Reply With Quote
absolutely not.
I asked for a name of a corporation.
Stop dancing and just provide a name. Very simple.
this hypo answers his question. as you know.
absolutely not.
I asked for a name of a corporation.
Stop dancing and just provide a name. Very simple.
First off, if YOU would have been up on the OP (the vid), you wouldve interpreted my comments in the correct light, as it was pollution litigation that drove industry to lobby for fluoridation. If you knew that, we wouldnt have had 3-4 four pages of finger pointing, etc...
I didnt retreat from anything...I had the info about lawsuits threatening to derail industry in FLA from the first post. It was you jumping in uninformed.
As a matter of fact, the do ent that I posted yesterday was up in this thread since about page 4 or 5. And yet when I repeated it, the thread went silent, because no one else had read it. Only now do you guys realize that fluoride is sourced from industrial waste. Weeks after that info was posted here.
If you guys cant bring yourselves current before you start with the bull assumptions and namecalling, then dont expect me to catch up every joe blow each time they want to take a running gunning start at a "conspiratorial" claim.
So lets make this clear: You jump in, late and uninformed, insisting that I repeat info time after time like a trained parrot. Same for blake.
I have spent time on this topic. I have provided much info. Do yourself a favor and check that stuff out. Other than that, I will post new info that I find as I find it, and eventually I plan to consildate those findings in a seperate thread.
you dont even have a clue where the bankruptcy issue came in. It was part of the issue from the start. Until you watch the vid, you're lost.
see the above post...its not my job to catch you up.
And RG, after that bogus "backpedaling" crap, do you really expect me to read the rest of the post?
Parker, did you look up any of the material cited in the links to see if they were valid?
No, it doesn't.
You're the one making the claim.
Back it up.
No, we already knew that.
It was you who conflated sources of fluoride for SAWS water.
Did you ever straighten that out for yourself?
this is your attempt at a persuasive speech, not mine.
If you are really trying to convince, it's your job to validate your claims, not the audience's job to debunk them.
You've done nothing but throw out lazy accusations and lame jpgs.
Yes it does. Any corp producing toxic waste can potentially go b/r with enough liability.
If he answers the question truthfully, as in states the above, then his answer becomes clear.
I'm saying not just one corp is prone to b/r, but all. So pick any corp with a potential liabilty for toxic tort and you, Blake, have a name for one.
Horse . You may claim to know, but dont claim anything for these others. They disputed this up to yesterday.
As for the SAWS water, if you read the original post I said I HAD SU ION ABOUT THE SU IOUS NATURE OF THE CIR STANCES. Beyond that you dont have a leg to stand on unless you show I asserted the Toyota scenario as fact. Which Never happened.
Ive done nothing but shut your ass up and have you back off from "crackpot" to "your sources sound sincere."
I admitted when I botched the aim of your article yesterday. You cant admit to a damn thing.
You think your opinion can rival scientists in the field. I think your opinion is drawn from your need to redeem yourself after having to eat your words yesterday, and thus it is completely compromised by pride and the need to be right, no matter what more informed sources reveal about the situation.
That makes you not worth the effort.
^^^ ed his day again. Pobrecito.
So it doesn't prove anything.
If you answered questions truthfully, this would have been a much shorter thread.If he answers the question truthfully, as in states the above, then his answer becomes clear.
So your truthful answer is none.I'm saying not just one corp is prone to b/r, but all. So pick any corp with a potential liabilty for toxic tort and you, Blake, have a name for one.
OK.
Yes, you put forth your conspiracy theory about Toyota's selling leftover polishing slag to put in the San Antonio water supply. It was subsequently obliterated by the simplest of searches that you were unable or unwilling to do yourself.
This is why I think you prefer to be ignorant. It makes for better copy.
You are definitely still crackpot.
I find it odd that the EPA Union as a whole would take up this cause "to protect the employees they represent from the risks of fluroidated drinking water."
Hirzy sounds sincere, is a noted chemist and I don't see any ulterior motive from him, but I still think he is just flat wrong.
Looking at some the key points in his speech, he used cherry picked studies on rats regarding cancer and stood on the faulty testimonies of guys like Dr. John Colqhoun and his book Why I Changed my Mind About Water Fluoridation.
I admit I'm not sure I know the aim of your thread. I'm not sure you know the aim of your thread.I admitted when I botched the aim of your article yesterday. You cant admit to a damn thing.
It appears you fought off the urge to go jpeg. That's a least a step in the right direction.You think your opinion can rival scientists in the field. I think your opinion is drawn from your need to redeem yourself after having to eat your words yesterday, and thus it is completely compromised by pride and the need to be right, no matter what more informed sources reveal about the situation.
That makes you not worth the effort.
Unfortunately, you still are obviously butthurt and would rather accuse me of having a prejudiced opinion instead of simply backing up your claims.
That's a shame.
Unlike you, I prefer to defer to those working in the field. I dont claim to know the sole truth from reading a handful of articles on the internet.
The most I am willing to say is that there is a valid debate here.
