proofreading for.

Seriously, being a pedantic douche isn't changing anything. Your body can only use monosaccharides, so all sugars are broken down into them. Hence comparing the ratios of them.

100g of pear contains over 6g of fructose and 3g of glucose. 100g of coke contains about 6.5 and 5.5 respectively. And fiber doesn't have some magic fructose fixing power. It is just indigestible complex carbs.

That's the bacteria eating the fiber.

No, its not like that at all because the sucrose is split into glucose and fructose when you digest it. You're body doesn't split water into hydrogen and oxygen when you digest it.

Oh, well if some guy claims corn syrup is the devil's work, it must be true. I'll just disregard all the facts and start believing complete nonsense, thanks.

How convenient that you don't have any actual facts, just vague references to enzymes and preparing. This is typical of fructose consipiracy nuts.

helps block absorption in the small intestine

Slow, not block.

And fails to mention that the sucrose you think is so much better is 50% fructose, while the "evil HFCS" is 55%. And that you get more fructose from eating a pear than you do from a can of pop. And that fibre doesn't "block absorption", it simply slows it down. You still metabolize all the fructose in fruit.

The differences between sucrose and fructose:

Are you actively trying to be obtuse? How about reading his post instead of repeating nonsense like an idiot? Sucrose is 50% fructose. HFCS is 55% fructose. This is not a significant difference, and using sucrose everywhere we use HFCS would be exactly as bad.

You can eat fruit

A major source of fructose. Ignorant hypocrit much?

Except that "high fructose corn syrup" is not a measure of its fructose content compared to other sugars, it is a measure of its fructose content compared to other corn syrup blends. "High fructose" in this case means 55%. Sucrose is 50% fructose.

That's what happens when you have an entire department of the federal government specifically to lobby for an industry. People seem to forget that the USDA is not your friend, they exist to help the US agriculture industry.