Home > Archive > Cobol > November 2007 > No level is safe, zero tolerance
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
No level is safe, zero tolerance
|
|
| Robert 2007-11-10, 9:56 pm |
| As I was enjoying some Ben & Jerry’s ice cream at one of their “scoop shops” last summer,
I noticed a Ben & Jerry’s marketing brochure titled “Our Thoughts on Dioxin.” The brochure
stated, “Dioxin is known to cause cancer, genetic and reproductive defects and learning
disabilities... The only safe level of dioxin exposure is no exposure at all.” Knowing
that dioxin is in virtually all food, Dr. Michael Gough and I put Ben & Jerry’s ice cream
to the test. Gough is a former government scientist who chaired the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services advisory panel on the effects of dioxin-contaminated Agent
Orange on U.S. Air Force personnel in Vietnam and served as one of EPA’s science advisers
in the 1994 review of dioxin.
We measured the level of dioxin in a sample of Ben & Jerry’s “World’s Best Vanilla” ice
cream. We presented the results at the Dioxin 2000 scientific conference held this w in
Monterrey, California.
Two independent laboratories using different methodologies reported a single serving of
the ice cream contained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe —
according to the existing EPA standard. Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben &
Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by a whopping 2,000 times. The level would be
about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound child.
If dioxin is so dangerous — as Ben & Jerry’s and Greenpeace, the ice cream-maker’s science
adviser, seem to think it is — then how can Ben & Jerry’s sell its ice cream? Doesn’t the
company care about “the children?” — a segment of the population continually exploited to
promote the political and social agendas of the EPA and environmental activists.
http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn081800.htm
| |
| Robert 2007-11-10, 9:56 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:14:45 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>As I was enjoying some Ben & Jerry’s ice cream at one of their “scoop shops” last summer,
Whoops, wrong forum. My apologies.
| |
|
| In article <00mcj3pm14eurkse27m0oln2ktom3lise8@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:14:45 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>shops” last summer,
>
>Whoops, wrong forum. My apologies.
Whacky ASCII characters aside, Mr Wagner... I did not know that the text
you were quoting - it contained a few first-person pronouns - was not your
own until I followed the URL to its source. I noticed two things there.
1) No links were provided to any sources for any of the numbers.
2) The article is over seven years old. Things may - or may not - have
changed since then.
I, personally, would have no objections to your posting whatever followup
you see fit to make for this old and unsupported bit of editorialising
that you've mis-posted in this forum... prefaced, of course, with an
appropriate [OT].
DD
| |
| HeyBub 2007-11-11, 6:55 pm |
| Robert wrote:
> Newspapers and magazines don't use footnotes either, because
> scholarly writing sounds pompous to the general public.
>
>
> Hypocrisy hasn't changed. Ben and Jerry are selling dilettantish
> environmentalism to justify high prices. Milloy caught them in a lie.
> Tabloid readers love such stories.
Ben & Jerry no longer own Ben & Jerry's. Evidently the crushing weight of
posioning children was just too much to bear, so they sold out to Unilever.
There's nothing wrong with hypocrisy. 85% of gynecologists are men.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-11-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:43:00 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>There's nothing wrong with hypocrisy. 85% of gynecologists are men.
I see zero relationship between those two statements.
| |
| tlmfru 2007-11-12, 6:55 pm |
| While OT things are usually interesting and thought-provoking, this one is
TOO FAR off-topic to be carried on here, and besides seems to be mostly
sniping by the "down with Wagner" school of thought. Why don't you guys
carry it on in the newsgroup that Robert meant to post it to? I'm quite
sure he'll tell you which one.
PL
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:bgugj3ptqo0mltebiqobuiqi7of74c8pf4@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:43:00 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I see zero relationship between those two statements.
| |
| HeyBub 2007-11-12, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:43:00 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I see zero relationship between those two statements.
They find what is wrong with women and tell the women how to correct the
problems, even though they don't follow their own advice.
To far out?
Okay, the sign that says "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to
Chicago itself. But it has no problem pointing passer-byes in the right
direction and they are usually grateful.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2007-11-13, 7:55 am |
| "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> They find what is wrong with women and tell the women how to correct the problems, even though they don't follow their own advice.
>
> To far out?
>
> Okay, the sign that says "This way to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to Chicago itself. But it has no problem pointing passer-byes
> in the right direction and they are usually grateful.
Does that mean a farmer or a tree surgeon is also hypocritical, because
they don't do to themselves what they do to plants? ;-)
It isn't hypocritical to not follow your own advice, when it truly does not
apply to you. It's thinking it doesn't apply to you when it really does that
makes one hypocritical. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2007-11-13, 7:55 am |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> It isn't hypocritical to not follow your own advice, when it truly
> does not apply to you. It's thinking it doesn't apply to you when it
> really does that makes one hypocritical. :-)
Good point. Still, what if it does apply to you? If I smoke like a chimney
and tell my kids it's bad, that makes me a hypocrite. Does that in any way
diminish the validity of my position?
See, hypocrisy is, in itself, not bad. Consider, for instance, Al Gore.
Wait, never mind.
| |
|
| In article <13jjaeiaaa1bm70@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>Good point. Still, what if it does apply to you? If I smoke like a chimney
>and tell my kids it's bad, that makes me a hypocrite. Does that in any way
>diminish the validity of my position?
I am not sure what is being called 'my position' here. Consider the
possible results when 'my position' is 'the opinions, experiences,
exhortations and actions of your parents are Good Things to incorporate
into your future behaviors'.
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Good point. Still, what if it does apply to you? If I smoke like a chimney and tell my kids it's bad, that makes me a hypocrite.