What you are trying to do is dismiss the views of numerous DDSs, MDs, Scientists, and Nobel Award winners. All with your handy-dandy all-powerful internet connection, the one that allows you to leap into tall professions with a single bound and surpass years of experience faster than a speeding locomotive. all to discredit to me.
How completely asinine. Maybe its just me, but I dont trust anyone who claims such things.
At least Winehole had the sense to let the clattering die when he saw a valid debate for himself (even if it had been there all along...he just neglected to read the thread). Take his cue Blake.
Not much to comment on there.
Moving on...
Do you still claim that Toyota is selling flouride products to SAWS from their chrome-producing manufacturing processes?
I showed conclusively, by way of an actual invoice bid from a chemical company to SAWS that:
1) Toyota is not the company selling to SAWS.
2) The chemical that is being put in the water is not the same chemical that is used in the chrome-manufacturing process.
You very strongly implied it, and you know it.
You said, roughly:
"SAWS started putting flouride in its water right around the time the Toyota plant was built, coincidence? I don't think so.
You liked this idea so much you said it again:
The implication is pretty clear to any fair reading. You were attempting to link the two correlated activities as if they had a causal relation. The word "Chromedreams" pretty much states your implication that the NaF by-product from chrome manufacturing was being put into SAWS water.
I always try to set my ego aside in such debates. I freely admit when I am wrong about things, or have one of my misunderstandings clarified.
As for my opinion "rivaling scientists in the field" you bring up a very relevant issue.
If, as you claim, companies are trying to shield themselves from a tort, then there must be a potential for action.
Since most courts tend to defer to scientific evidence, I must ask:
What peer reviewed studies do you have to link floride in water to any widespread harm to humans?
I would readily acknowledge floridosis in teeth as being a potential harm, when humans are exposed to high concentrations of floride.
That isn't the issue, though.
You are claiming that some harm is being done.
Can you prove that harm? Peer reviewed scientific research would be acceptable proof.
Out of context quotes from scientists in 1964 would not.
Once again, this is your theory and your burden of proof.
I want to read the available scientific evidence showing just how harmful low concentrations of floride in drinking water is.
You cherry-picked sources to fit the prejudgment of the matter you probably acquired at infowars.
Funny, you've already claimed victory a number of times.
The most I am willing to say is that you've shown your proficiency at cutting and pasting...
...and leapt over the professional consensus in a single bound in one of the lamest appeals to authority I've ever seen here. Kudos!
I wonder why you believe yourself. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I had to go to work. When I came back, I saw that others posters were regulating you properly, and felt no need to interfere.
You had been ignoring it yourself until just now. The backpedalling that brought you to this point sure kicked up some dust, but that ought not haze anyone who read all the way through.
A couple of pages ago Blake pantsed you for posting two sources you mischaracterized as supporting you, when in fact they upheld the exact opposite conclusion. A couple of pages before that, you admitted you don't really read through your sources either but just throw them up on the wall to see what others will say. Not finding you or the quality of your evidence credible doesn't make me a non-reader. I read plenty. What I did read wasn't too convincing.
Project your own faults, much?
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-30-2010 at 11:13 AM.
Hirzey doesn't work directly in the field.
If you really preferred to defer to those working in the field, this thread would never have happened, much less go past several dozen pages.
The debate then is that there is a valid debate.The most I am willing to say is that there is a valid debate here.
If you really preferred to defer to those working in the field, this would not be a debate.
iow, there is really no debate that this is not a debate.
Is it really surprising that there are scientists out there with differing view points?What you are trying to do is dismiss the views of numerous DDSs, MDs, Scientists, and Nobel Award winners. All with your handy-dandy all-powerful internet connection, the one that allows you to leap into tall professions with a single bound and surpass years of experience faster than a speeding locomotive. all to discredit to me.
How completely asinine. Maybe its just me, but I dont trust anyone who claims such things.
Why are you dismissing the findings of the pro-fluoride scientists?
Why are you dismissing the view of the surgeon general of the United States?
If some researchers come up some direct connection between fluoridated water and disease, I would absolutely agree that it should be debated.At least Winehole had the sense to let the clattering die when he saw a valid debate for himself (even if it had been there all along...he just neglected to read the thread). Take his cue Blake.
Until then, it's simply an opinon that it should be removed, even if it is from Nobel prize winner Arvid Carllson.
His opinion definitely carries great weight. Without any substantial research to back up his opinion, however, it's not enough to even open a real debate.
This is where you ran with it. This never happened. Quote me. Else: You manufacturing this crap = your cred at 0.
Am I su ious? Yes. Am I stupid enough to think that NaF leaves the Toyota plant and goes directly to SAWS? fuggin no.
Am I stupid enough to think I can understand the relationship of these parties solely through info learned on the net? no.
Is the timing su ious? yeah.
Are you stupid enough to claim all the above? Well....you do.
The more I think about this, you are a ing idiot for taking what I stated and manufacturing this chain of claims. Congrats
The inference you were making was plain enough. Disowning it now is definitely the smart thing to do.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions