Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

MILK--The Deadly Poison

Government Miscellaneous Keywords: MILK & MILK PRODUCTS, BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE [BGH], MONSANTO, FDA, BREAST/PROSTATE CANCER
Source: NotMilk.com
Published: 1-03-99 Author: Robert Cohen
Posted on 06/07/2000 13:02:50 PDT by metalbird1

The Dairy Education Board (01/03/99)

By Robert Cohen Executive Director
Dear Friends,       I have written a book (MILK-The Deadly Poison) and founded the Dairy Education Board because of a secret I learned in 1994. That secret: Laboratory animals got cancer from a new additive that is now in our milk, cheese and ice cream. FDA knew the truth but they hid it. MONSANTO knew the truth but they also did everything in their power to pull a veil over FDA's regulatory review process for POSILAC, the trade name for the genetically engineered version of a cow's natural growth hormone. That genetically engineered hormone is commonly referred to as either BST or BGH (bovine somatotropin or bovine growth hormone).       The study in question was performed in 1989 by three scientists, Richard, Odaglia and Deslex. I obtained portions of that study and learned that FDA never reviewed it, despite the fact that it was the KEY to the entire controversy.       On August 24, 1990, FDA published a review of the BST research. That study was authored by Judy Jeskevich and Greg Guyer and published in SCIENCE magazine.       I have written about that study and Chapter Three of my book includes the complete study with my comments. I have decided to publish that entire CHAPTER 3 on my webpage. WARNING: IT IS QUITE TECHNICAL... AND QUITE REVEALING!       After learning that laboratory animals got cancer from this hormone, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the raw data. I wished to review the weights of spleens and kidneys and ovaries and thirty-one different tissues and organs from the 360 animals in this study. I lost that request to have the study released.       I then filed a suit in Federal Court. During my suit, our government passed a law which would have had me imprisoned had I released the study.       Today's column lists 12 "coincidences" that others might call conspiracy. I leave you first with a timeline of my suit to release the animal data.       Please keep in mind that the Canadian government has also been reviewing this study because MONSANTO seeks approval for their drug in Canada. A few weeks ago Canadian scientists announced what our government has been denying and I have been saying for four years: This POISON caused cancer in laboratory animals. THE TIMELINE OCTOBER 3, 1994 Cohen files a FOIA request for the rat study data DECEMBER 24, 1994 FOIA request denied by FDA DECEMBER 24, 1994 Appeal filed with Department of Health (HHS) APRIL 4, 1995 Appeal Denied DECEMBER 5, 1995 Suit filed in Federal Court APRIL 12, 1996 MONSANTO joins suit, represented by KING & SPALDING JULY 29, 1996 My final brief, arguing TRADE SECRETS invalid SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 JUDGE'S decion due OCTOBER 11, 1996 PUBLIC LAW # 104-294 signed by William Clinton DECEMBER 6, 1996 JUDGE rules in favor of MONSANTO       Public Law # 104-294 was the ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE act. That law was delivered in the middle of my trial and sent a clear message to me. If I revealed a TRADE SECRET I would have been subject to a $10 million dollar fine and 15 years incarceration in a federal prison.       In his denial, the Honorable Judge Wells wrote to me:       "Disclosure of the rat's study raw data would allow competitors to develop or refine their products... and would reveal a TRADE SECRET... defendants have adequately demonstrated the likelihood of competitive substantial harm if the study is released." CONSPIRACY? TO BE, OR NOT TO BE? 1) When Monsanto first started doing research on rbST/rbGH (Posilac), they realized its potential to change all of the foods in our supermarket. They would one day control the seeds for all of our fruits and veggies through genetic engineering and biotechnology. They needed a friend on the Supreme Court. It was then that they began to groom their attorney (from the firm of KING & SPALDING), a young African American with a future.       Should these issues ever reach the SUPREME COURT, MONSANTO will have a friend in Clarence Thomas. 2) Congress passed a law in 1958 called the Delaney Amendment to the Food and Drug Act which said that if a food additive caused cancer it was not to be approved. When MONSANTO realized that their rbST caused cancer they had their new attorney (from KING & SPALDING), Michael Taylor, write a paper: "A Deminimus Interpretation of the Delaney Amendment". Lawyers usually get published in law review journals. This paper was published in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology. 3) Michael Taylor, Esq. left his high paying job at KING & SPALDING and was hired by...are you ready for this? The FDA! He became the second most powerful man at FDA and wrote the food labeling laws that governed rbST and all genetically engineered products to come. 4) At the same time that Taylor left Monsanto for FDA the scientists left MONSANTO too. MONSANTO's top dairy scientist, Margaret Miller, left the pharmaceutical giant and went to work for...are you ready for this? FDA! Her job was to review her own research. I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for her actual job application and found out that she developed a test for detecting rbST, even though FDA later relieved MONSANTO of that responsibility. 5) Congress had a committee that studied the labeling issues. There were four members of the DAIRY, LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY Committee. These men had a bill that would have required that dairy products containing rbST be labeled as such. These 12 men stalled the bill for six months and NEVER voted upon it. The bill did not make it to the floor of Congress for a vote. When the 1994 session of Congress expired, the bill DIED. I investigated these men and learned that they accepted donations (PAC $$$) from companies with agriculture interests totalling $711,000. Four of the Congressmen accepted money directly from Monsanto while they stalled that bill. They included Volkmer ($2,000), Dooley ($1,000), Gunderson ($1,000) and Pombo ($500). 6) Somebody had to have gotten Monsanto's scientist and attorney hired by FDA. I interviewed ex-FDA commissioners and ex-bosses of these employees and all deny doing the actual hiring. I can only imagine a phone call, calling in a favor here and there. I have no proof who did the hiring, only proof that the DECK was stacked in the review process. I include enormous documentation in my book which would take me a week of EMAILS to document. I will not do that on EMAIL but my book is available, for those so interested. 7) MONSANTO hired the very respected C. EVERETT KOOP to attack critics of rbST. KOOP said the BST-treated milk was indistinguishable from wholesome untreated milk. This was not true. LEVELS OF IGF-I ALWAYS INCREASE IN bst-TREATED MILK. 8) MONSANTO hired the outgoing FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes. He went to work for their public relations firm. There was a revolving door policy at FDA. In addition, Michael Taylor left FDA and became an UNDERSECRETARY at UDSA when Espy resigned. He was there to see that genetic engineering reached its potential without regulatory interference. He became the author of the regulations. Taylor is now back at KING & SPALDING represent his CLIENT. 9) Margaret Miller, MONSANTO'S scientist-turned-FDA regulator, was aware that cows were getting mastitis in clinical trials. She ARBITRARILY changed the antibiotic protocol and increased the amounts of permissible antibiotic residues in milk. Before she got to FDA, the standard allowed one part per hundred million. After Miller's change, it was increased by 100 times to one part per million. CONSUMERS UNION tested milk in the New York area and found the presence of 52 different antibiotics in milk sample. The Wall Street Journal did their own tests and confirmed CONSUMERS results. 10) When Bob Dole ran for president his Chief of Staff was Donald Rumsfeld, ex-president of SEARLE, a company acquired by MONSANTO. To place things in perspective...the 1989 smoking gun study was performed by SEARLE scientists for MONSANTO. For all practical purposes, those firms were and are one and the same. 11) When Clinton praised MONSANTO in his State-of-the-Union address two years ago how many people noticed? I sure did. Michale Taylor, the MONSANTO attorney turned FDA and USDA employee is a first cousin to Al Gore's wife, Tipper. Look for President Gore's cabinet to include Mr. Taylor...just a prediction on my part. 12) I have saved the best for last. My favorite. In order to prove rbST safe MONSANTO did a study in Guelph, Canada that led to approval. FDA cited the study in their SCIENCE paper but incorrectly cited the reference. They gave credit to Jerome Moore. When I pulled Moore's paper there was no mention of this reference. I pulled dozens of other papers and found the SMOKING GUN. Had I written a paper like this for high school biology I would have failed. Here was a paper in the most important journal in the world on the most controversial study in FDA history and they made this mistake (and many other errors documented in Chapter 3 of my book). HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED:       The Canadian scientist (still an undergrad working with three MONSANTO scientists) pasteruized milk at the normal temperature and time to prove that it destroyed the BST. It did not. He then pasteurized milk for thirty minutes at 72 degrees Celsius (162 degrees Fahrenheit), a temp. reserved for 15 seconds. That only destroyed nineteen percent of the BST. WHEN THAT DID NOT WORK, he sprinkled powdered BST into the milk and pasteruized that. This time the EXPERIMENT worked. They destroyed 90 percent of the "SPIKED MILK." That was THEIR word, SPIKED! Read the study and you will be astounded.       FDA concluded that milk was safe to drink because pasteurization destroyed the BST. When FDA wrote the SCIENCE paper they included 75 references. Number 75 was Suzanne Sechen, another Monsanto scientist who was hired by FDA to review her own research. Number one reference is usually reserved as an honorary place for a key scientist. Reference number one was given to DALE BAUMAN who is a Cornell researcher and professor. Dale Bauman's papers continue to repeat the MYTH that pasteurization destroyed the BST. Bauman refuses to debate me but he continues to teach this MYTH to his students.       As a result of the MYTH FDA did three things. I.    MONSANTO was relieved of doing any further toxicology studies II.   MONSANTO was relieved of the responsibility of developing a TEST to detect the presence of BST in milk. III.  A "ZERO DAY WITHDRAWAL" was determined which was an FDA designation meaning that a substance was perfectly safe for human consumption. SUMMARY       Lots of coincidences, huh? I call this a conspiracy of ignorance. Put all of these things together and, at the very least, it calls for a review of the RICHARD, ODAGLIA and DESLEX paper, don't you think? If Cohen is WRONG... then there is no big deal.      If Cohen is right... we've got a problem, Houston! Robert Cohen (1-201-871-5871) Executive Director Dairy Education Board http://www.notmilk.com Do you know of someone who should get a copy of this newsletter? Have them send their Email address to notmilkman@notmilk.com and it will be done!

73 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:24:08 PDT by Razz
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

See post 6, this thread. Cohen was on Mike Siegel's show last night for five hours.

74 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:27:06 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | Top | Last ]

Good for you.

About 50+ years ago I used to go the the barn with my grandad to milk the cows. I can't tell you how much milk fresh from the cow that I have drank(unpasteurised). I grew up having real cream on my oatmeal at breakfast. Also lots of fresh churned butter and homemade ice cream that was made with real cream. You know, fifty years ago those cows might have been eating radioactive grass.

I am a fifty-six year old male with no health problems and I still drink lots of milk and put cream in my coffee.

My colesterol ratio is something that you no-fat health conscious folks would envy. It's just the way I am, I had nothing to do with it.

75 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:27:24 PDT by Bloody Reaper
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]

I am glad Mike Siegel has a new job....I just had some chocolate cake and now I am dying for a big glass of milk!

76 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:32:14 PDT by AAPATRIOT
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | Top | Last ]

I wish Cohen would take on another interesting health fact.
The Japanese have the longest average lifespan of any country.
The Japanese people smoke the most cigarettes per capita of any developed country.
How can this be?
(Just an honest question from a non-smoker. I heard Dennis Prager, the Jewish
conservative talk-show host and commentator mention this apparently incongurous facts.)

77 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:33:06 PDT by VOA
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

Cohen did discuss the Japanese some, as well as the Northern Europeans.
You might listen to the program, which is linked at post 6, this thread.

78 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:40:48 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | Top | Last ]

Damnit, this is all a crock of s**t. There is not now, and never has been, a scientifically sound test to determine whether high levels of BGH in a cow's milk is due to a cow's lucky genetic "roll of the dice" or an artificial boost from the folks at Monsanto.

Why? Because Monsanto's subsitute is an exact match of the original! Whatever problems might accrue either to the cow(increased incidence of mastitis, I believe) or the consumer(none that any responsible science has uncovered) have absolutely NOTHING to do with HOW the cow received its BGH.

If you really believe this tripe, you, Jeremy Rifkin, and Ralph Wiggum need to go to BOVINE UNIVERSITY!

79 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:43:18 PDT by TheEditor
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | Top | Last ]

"Damnit, this is all a crock of s**t. There is not now, and never has been, a scientifically sound test to determine whether high levels of BGH in a cow's milk is due to a cow's lucky genetic "roll of the dice" or an artificial boost from the folks at Monsanto."

A cow's lucky roll of the dice? Okie doke.
Who are you with, the American Dairy Farmers Council or Monsanto?

80 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:51:08 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | Top | Last ]

I wish Cohen would take on another interesting health fact.
The Japanese have the longest average lifespan of any country.
The Japanese people smoke the most cigarettes per capita of any developed country.
How can this be?

I would say it's because the Japanese consume very little dairy 
products. Dairy products produce that sticky mucous and 
tobacco smoke will adhere to mucous in the lungs.

Same holds true for Chinese.

81 Posted on 06/07/2000 19:57:19 PDT by dennisw
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | Top | Last ]

Well, we have a lot of cancer in this country and many people are sure it is related to our food. If they stop poisoning our food,where will all the cancer researchers and charities go? It will also cut into the profits of commercial food producers who need preservatives to keep all that junk on the shelves until we buy it.It will cut the power of government.And last but not least, it will keep us healthier and who would need Hillary's health care?

82 Posted on 06/07/2000 20:02:10 PDT by Patriot76
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | Top | Last ]

I am going to get the doe bred in the fall, and then begin milking her ASAP.

Make sure she's from a good milking line. Some goat's milk tastes "funny."

83 Posted on 06/07/2000 20:04:37 PDT by arcane
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | Top | Last ]

... and others who pooh-pooh the idea that BGH or BST may be dangerous. You eat it, I'll pass.

One thing is certain. If Monsanto finds out it is harmful, their entire effort will be to hide it. My feeling is that anything done to food by scientists is not worth the risk. I'm not really paranoid about it, but I grow most of my own food, and make it my business to see that whatever I eat is as natural as possible. I share the experience of Bloody Reaper or whoever it was up there that claimed mid-fifties with no health, colesterol, or weight problems. Maybe it's just lucky, maybe it's not.

84 Posted on 06/07/2000 20:15:14 PDT by arcane
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | Top | Last ]

...it's because the Japanese consume very little dairy products.

Yes, I recollect Cohen saying that.

While he didn't mention this, Dairy products produce that sticky mucous and tobacco smoke will adhere to mucous in the lungs, it makes sense with his {Cohen} saying that milk and milk products cause mucous production.

85 Posted on 06/07/2000 20:22:17 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | Top | Last ]

Yes, to all that. If anything, maybe someone out there will no longer drink milk by the gallon and eat limitless amounts of milk products.

86 Posted on 06/07/2000 20:39:51 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | Top | Last ]

What sources do you use for Calcium and Protein?

Well, I'm still a beginner at this. But soy or vegetables are good possibilities. I've been drinking soy milk (brand name Silk) which tastes okay. Okay meaning better than the other soy milks I've tried.

87 Posted on 06/07/2000 22:42:51 PDT by slowry
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | Top | Last ]

Profit means nothing to ADJUNCT (Association Dedicated to Joint United Nations Control of Territory) and its mission to depopulate the U.S. through 2% milk.

88 Posted on 06/08/2000 05:31:26 PDT by Whilom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | Top | Last ]

Who are you with, the American Dairy Farmers Council or Monsanto?

The ulterior motive appears. Why are you "with" the ADFC?

Either organization can dry up and blow away, for all I care. I side with the science, that's all. If you are going to bring in the coercive power of government to prevent someone from making money or exploiting a technological advance, there had better be an airtight scientific reason.

If Monsanto is fudging data to prove their BST safe, they are wrong, but demonstrating that doesn't prove their product unsafe. Monsanto should never have been put in the position of having to prove their product safe.

If we start demanding that technologies be proven safe (Rearden Metal, anyone?) before the Nanny State permits us rabble to use it, civilization is over. At that point the government has arbitrary power.

89 Posted on 06/08/2000 06:13:57 PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]

"If Monsanto is fudging data to prove their BST safe, they are wrong, but demonstrating that doesn't prove their product unsafe. Monsanto should never have been put in the position of having to prove their product safe."

Then you must argue with the FDA, because their policy is products must be both safe and effective.

"If we start demanding that technologies be proven safe (Rearden Metal, anyone?) before the Nanny State permits us rabble to use it, civilization is over. At that point the government has arbitrary power."

What you say, on the face of it, seems correct, but, for examples, the use of BGH and aspartame are so prevalent informed consumers pretty near don't have a choice--let alone those who don't have an informed choice.

90 Posted on 06/08/2000 12:11:28 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | Top | Last ]

i've never even had the flew

Never had a nasty spell?

Sorry, it's not always controllable. :)

91 Posted on 06/08/2000 12:18:53 PDT by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]

Then you must argue with the FDA, because their policy is products must be both safe and effective.

And I do argue with the FDA. Show me where in the Constitution that the FDA's power is reserved to the government.

the use of BGH and aspartame are so prevalent informed consumers pretty near don't have a choice

Don't trust the market, eh? If you did, you'd turn this situation into an opportunity, by creating a company and marketing BGH-free milk under the brand-name "BGH-Free!" If you're right about informed consumers, it should sell well.

What you really fear, of course, is that informed consumers have made their choice, and they simply did the opposite of what you would have them do. Truth is, I know how you feel. I think that Moxie is way better than Coke, but I can hardly find it anywhere, nowadays. Almost everyone else I know hates Moxie, the fools.

[Aside: Can informed consumers not choose to abstain from milk?]

let alone those who don't have an informed choice.

Oh, I see. You and the rest of the anointed must guide and protect the ignorant majority, who can't be counted on to choose what's best for them.

92 Posted on 06/08/2000 12:37:22 PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | Top | Last ]

ROFL! Marksmanship with style.

93 Posted on 06/08/2000 12:39:24 PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | Top | Last ]

"And I do argue with the FDA. Show me where in the Constitution that the FDA's power is reserved to the government."

While you are posturing me as an FDA advocate, there is one place, right off the top, in the Constitution which would be applicable, and that is the "promote the general welfare" clause in its "Preamble."

From me: the use of BGH and aspartame are so prevalent informed consumers pretty near don't have a choice
You respond: Don't trust the market, eh? If you did, you'd turn this situation into an opportunity, by creating a company and marketing BGH-free milk under the brand-name "BGH-Free!" If you're right about informed consumers, it should sell well.
My response: Don't trust the market? The recourse in the market when the public trust has been breached is litigation. And don't give me that crap about a 'litigious society.' Financial {and criminal} punishment--besides purchasing power--are one half of the equation. Trouble is, corruption in the courts is widespread, and is a non-partisan endeavor.
There might well be "BGH-FREE", or on the way, but until then...

"What you really fear, of course, is that informed consumers have made their choice, and they simply did the opposite of what you would have them do. Truth is, I know how you feel. I think that Moxie is way better than Coke, but I can hardly find it anywhere, nowadays. Almost everyone else I know hates Moxie, the fools."

What I really fear? {Do you always insist on announcing your assinine comments to the world?} The only purpose of this post has been about informing. What you and any others do with it is on you and them. You are free to do with it what you want, and from your comments, in all likelihood, nothing. Fine with me, just don't bother to give me a smarmy remark in reply. You, seems to me, are one of those people who would rather score a debate point than hash out an issue.

"[Aside: Can informed consumers not choose to abstain from milk?]
let alone those who don't have an informed choice.
Oh, I see. You and the rest of the anointed must guide and protect the ignorant majority, who can't be counted on to choose what's best for them."

It is a false debate point to attribute remarks to another which they did not state, then deride them for that which was not said.
It is a remark on the cheap to depict anyone providing information, if only to consider, as "the anointed must guide and protect the ignorant majority."
Is anyone who attempts to provide information so that others might have a more informed opinion with the data available an 'anointed one'?
Which is it, you can't have it both ways? Or do you just naturally take offense to others proffering information you personally don't ascribe to? Seems to me, then, you are the one doing the anointing, but of yourself, as to what information people should be exposed to.

94 Posted on 06/08/2000 13:31:41 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | Top | Last ]

While you are posturing me as an FDA advocate, there is one place, right off the top, in the Constitution which would be applicable, and that is the "promote the general welfare" clause in its "Preamble."

THE PREAMBLE IS NOT AN ENUMERATION OF POWERS. It is a statement of purpose, that is all. The Articles and Amendments enumerate the powers. The Preamble cannot be used as carte-blanche for arbitrary coercive executive power.

Don't trust the market? The recourse in the market when the public trust has been breached is litigation.

So if the market doesn't provide the products you want in the form that you want to buy them, you sue?

There might well be "BGH-FREE", or on the way, but until then...

...what? You'll sue?

Fine with me, just don't bother to give me a smarmy remark in reply. You, seems to me, are one of those people who would rather score a debate point than hash out an issue.

I'm serious about the Moxie. I'm not being a smartass. Neither you nor I have a right to demand of Monsanto or the government or the market that any given product be available for sale or constituted a certain way, even if we sincerely believe that it would be superior in taste or healthier for everybody.

It is a false debate point to attribute remarks to another which they did not state, then deride them for that which was not said. It is a remark on the cheap to depict anyone providing information, if only to consider, as "the anointed must guide and protect the ignorant majority."

OK, fair enough. Perhaps you are not (like most anti-BST agitators) calling for the government to regulate or abolish the use of rBST. However, I can't imagine what else you could have meant in reply #32 when you decried it being "approved for use by a corrupt FDA", disapproval constituting an explicit legal ban. Perhaps you misspoke. I still, however, challenge anyone to prove that rBST constitutes a threat to human health.

95 Posted on 06/08/2000 14:03:45 PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | Top | Last ]

THE PREAMBLE IS NOT AN ENUMERATION OF POWERS. It is a statement of purpose, that is all. The Articles and Amendments enumerate the powers. The Preamble cannot be used as carte-blanche for arbitrary coercive executive power.

Article I, Section 8 (3). Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states.
If you don't like the interpretation, take it up with a Constitutional expert.

I wrote, Don't trust the market? The recourse in the market when the public trust has been breached is litigation.
You respond, So if the market doesn't provide the products you want in the form that you want to buy them, you sue?

Clearly, I was referring to a tort {read: personal injury}.

I wrote, There might well be "BGH-FREE", or on the way, but until then...
You respond, ...what? You'll sue?

No, that it is all the more imperative all the existing information be widely and readily available.

I wrote, Fine with me, just don't bother to give me a smarmy remark in reply. You, seems to me, are one of those people who would rather score a debate point than hash out an issue.
You respond, I'm serious about the Moxie. I'm not being a smartass. Neither you nor I have a right to demand of Monsanto or the government or the market that any given product be available for sale or constituted a certain way, even if we sincerely believe that it would be superior in taste or healthier for everybody.

Nice try, but a smartass you are, on top of being disingenuous. The issue here is not about "superior in taste or healthier." You are plainly spinning now. It's about products being potentially harmful.

I wrote, It is a false debate point to attribute remarks to another which they did not state, then deride them for that which was not said. It is a remark on the cheap to depict anyone providing information, if only to consider, as "the anointed must guide and protect the ignorant majority."

You write, OK, fair enough. Perhaps you are not (like most anti-BST agitators) calling for the government to regulate or abolish the use of rBST. However, I can't imagine what else you could have meant in reply #32 when you decried it being "approved for use by a corrupt FDA", disapproval constituting an explicit legal ban. Perhaps you misspoke. I still, however, challenge anyone to prove that rBST constitutes a threat to human health.

The more you write, the more you appear to be a shill.

96 Posted on 06/08/2000 14:30:25 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | Top | Last ]

You are plainly spinning now. It's about products being potentially harmful.

The evidence for rBST being harmful to humans is nonexistent. I'm trying hard to believe that you actually might think it is harmful. That would be an easier task were it not for the existence of an extensive political campaign to take rBST off the market for strictly economic reasons.

I don't want to hear about its having to be "proven" safe before you'll drink it. Is maple syrup "proven" safe? Have you personally seen the test results?

97 Posted on 06/08/2000 15:21:11 PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | Top | Last ]

"The evidence for rBST being harmful to humans is nonexistent. I'm trying hard to believe that you actually might think it is harmful. That would be an easier task were it not for the existence of an extensive political campaign to take rBST off the market for strictly economic reasons."

O really? Whose economic reasons?

"I don't want to hear about its having to be "proven" safe before you'll drink it. Is maple syrup "proven" safe? Have you personally seen the test results?"

You are using two debunking techniques here.
The first is, reduce the argument to the absurd {maple syrup analogy}.
The second is, 'solve the case' {have you personally seen the test results}.

98 Posted on 06/08/2000 15:49:55 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | Top | Last ]

But these are what give you away as the shill,

"Perhaps you are not (like most anti-BST agitators)...>

O really, have you been around others discussing BST?
{And are all who discuss BST (bovine growth hormone) agitators?}

"I still, however, challenge anyone to prove that rBST constitutes a threat to human health."

Sounds exactly like someone with no agenda. < / sarc >

99 Posted on 06/08/2000 16:00:00 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | Top | Last ]

O really? Whose economic reasons?

Small dairy farmers. Yes, they use rBST in making milk; they have to in order to remain remotely competitive. But copious milk production means that profit margins drop to near zero; this favors the larger producers because they have less overhead per gallon of milk (economies of scale).

The first is, reduce the argument to the absurd {maple syrup analogy}.

By what logic is that an absurd example? You have just as much reason to distrust maple syrup (a randomly selected example out of a hundred thousand I could have picked) as rBST. There is absolutely no basis even for suspecting that rBST is more or less harmful than maple syrup. Even if rats force-fed BST develop slightly more cancer than other rats (and note that even the statistically overwhelming saccharine results have been debunked), until the same studies have been repeated with maple syrup it is not possible to assign a differential risk.

Have the last word.

100 Posted on 06/08/2000 20:23:58 PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | Top | Last ]

Sounds exactly like someone with no agenda.

Before you get in the last word (which is still yours), I'll tell you my "agenda".

I am sick to death of achievement-hating hand-wringers who do nothing but put up higher and higher hurdles to prevent the fruits of the human intellect from improving the lot of mankind. Every technology that comes down the pike has somebody out to abolish it. Sometimes the motive is abject cowardice towards the future; sometimes the motive is to protect whatever gravy train somebody's riding. And when by accident something slips through and becomes a smashing success, then here comes the trust-busters to punish the entrepreneur and expropriate his wealth.

So go ahead and get rBST pulled from the market, but damn it, have an ironclad scientific case in hand before you jump the conclusion.

Sorry, this Microsoft mess has me ticked off.

Now that you know my beef, really have the last word. I'm done.

101 Posted on 06/08/2000 20:34:57 PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | Top | Last ]

The flaw in your economics rationale is, I'm only looking at the material--the implicit conflicts of interest by Monsanto and the substantive and empirical evidence of harmful effects of BGH, and don't have a dog in that fight insofar as the money angle is concerned.

Now, in response to this by you,
By what logic is that an absurd example? You have just as much reason to distrust maple syrup (a randomly selected example out of a hundred thousand I could have picked) as rBST. There is absolutely no basis even for suspecting that rBST is more or less harmful than maple syrup.

Cohen cited quite a number of studies in his appearance on Siegel of the deleterious effects of rBST [BGH]. For you to compare it to maple syrup goes in the same category as the coincidence of people who drink water all eventually die. Reductio ad absurdum.

You continue,
Even if rats force-fed BST develop slightly more cancer than other rats (and note that even the statistically overwhelming saccharine results have been debunked)...

There was not a "slightly more" incidence of cancer; my recollection is they all died from it.
The saccharine story was debunked because the amounts the test animals were fed were off the charts.

Have the last word.

Thank you.

102 Posted on 06/08/2000 20:52:51 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | Top | Last ]

Your view and mine about the Microsoft case do not differ.

103 Posted on 06/08/2000 20:59:25 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | Top | Last ]

BGH and Monsanta and the revolving FDA door. Well, my, my. Some of my favorite subjects.

And the shills will be North-bound from their sewer dwellings.

104 Posted on 06/08/2000 21:05:08 PDT by Boyd
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | Top | Last ]

i've never even had the flew

Never had a nasty spell?

105 Posted on 06/09/2000 07:23:51 PDT by Wallaby (wallaby@altavista.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | Top | Last ]

i've never even had the flew
Never had a nasty spell?
Not even a little soar?

Nice flue pun, you're smoking. {Hehe.}

106 Posted on 06/09/2000 07:37:07 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | Top | Last ]

Nice flue pun, you're smoking.

107 Posted on 06/09/2000 08:00:38 PDT by Wallaby (wallaby@altavista.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | Top | Last ]

i've never even had the flew
Never had a nasty spell?
Not even a little soar?

Ok, look... It's a bunch of Freeper prose, all on one thread!
I'd better not comment here. This sounds like a soar subject to me; one that I can't put my clause into without some pause. It could make me lose what little piece of mind I have.

Freegards,

Ima Cowered

108 Posted on 06/09/2000 08:50:38 PDT by Nita Nuprez
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]

---

109 Posted on 06/09/2000 08:51:59 PDT by Nita Nuprez
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | Top | Last ]

Pipe in? By all means!

Pipe in?
Nah, I think it's pretty much been milked.
{Killer pun, eh?}

110 Posted on 06/09/2000 15:46:23 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]

Nice try at the spin, but the "animal rights" you are talking about has nothing to do with injecting a genetically-engineered growth hormone into cows...

No spin intended on my part. You are the one in post #7 that stated that milk was bad for you even without the injection of BGH. This is not the truth. Milk is a good source of calcium and protein. Milk is definitely good for children for bone development. I have personally drank milk all my life and I have always had a strong immune system, in fact, I have always refused doctor prescribed antibiotics and never had a problem.

As for the animal rights comment, I have heard this same arguement from several of these groups, PETA being the last to use it.

111 Posted on 06/09/2000 19:04:47 PDT by Double Tap
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | Top | Last ]

You are the one in post #7 that stated that milk was bad for you even without the injection of BGH. This is not the truth. Milk is a good source of calcium and protein. Milk is definitely good for children for bone development. I have personally drank milk all my life and I have always had a strong immune system, in fact, I have always refused doctor prescribed antibiotics and never had a problem.

I really don't see that milk has a particularly high content of Ca and protein. You may be deceived into thinking that about the calcium because of milk's "whiteness," which I believe might be more attributable to the cow's dead white blood cells in it.

Yes, you will get bone development from milk, just as with growth of everything else in children, and that is because of the growth hormone in it--which is why we're seeing pubescent kids at earlier and earlier ages.

And since you mention antibiotics, milk, as I mentioned earlier, is loaded with them, and is one of the reasons for more and more resistant strains of bacteria. While you may attribute your good health to milk, it could just as well be as a result of good genetic fortune.

Having no vested interest, I am not here, however, to convince you otherwise; just to put some information out for consideration.

112 Posted on 06/09/2000 19:28:47 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | Top | Last ]

We're having a bad spell of wethur.

113 Posted on 06/09/2000 20:25:41 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | Top | Last ]

I am in America's Dairyland. Here, cows outnumber people. We eat them from tongue to tail. We drink the milk and have so much left we make cheese. We have so much cheese we let other people buy some, but still charge premium prices. The people are called Cheeseheads. They are in glowing good health. Not a soul drops dead of bovine growth syndrome. Quite a few seem to go a little crazy about the Packers, but I think that is a different bug.

114 Posted on 06/09/2000 20:35:35 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

More power to you.

Just my personal take, but I think there's a certain analogy between here and tainted blood. But as I say, that's just my take, and I don't have a personal stake in it other than to present the position from which I stand.

115 Posted on 06/09/2000 21:50:48 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | Top | Last ]

> other than to present the position from which I stand.

Just fine.

There is not the faintest doubt about the damage from blood contaminated by lethal viruses. However, the case against bovine growth hormone is so far hypothetical. It will not rise to analogy with tainted blood until it is scientifically proven to cause direct, reliable and major damage to humans.

Wisconsin, in the instance, is not a bad scientific test. If the hormone isn't filling the hospitals and cemeteries here, its dangers are either misstated or are somewhere off in the unknown future.

116 Posted on 06/10/2000 08:36:37 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | Top | Last ]

Your position smacks of hypocrisy.

Your previous glowing picture of "cheeseheads" to me was unnecessary, except for you to use as a PR gesture for those lurking.

My hunch is, and it is just that, that you don't have a clue as to the cancer and prostate cancer rates in your area, but as Cohen has pointed out, they are quite high in Northern Europe {Sweden, Denmark, Norway}--where, incidentally, milk and milk products consumption is also quite high.

117 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:12:45 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | Top | Last ]

Robert Cohen {author of this post} states that there was an incidence of it in Alabama only recently which has been covered up.

Robert Cohen is a mountebank of the first order. (Sue me Cohen. I kept all the posts from the diabetes lists.) He should be taken with a grain of salt. He is nothing but a troublemaker wherever he goes, in my opinion. He claims he can cure people of diabetes and other illnesses with his "diet". No scientific proof. Just a lot of claims and bluster. Anyone who pays attention to this jerk is a prime target for any con that comes along.

118 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:19:34 PDT by Glenn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | Top | Last ]

He {Cohen} is nothing but a troublemaker wherever he goes, in my opinion.

It sounds like, for whatever reason, you have been following him, but at least you didn't use the term "agitator" as Physicist did.

119 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:26:14 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | Top | Last ]

for whatever reason,

He's a dangerous individual with a soapbox. He is one of those "faux" doctors that never quite had the stuff to make it in med school. His claims about his past are outlandish. A real PT Barnum type. And he doesn't hesitate to threaten anyone who disagrees with him with a lawyer or two. (But like all bullies, he backs down if you tell him to go ahead and take a swing.) He has personally threatened me, and others, in the past on a diabetes list-serv which he eventually was banned from. (Ask yourself -- what do you have to do to have that happen, for crying out loud.)

120 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:31:07 PDT by Glenn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | Top | Last ]

I don't follow the diabetes list-serv, have never been there, so I can't say yay or nay about what you say.

121 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:35:31 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | Top | Last ]

This is more PETA "got beer" propaganda, right?

122 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:36:30 PDT by Texas Mom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

so I can't say yay or nay about what you say.

It's obvious to me you are enamoured with the moron. I don't really care if you believe me or not. Your choice.

123 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:37:59 PDT by Glenn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | Top | Last ]

It is my choice, and you have not provided anything substantive, just ranting. It's not surprising that's what went on at the diabetes list with what I am seeing out of you.

124 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:47:20 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | Top | Last ]

We have had our own goats milk since 1988. I have been "down" on cows milk for about that long. Many cows in commercial dairys get mastitis (infected udders) from milking machines or unsanitary conditions. Most places just put them on antibiotics and add their milk in with everyone else's. Pasteurizations kills off everything, right?? Especially those vitamins and minerals which they have to add back in. The worst part about cows milk is the homogonization. By tearing the fat molecule up it releases an acid that builds up plaque in your arteries,causing heart disease. Cows milk is big business in this country. In the rest of the world, more people drink goats milk.

125 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:49:46 PDT by MomwithHope
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | Top | Last ]

This is more PETA "got beer" propaganda, right?

It's obvious you haven't read the thread, but just thought that a clever remark. Someone previously posted it.

126 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:51:27 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | Top | Last ]

It's not surprising that's what went on at the diabetes list with what I am seeing out of you.

What a pissy thing to say. Send him a big donation, fool. Make that old adage a truism.

127 Posted on 06/10/2000 09:52:21 PDT by Glenn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | Top | Last ]

What a pissy thing to say. Send him a big donation, fool. Make that old adage a truism

No, just true, and you've only re-affirmed my point.

I don't wish to spend the rest of the day bantering back and forth with you. You've made your position perfectly clear.

128 Posted on 06/10/2000 10:45:07 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | Top | Last ]

You ought to read this.

129 Posted on 06/10/2000 10:48:29 PDT by Minuteman23
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

Your position smacks of hypocrisy.

Your previous glowing picture of "cheeseheads" to me was unnecessary, except for you to use as a PR gesture for those lurking.

My hunch is, and it is just that, that you don't have a clue as to the breast cancer and prostate cancer rates in your area, but as Cohen has pointed out, they are quite high in Northern Europe {Sweden, Denmark, Norway}--where, incidentally, milk and milk products consumption is also quite high.

130 Posted on 06/10/2000 11:09:46 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | Top | Last ]

Science Headlines -- Yahoo!

Thursday June 8 11:15 AM ET

Vegan Diet May Cut Risk of Prostate Cancer
LONDON (Reuters) - Men who eat a vegan diet have lower levels of a protein associated with prostate cancer, British scientists said Thursday.

Researchers at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in Oxford said that while further investigation was needed, their findings suggested that a diet without meat or dairy products could reduce the risk of contracting the deadly disease.

Earlier studies have suggested that high levels of IGF-I -- an insulin-like growth factor -- could play a key role in causing prostate cancer.

The Oxford study of 696 British men found IGF-I levels were nine percent lower in vegans than in meat-eaters and seven percent lower than in vegetarians. Meat-eaters were defined as men who ate meat on most days of the week.

The study, published in this week's British Journal of Cancer, also said previous research had found prostate cancer rates were generally lower in countries with low consumption of meat and dairy products.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in British men. Each year, the disease kills about 9,500 men and about 21,000 new cases are diagnosed.

131 Posted on 06/10/2000 15:47:51 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | Top | Last ]

> Your position smacks of hypocrisy. ... you don't have a clue

No more of that, please.

132 Posted on 06/10/2000 17:01:17 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | Top | Last ]

you don't have a clue

Says you.

No more of that, please.

Fair comment and criticism?
No, it's not the words I use; they are not profane.
It's what they say.

133 Posted on 06/10/2000 17:16:31 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | Top | Last ]

>> you don't have a clue.

> says you.

No, you did. I was quoting you. Please reread #130: "...that you don't have a clue as to the breast cancer and prostate cancer..." When you put "you" and "your" into the argument, that makes it personal. The rule is, "NO personal attacks." Cut it out.

Anyway, good grief, I was just being chatty. If I were making a serious rebuttal, I wouldn't gab about Cheeseheads.

134 Posted on 06/10/2000 17:39:55 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | Top | Last ]

No, you did. I was quoting you. Please reread #130: "...that you don't have a clue as to the breast cancer and prostate cancer..."

The way you did it made it unclear.

When you put "you" and "your" into the argument, that makes it personal. The rule is, "NO personal attacks." Cut it out.

That has to be the most absurd, no, that is the most absurd definition of a personal attack I've ever heard.

Anyway, good grief, I was just being chatty. If I were making a serious rebuttal, I wouldn't gab about Cheeseheads.

Let's like you're taking a page out of Theresa's handbook. Sweetie, if you'd have had a serious rebuttal, you would have used it. {No more of that.}

135 Posted on 06/10/2000 18:18:15 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | Top | Last ]

T'wit writes,
I am in America's Dairyland. Here, cows outnumber people. We eat them from tongue to tail. We drink the milk and have so much left we make cheese. We have so much cheese we let other people buy some, but still charge premium prices.{my underline} The people are called Cheeseheads. They are in glowing good health. Not a soul drops dead of bovine growth syndrome. Quite a few seem to go a little crazy about the Packers, but I think that is a different bug.

I guess I let this pass the first time around, about those "premium prices" for cheese you charge, your being in the biz and all. And I also guess it's not good enough for some people to just get "premium prices," so they have to milk an extra 25% out of their cows using BGH, regardless the consequences.

136 Posted on 06/10/2000 18:39:43 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | Top | Last ]

BTW, dioxin is so poisonous, any amount is considered toxic.

That's a crock of manure! Why don't you go suck on a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream until your hair falls out?

FYI, dioxin happens to occur in nature. Like Physicist said, "There are no toxic substances, only toxic concentrations." That's what I meant when I said, "Everything is poison, and nothing is poison." Goodbye -- I'm going to the store to get some dioxin-laden foods!

137 Posted on 06/10/2000 18:53:37 PDT by Scot-free
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | Top | Last ]

"Make sure she's from a good milking line. Some goat's milk tastes "funny.""

Goats milk tastes funny to me all the time but the taste of the milk is determined by the diet. Even come cows can put out some bad stuff if they get into certain weeds.. Even nursing Moms need to be careful.. No Garlic etc...

138 Posted on 06/10/2000 18:58:11 PDT by Texas Mom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | Top | Last ]

The way my dad (a chemical engineer who worked on pollution control at Bethlehem Steel) always put it is, "there are no toxic substances; there are only toxic concentrations."

Your father's rendition seems more practical to me. It's too bad that kids aren't taught this in High School.

FYI, your economic analysis of the BGH controversy is insightful and quite possibly true. Thanks for the info.

139 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:04:06 PDT by Scot-free
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | Top | Last ]

There are no toxic substances, only toxic concentrations." That's what I meant when I said, "Everything is poison, and nothing is poison."

As I said, yours made no sense, which is why I didn't dispute what Physicist later said; his did make sense.

Again, all I'm saying, from a consumer aspect is, BGH is an unnecessary risk factor--particularly if the media do not provide the information to make an informed decision.
Enjoy your ice cream, or whatever.

140 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:08:06 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | Top | Last ]

I wrote,
BTW, dioxin is so poisonous, any amount is considered toxic.

You responded with,
That's a crock of manure!

This is from the Dioxin HomePage,
What is dioxin? Dioxin is one of the most toxic chemicals known. A report released for public comment in September 1994 by the US Environmental Protection Agency clearly describes dioxin as a serious public health threat. The public health impact of dioxin may rival the impact that DDT had on public health in the 1960's. According to the EPA report, not only does there appear to be no "safe" level of exposure to dioxin {my underline}, but levels of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals have been found in the general US population that are "at or near levels associated with adverse health effects." The EPA report confirmed that dioxin is a cancer hazard to people; that exposure to dioxin can also cause severe reproductive and developmental problems (at levels 100 times lower than those associated with its cancer causing effects); and that dioxin can cause immune system damage and interfere with regulatory hormones...

141 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:23:15 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | Top | Last ]

Goats milk tastes funny to me all the time but the taste of the milk is determined by the diet.