> Does that in any way diminish the validity of my position?
But how does that make male gynecologists hypocritical? Should they get
regular pap smears because they recommend that to their patients? :-) I'm
still trying to understand your statement about male gynecologists and
hypocrisy.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:47:02 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>They find what is wrong with women and tell the women how to correct the
>problems, even though they don't follow their own advice.
And bald people shouldn't be barbers, healthy people shouldn't be
surgeons, virtuous people shouldn't preach to sinners, humans should
not care for livestock...
without being accused of hypocrisy?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:42:46 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Good point. Still, what if it does apply to you? If I smoke like a chimney
>and tell my kids it's bad, that makes me a hypocrite. Does that in any way
>diminish the validity of my position?
The smoker might be the *best* person to give such advice. He really
knows the cost, as opposed to others who might just want to feel
superior.
| |
| HeyBub 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But how does that make male gynecologists hypocritical? Should they
> get regular pap smears because they recommend that to their patients?
> :-) I'm still trying to understand your statement about male
> gynecologists and hypocrisy.
"Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person for an act of which the
critic is guilty."
When a (male) gynecologist chides a woman for not getting a pap smear, he is
a hypocrite. His hypocrisy does not make his point less valid.
To answer your question: "Should they get regular pap smears...?" Only if
they want to avoid the label of hypocrite.
Those who think the title of "Hypocrite" always indicates some defect or
moral failing are simply wrong.
Once upon a time, my partner and I took possession of a teen-ager who had
been caught by a girl's father peeping into the girl's bedroom. We took him
to the station house and put him in a cell (door unlocked). While we were
filling out the paperwork and waiting for the boy's parents to arrive to
collect him, the dispatcher came in and said: "You've got to see this!"
We walked out the backdoor of the police station. Behind the station was an
alley and on the other side of the alley was a rent house. Someone had
jury-rigged an attic fan in the window of the rent house to provide  ing.
So, there it was, the attic fan turning slowly. Inside the room being ed
by the fan was a young couple, completely nekkid, engaged in all varieties
of sexual pursuits - quite athletic I might add.
We three cops stood watching this show for, oh, maybe twenty minutes.
Eventually the exercise, in spite of the fan, came to a sweaty climax.
My partner and I returned to the break-room to complete our paperwork. As we
passed the cell where the weeping teen-age boy was sequestered, my partner
hissed: "Goddamn pervert!" Great wails and lamentations thereupon ensued.
I think there's a moral in this story somewhere...
| |
| Alistair 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| On 13 Nov, 13:42, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>
> Good point. Still, what if it does apply to you? If I smoke like a chimney
> and tell my kids it's bad, that makes me a hypocrite. Does that in any way
> diminish the validity of my position?
No, it makes you informed. You recognize the error of your ways even
though you choose to ignore your injunction to your children not to
smoke.
| |
| Alistair 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| On 13 Nov, 16:37, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person for an act of which the
> critic is guilty."
>
> When a (male) gynecologist chides a woman for not getting a pap smear, he is
> a hypocrite. His hypocrisy does not make his point less valid.
>
> To answer your question: "Should they get regular pap smears...?" Only if
> they want to avoid the label of hypocrite.
>
> Those who think the title of "Hypocrite" always indicates some defect or
> moral failing are simply wrong.
>
> Once upon a time, my partner and I took possession of a teen-ager who had
> been caught by a girl's father peeping into the girl's bedroom. We took him
> to the station house and put him in a cell (door unlocked). While we were
> filling out the paperwork and waiting for the boy's parents to arrive to
> collect him, the dispatcher came in and said: "You've got to see this!"
>
> We walked out the backdoor of the police station. Behind the station was an
> alley and on the other side of the alley was a rent house. Someone had
> jury-rigged an attic fan in the window of the rent house to provide ing.
> So, there it was, the attic fan turning slowly. Inside the room being ed
> by the fan was a young couple, completely nekkid, engaged in all varieties
> of sexual pursuits - quite athletic I might add.
>
> We three cops stood watching this show for, oh, maybe twenty minutes.
> Eventually the exercise, in spite of the fan, came to a sweaty climax.
>
> My partner and I returned to the break-room to complete our paperwork. As we
> passed the cell where the weeping teen-age boy was sequestered, my partner
> hissed: "Goddamn pervert!" Great wails and lamentations thereupon ensued.
>
> I think there's a moral in this story somewhere...- Hide quoted text -
>
Yep: DONT GET CAUGHT.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:37:48 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person for an act of which the
>critic is guilty."
>
>When a (male) gynecologist chides a woman for not getting a pap smear, he is
>a hypocrite. His hypocrisy does not make his point less valid.
You're being silly. The person who doesn't need a pap smear isn't
"guilty" of not having one.
I can be a huge activist for passing or repealing a law. I can do
everything I can to live the way that law (or its repeal) suggests.
But if I fail to pass the law my own self I must be a hypocrite.
If I support the space program without building my own space program,
I must be a hypocrite.
If I cripples without being a cripple, I must be a hypocrite.
| |
|
|
| Robert 2007-11-14, 9:55 pm |
| On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:50:25 GMT, Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>
>Steven Milloy is so full of shit, it runs out of his ears.
Oh my, look what I've done now. My apologies (again) for attracting riff-raff to CLC.
| |
| Alistair 2007-11-16, 6:55 pm |
| On 15 Nov, 03:11, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:50:25 GMT, Robert Broughton <rbrone...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Oh my, look what I've done now. My apologies (again) for attracting riff-raff to CLC.
Too late, we are already here.
|
|
|
|
|