You wouldn't be able to discern whether my milk came from a goat or a cow by taste. And some goat's milk tastes bad no matter what you feed them. That's also true of cows, but selective breeding has pretty much removed that problem with cows. There are altogether too many goats around that get bred to whatever genes are available with no consideration given to dairy quality.

142 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:25:06 PDT by arcane
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | Top | Last ]

As I said, yours made no sense, which is why I didn't dispute what Physicist later said; his did make sense.

Again, all I'm saying, from a consumer aspect is, BGH is an unnecessary risk factor--particularly if the media do not provide the information to make an informed decision. Enjoy your ice cream, or whatever.

O.K. Now you're being nice, sort of. : )

I agree that more information would be a great thing, and that consumers should be concerned about what they buy. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I'm just concerned that we're being fed misinformation buy people who stand to gain materially. That seems to be the way of the world, and it makes me sick. It turns me into a frothing smart aleck. I apologize if I was too harsh, and I won't do it again.

143 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:25:41 PDT by Scot-free
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | Top | Last ]

The operative word in that paragraph is "can," not "will."

My point exactly.

144 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:28:34 PDT by Scot-free
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | Top | Last ]

The operative word in that paragraph is "can," not "will."

My point exactly.

As an afterthought, are you aware that cyanide is a naturally-occurring compound in apples, almonds, and other common foodstuffs? What do you make of that?

145 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:31:25 PDT by Scot-free
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | Top | Last ]

On August 24, 1990, FDA published a review of the BST research. That study was authored by Judy Jeskevich and Greg Guyer and published in SCIENCE magazine.

Do you have a link to that Science article?

I'm not sure whether it's a state or federal law, but in Pennsylvania, it is illegal to advertise that milk you are selling was not produced by cows receiving BGH. When this law was being debated, the "logic" of supporters was, that if milk producers or retail outlets promoted BGH-free milk, it would imply that there was something wrong or hazardous about BGH.

Since that is untrue they said, we must outlaw such advertising. And they did. I've only bought milk in a few stores in the years since this ban was enacted that openly advertised milk from BGH-free cows. Signs in stores that advertise this are usually done freehand with a magic marker on cardboard.

I've always drank a lot of milk. As a kid I worked on a dairy farm and milked cows by hand and machine, and drank warm raw milk right out of the bucket. I want the choice to make my own decisions and buy milk without restrictions by any government restrictions on advertising.

146 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:52:22 PDT by Houlihan
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

As an afterthought, are you aware that cyanide is a naturally-occurring compound in apples, almonds, and other common foodstuffs? What do you make of that?

Some things which naturally-occur and are potentially harmful are in too low a concentration; or are in the wrong form to be harmful; or only affect people with certain frailties, such as the aged, the very young, or those with a weak immune system--or do cause harm, but an effect of which the cause has not been attributed.
Also, cyanide is found in the pits of some fruits {in concentrations high enough to be harmful}, but one does not ordinarily eat the pits.

147 Posted on 06/10/2000 19:55:17 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | Top | Last ]

You write,
I'm not sure whether it's a state or federal law, but in Pennsylvania, it is illegal to advertise that milk you are selling was not produced by cows receiving BGH. When this law was being debated, the "logic" of supporters was, that if milk producers or retail outlets promoted BGH-free milk, it would imply that there was something wrong or hazardous about BGH.
Since that is untrue they said, we must outlaw such advertising. And they did. I've only bought milk in a few stores in the years since this ban was enacted that openly advertised milk from BGH-free cows. Signs in stores that advertise this are usually done freehand with a magic marker on cardboard.
I've always drank a lot of milk. As a kid I worked on a dairy farm and milked cows by hand and machine, and drank warm raw milk right out of the bucket. I want the choice to make my own decisions and buy milk without restrictions by any government restrictions on advertising.{My underline.}

Most interesting post, and I agree with it.
What's especially interesting is that Physicist said previously that the market should dictate the products.
But how can it when government stacks the deck in concert with industry {bogus research reports and agency conflicts of interest}, then takes it a step further by stifling the marketplace even to compete against the collusion?

I'll run a search on the article.

148 Posted on 06/10/2000 20:14:32 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | Top | Last ]

Here, the piece you reference is dissected, both pro AND con.

{Pre-Oct95 Science -- not online}

149 Posted on 06/10/2000 20:35:49 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | Top | Last ]

You called me a hypocrite and said I didn't have a clue (i.e., I'm ignorant or stupid). Certainly those are personal attacks. When one introduces a "you are" or "you think" or any such element, that is argumentum ad hominem-- "marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made," to quote Web 10. It may be a good rhetorical ploy but it is considered an error of logic because it ducks the issue. It is banned in forum because it ends courteous discussion and turns into a personal quarrel.

> Sweetie, if you'd have had a serious rebuttal, you would have used it.

But why should I? I'm not interested in your post. I never even bothered to read it. Nor will I discuss anything with anybody who will not observe the rules and courtesies of this forum.

150 Posted on 06/10/2000 20:47:22 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | Top | Last ]

But why should I? I'm not interested in your post. I never even bothered to read it. Nor will I discuss anything with anybody who will not observe the rules and courtesies of this forum

Check-mate.

151 Posted on 06/10/2000 21:09:23 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | Top | Last ]

What's especially interesting is that Physicist said previously that the market should dictate the products.

I think the market should prevail in allowing consumers to choose the products they wish to purchase without undue government interference. Only when overriding consumer safety justifies regulation, should government become involved.

Suppose I'm a dairy farmer, and I raise cows and do not use BGH. Why should the government be allowed to tell me I cannot advertise that fact? Suppose I have done consumer research and concluded that there are a large number of people who would buy "natural" products without added hormones. Why should I be prevented by government regulations from producing products to sell to this market?

It's no different than if I decided to market pyramids, crystals, or magnets to the New Age crowd. If I want to sell them (which I don't, (and the last time I worked on a farm was in 1956)), why should the government be allowed to restrict me from doing so?

152 Posted on 06/10/2000 21:11:30 PDT by Houlihan
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | Top | Last ]

"Check-mate"? When I decline to play, you announce that you have won? Hahahahahahahaha!

153 Posted on 06/10/2000 21:22:06 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | Top | Last ]

When I decline to play, you announce that you have won?

But I thought you weren't reading my posts?
If so, how is it you know how to answer them?
Haven't you heard, the more you dig yourself into a hole, the bigger it gets?

No, T'wit, not when you declined to play, when you folded up the tent.
Now, if you don't have anything to add to this thread, why don't you run along.

154 Posted on 06/10/2000 21:33:28 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | Top | Last ]

Chill out! T'wit came to this thread because I flagged him. I know he's skilled at wordplay and I wanted him to see the puns. I wouldn't have contributed to this thread had I not seen RightWhale's clever line.

155 Posted on 06/10/2000 22:31:49 PDT by Wallaby (wallaby@altavista.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | Top | Last ]

Some things which naturally-occur and are potentially harmful are in too low a concentration; or are in the wrong form to be harmful; or only affect people with certain frailties, such as the aged, the very young, or those with a weak immune system--or do cause harm, but an effect of which the cause has not been attributed. Also, cyanide is found in the pits of some fruits {in concentrations high enough to be harmful}, but one does not ordinarily eat the pits.

Hey, you win the "No Sh*t, Sherlock" award of the day!

Now, with respect to Dioxin and BGH, what do you consider to be harmful concentrations? THAT IS THE QUESTION. SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE THAT MILK CONTAINS HARMFUL LEVELS OF THESE COMPOUNDS.

156 Posted on 06/11/2000 01:19:37 PDT by Scot-free
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | Top | Last ]

It's the sugar in milk that can cause you to gain weight, not the fat (for the most part). By the way, I lost 35 pounds drinking milk, eating prime rib, eggs and butter (among many other fatty things...). I had all I wanted. I significantly limited my starches & breads and had no soft drinks. It does work…

157 Posted on 06/11/2000 01:58:45 PDT by DB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]

I didn't read your post because, as an editor, I have seen thousands of promotional letters or letters to the editor in the same style. They are, without exception, the work of quacks and crackpots and pitchmen. The prose is always overwrought. The style is instantly visible -- you can see it without reading a word. It employs overdramatized formatting -- lots of underscores and italics and colors and exclamation points. In typewriter days, the writers used all capital letters, or if they found two-color ribbons, they wrote in red and black letters. Then they added emphases written by hand.

Such a style is an immediate tip-off that the writer is trying to make inflammatory prose and whorehouse typography substitute for real credentials. No serious writer need engage in such shabby devices, and none does. I no longer read any such material because I've learned from long experience that it is never worth even the reading time.

In the instance, the reader has two other immediate warnings that this is not kosher. One, the item is a year and a half out of date. Two, it is a sales pitch for a vanity (self-published) book. Vanity publishing is the dregs of the business. Nobody does it unless they have been turned down by every legitimate publisher. If this man had a real expose that could be approved by the lawyers, publishers would line up to bid on the book. They love good exposes. But none of them bid on this book. Iow, the book has been peer reviewed, so to speak, and found to be worthless.

If you post something that you think may be more within my interests, by all means flag me and I'd be happy to take a look.

158 Posted on 06/11/2000 04:24:07 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | Top | Last ]

Did you know cows speak French? If you say to them, "C'est moi," they think you are saying "say 'moi,'" and answer, politely, "mwaaa!"

159 Posted on 06/11/2000 04:27:50 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | Top | Last ]

Despite the best of intentions by both species, misunderstandings still occur

160 Posted on 06/11/2000 05:08:10 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | Top | Last ]

You've made your position perfectly clear.

Have I? Let's see what Mr. Cohen proposes we teach our kiddies, shall we? (These are from the notmilk.com website. I assume you approve?)

DO THIS!!!

Then POUR THE MILK ON THE FLOOR...

You and your new best friend and hero, Mr. Cohen, are a real piece of work. If I had 100 guys like you on a mailing list, I could be rich beyond belief selling investments in my new perpetual motion engine.

161 Posted on 06/11/2000 08:43:05 PDT by Glenn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | Top | Last ]

Chill out?

Who are you to say that?
I don't care what the reason for T'wit's having come to this thread {you say for the puns, but sorry, that's not what this thread is about}.
T'wit made himself a player when he expressed opinions, and opinions from someone who has a direct vested interest in the selling of milk products, namely cheese.

In case you didn't see this post of mine,
T'wit writes,
I am in America's Dairyland. Here, cows outnumber people. We eat them from tongue to tail. We drink the milk and have so much left we make cheese. We have so much cheese we let other people buy some, but still charge premium prices{my underline}. The people are called Cheeseheads. They are in glowing good health. Not a soul drops dead of bovine growth syndrome. Quite a few seem to go a little crazy about the Packers, but I think that is a different bug.

And I responded with,
I guess I let this pass the first time around, about those "premium prices" for cheese you charge, your being in the biz and all. And I also guess it's not good enough for some people to just get "premium prices," so they have to milk an extra 25% out of their cows using BGH, regardless the consequences.

162 Posted on 06/11/2000 09:54:39 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | Top | Last ]

Yada, yada, yada.
You dug yourself in too deep and asked Wallaby to bail you out, eh?
Wallaby said you came to this thread for the puns, but it wasn't about puns when you expressed yourself and took an unequivocal position against the subject of the thread-- one in which you have a financial interest.

163 Posted on 06/11/2000 10:04:06 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | Top | Last ]

His use of the first person plural pronoun does not imply that he is "in the biz", just that he is a proud Midwesterner. It is analogous to Americans saying "we went to the moon".

164 Posted on 06/11/2000 10:09:18 PDT by Wallaby (wallaby@altavista.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | Top | Last ]

Have I? Let's see what Mr. Cohen proposes we teach our kiddies, shall we? (These are from the notmilk.com website. I assume you approve?)

No, I wouldn't condone that.

You and your new best friend and hero, Mr. Cohen, are a real piece of work.

I don't know what your hysterics are about, but I have never met Mr. Cohen.

Do you have some connection to the milk and milk products industry, or some other aspect to this post?
Just asking...

165 Posted on 06/11/2000 10:16:31 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | Top | Last ]

Do you have some connection to the milk and milk products industry, or some other aspect to this post?

No. I just hate to see anyone sucked in by this guy. He's dangerous. By the way, this is his favorite offensive.

166 Posted on 06/11/2000 10:19:57 PDT by Glenn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | Top | Last ]

Hey, you win the "No Sh*t, Sherlock" award of the day!

If/since you knew the answer, why bother to ask the question.

Now, with respect to Dioxin and BGH, what do you consider to be harmful concentrations? THAT IS THE QUESTION. SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE THAT MILK CONTAINS HARMFUL LEVELS OF THESE COMPOUNDS.

Dioxin is not the premise of this post. If you want to find out more about it, conduct a search. There is plenty of information about it on the Web.
As to the other, about BGH concentrations, see the link at post 149. Both pro and con positions are taken in it if you read to the end.

167 Posted on 06/11/2000 10:26:34 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | Top | Last ]

His use of the first person plural pronoun does not imply that he is "in the biz", just that he is a proud Midwesterner. It is analogous to Americans saying "we went to the moon".

If that is so, he is a lousy editor, as he can't control his own words.

If that is so, why does he protesteth so loudly against the subject of this thread?

If that is so, why the kitsch {sentimental propaganda} post directed to you {at post 160} with the cutesy cow next to the child?

If that is so, what does he edit, a publication with a lot of milk/milk products producers as advertisers?

Just some thoughts...

168 Posted on 06/11/2000 10:36:39 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | Top | Last ]

No. I just hate to see anyone sucked in by this guy. He's dangerous. By the way, this is his favorite offensive.

Dangerous? How so? Because he believes strongly in something, that milk and milk products are dangerous to people--especially kids--and it's something you just don't happen to agree with? Are you a scientist?

It is his favorite offensive?

Do you follow him regularly?

Do you have a vested interest in this?

You know, some {some?--a lot} of the views expressed on this forum are considered "dangerous" by many. But it's not true they are the views of the so-called "Right Wing" extremists--radicals really, when in these times it is anyone seeking the truth countervailing to whatever the established line is.

Again, can you not see there is a prima facie case that there is something wrong when scientific reports are fudged; erstwhile employees of Monsanto are deposited in positions of authority at FDA to review Monsanto's very products; and when advertisers are disallowed from promoting products which are BGH-Free?

Recollect it was Monsanto's aspartame that financially benefitted from saccharine being removed from the market, and now we come to find out only very recently the results were bogus--but we who followed it somewhat then knew that to be the case, that the tests were rigged.

169 Posted on 06/11/2000 10:57:40 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | Top | Last ]

Do you have a vested interest in this?

I've already answered that. I am a software developer in the backwoods of Georgia. I don't live on a farm. I don't have clients in the dairy industry. I haven't had a glass of milk in 20 years and I seldom partake of any other dairy products because I've been diabetic most of my life and it just doesn't fit the diet. Understand?

Do you follow him regularly?

This guy invaded one of the very popular and instructive diabetic list-servs a few years back. One I had been on since it was on Compuserve. For more than two months he "instructed" everyone about how our condition was curable and preventable as well as selling his book and going on endlessly about the people he knew.

I suggest you read this guys entire body of work before you latch onto his religion. He has openly blamed mothers for "causing" diabetes in their children. He claims that removing milk and dairy from the childs diet will restore the child. In other words, drop the milk and you can drop the insulin. As any diabetic can tell you, there isn't an available "cure" (though it looks like one might be in the offing). Cohen just blew right by it. Sort of like the tent preacher who will tell you that you can walk on water if you have enough faith.

But don't stop there. Read about his scientific study about milk and female breats. When he was in sixth grade, girls were flat chested. Now, he concludes, girls are sprouting breasts in the sixth grade. Why? Because their mothers gave them milk. (He offers as proof his class pictures from the sixth grade, his daughters flat chests, and a random sampling of his friend's who know 6th grade girls with "enlarged" breasts).

Cohen is not the only one to have a scientific opinion. I would like to see him refute the evidence two scientists presented on ABC's 20/20 this past Friday about how soy (which Cohen is absolutely sure will save the planet) can cause impotence in men and breast cancer in women.

My objection to Cohen and those of his ilk is that they make money by selling terror when, in fact, untold numbers of children starved to death last year when they could have been saved with this "evil" milk.

And for you goat fans, be sure to check out his remarks on goat's milk and the conspiracy to murder male goats. He isn't especially fond of that either.

My simple amazement is that you've taken this guy at face value. You usually dig a little deeper than that.

170 Posted on 06/11/2000 12:01:12 PDT by Glenn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | Top | Last ]

This guy invaded one of the very popular and instructive diabetic list-servs a few years back. One I had been on since it was on Compuserve. For more than two months he "instructed" everyone about how our condition was curable and preventable as well as selling his book and going on endlessly about the people he knew.

While I am not an expert on diabetes {or even close}, I am aware diet greatly impacts the prognosis.

I suggest you read this guys entire body of work before you latch onto his religion. He has openly blamed mothers for "causing" diabetes in their children. He claims that removing milk and dairy from the childs diet will restore the child. In other words, drop the milk and you can drop the insulin. As any diabetic can tell you, there isn't an available "cure" (though it looks like one might be in the offing). Cohen just blew right by it. Sort of like the tent preacher who will tell you that you can walk on water if you have enough faith.

It is not unheard of, by any stretch, for folks to go off of diabetes-related meds subsequent to a change in diet--but certainly this is not something of immediacy in which cases it works.

But don't stop there. Read about his scientific study about milk and female breats. When he was in sixth grade, girls were flat chested. Now, he concludes, girls are sprouting breasts in the sixth grade. Why? Because their mothers gave them milk. (He offers as proof his class pictures from the sixth grade, his daughters flat chests, and a random sampling of his friend's who know 6th grade girls with "enlarged" breasts).

It is inarguable, leastways to me, that children are developing earlier; not just larger, but sexually as well. To develop breasts earlier, and to begin puberty earlier, clearly suggests to me it is hormone-related. But where do these hormones come from, if not from the diet {though some do suggest this is environmentally-related, but I don't know about that}?

Cohen is not the only one to have a scientific opinion. I would like to see him refute the evidence two scientists presented on ABC's 20/20 this past Friday about how soy (which Cohen is absolutely sure will save the planet) can cause impotence in men and breast cancer in women.

No information to comment on.

My objection to Cohen and those of his ilk is that they make money by selling terror when, in fact, untold numbers of children starved to death last year when they could have been saved with this "evil" milk.

I would be curious to see your basis for saying this. When has milk connected to BGH been withheld from children such that they "starved to death"?

My simple amazement is that you've taken this guy at face value. You usually dig a little deeper than that.

While it may have been a stretch to be so designated, the job title given to me while on temporary assignment at FDA was "technical advisor." I was given a "confidential" clearance in that I had access to disclosures made to them [FDA] by the business sector.
And while it was not in my direct area of responsibility, I did take it upon myself to do some reading there related to other matters, which is when I ran across some internal stuff concerning the stacking of the deck of an outside panel of ophthalmology experts in order to get an FDA eye med approval.

171 Posted on 06/11/2000 12:43:33 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | Top | Last ]

It is not unheard of, by any stretch, for folks to go off of diabetes-related meds subsequent to a change in diet--but certainly this is not something of immediacy in which cases it works.

You are about as expert on diabetes as he is and you are just as dangerous. I can see that it is completely useless to say anything more. You will believe whatever gives you the most pleasure to believe, it seems. If it gives you a thrill to believe that milk (aspartame, beer, pork, beef, chocolate cake, soy, whatever) is evil and we are all the subjects of some grand conspiracy, then I wish you nothing but the joy you derive from it. It is plain to see that it's the only family you'll tolerate.

172 Posted on 06/11/2000 13:08:39 PDT by Glenn
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | Top | Last ]

No, actually you don't know what you're talking about.

And where's that citation for the children you said had milk containing BGH withheld from them such that they "starved to death."
{And how could that be, considering BGH-milk is so pervasive in the marketplace?}

173 Posted on 06/11/2000 13:20:04 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | Top | Last ]

Anyone that believes this PETA sh*t sucks eggs.

174 Posted on 06/11/2000 13:56:56 PDT by Dlta4ce
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | Top | Last ]

"Anyone that believes this PETA sh*t sucks eggs."
--Dlta4ce

175 Posted on 06/11/2000 14:08:44 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | Top | Last ]

> one in which you have a financial interest.

That's a lie. I'm an editor, and said so. I have never had any financial interest whatsoever in dairy farming.

However, your Mr. Cohen has a huge financial interest in peddling nonsense about milk. He's got his own store for it in his web site. No wonder he's pushing this claptrap.

176 Posted on 06/11/2000 16:40:05 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | Top | Last ]

> Yada, yada, yada.

What points of mine does "yada, yada, yada" refute?

Hint: none.

177 Posted on 06/11/2000 16:44:05 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | Top | Last ]

> Yada, yada, yada.

Among my points unrefuted by these breathless words was that the material you posted was visibly the work of a crank, crackpot or pitchman. I have since visited Mr. Cohen's web site, and am here to tell you, he's two out of the three, and if you buy what he's pitchin', he'll accept the major credit cards.

Real scientists are not for sale.

178 Posted on 06/11/2000 16:50:13 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | Top | Last ]

> We have so much cheese we let other people buy some, but still charge premium prices{my underline}.

Why is that hard to understand? Wisconsin cheese commands a premium price because it is the best in the country. People are willing to pay more for it.

179 Posted on 06/11/2000 16:54:20 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | Top | Last ]

> You dug yourself in too deep and asked Wallaby to bail you out, eh?

I have not spoken to Wallaby. Stop making things up.

180 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:00:33 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | Top | Last ]

> Wallaby said you came to this thread for the puns,

That is correct.

181 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:01:40 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | Top | Last ]

> If that is so, he is a lousy editor, as he can't control his own words.

The senior staff of Free Republic think I'm a pretty good editor. They gave me an award for the excellence of my work. Did they give you one for your reading skills?

182 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:06:56 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | Top | Last ]

> just that he is a proud Midwesterner

The first thing I said was, "I am in America's Dairyland." It is possible that Metalbird1 is unaware that "America's Dairyland" is Wisconsin.

Of course I was speaking as a Wisconsinite, as in, "We won the Rose Bowl and got to the final four in the NCAAs." "We love our Packers." "We make a lot of cheese." It doesn't mean I am a football player or a dairy farmer. This is simple stuff.

183 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:13:31 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | Top | Last ]

> If that is so, why does he protesteth so loudly against the subject of this thread?

I've hardly protested at all and in fact, declined to get into it. I still have not read the original post, other than the first two or three sentences, for reasons I stated: it is not worth reading.

184 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:17:51 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | Top | Last ]

> If that is so, why the kitsch {sentimental propaganda} post directed to you {at post 160} with the cutesy cow next to the child?

Why not? The world needs more kitschy cutesy cowsies.

185 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:23:32 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | Top | Last ]

> If that is so, what does he edit, a publication with a lot of milk/milk products producers as advertisers?

No. You erred in inferring I had a financial interest in the dairy industry. Get over it.

186 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:27:24 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | Top | Last ]

> Just some thoughts...

Making defamatory accusations without any basis is a smear, and saying it's "just some thoughts" does not make it any less so.

187 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:31:26 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | Top | Last ]

I will butt in just a bit, in honor of the late Adelle Davis.

>>"What sources do you use for Calcium and Protein?"

> The natural sources for these are dark leafy veg's and beans,

Both of those are fine, but 8 ounces of milk has twice as much calcium as 8 ounces of spinach and more than twice as much protein as 8 ounces of beans. Milk also has whole protein where beans do not and must be combined with some other food (rice, commonly) to obtain all of the essential amino acids.

188 Posted on 06/11/2000 17:52:52 PDT by T'wit
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | Top | Last ]

No, you're not protesting too loudly {much}, but I do think you may have just set the record for the most consecutive posts on a thread, 13.

You write,
"I have not spoken to Wallaby. Stop making things up."

No, you may not have "spoken" to Wallaby.
To: metalbird1 T'wit came to this thread because I flagged him. I know he's skilled at wordplay and I wanted him to see the puns. I wouldn't have contributed to this thread had I not seen RightWhale's clever line. 155 Posted on 06/10/2000 22:31:49 PDT by Wallaby (wallaby@altavista.net)

Who's making things up?

189 Posted on 06/11/2000 19:32:53 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | Top | Last ]

>Who's making things up? >You dug yourself in too deep and asked Wallaby to bail you out, eh?

As I said, I invited T'wit onto this thread. Contrary to what you have said, I was never asked by T'wit to help "bail" him out. OK?

190 Posted on 06/11/2000 19:49:18 PDT by Wallaby (wallaby@altavista.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | Top | Last ]

BTW, if you can't figure out a way to condense your multiple posts, you might consider getting someone to give you some help in editing.

191 Posted on 06/11/2000 19:52:50 PDT by metalbird1
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | Top | Last ]

If the purpose of your replies is to bump your milk thread, you're doing great.

192 Posted on 06/11/2000 20:02:57 PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | Top | Last ]

He bumped your thread thirteen straight times and you're complaining? Maybe you should have yourself a dish of ice cream. It might make you a little less churlish.

193 Posted on 06/11/2000 20:06:04 PDT by Wallaby (wallaby@altavista.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | Top | Last ]