What about flouride?

[ChumpDumper]

Curbstomping on the strawman bull you guys tied me to (Toyota sells SAWS NaF)?

Toyota sell SAWS NaF (even though the contract is specifically for a compound that contains no sodium but SAWS gets NaF from Toyota through some shadowy intermediary whom we will never know because I know the process is not transparent because I haven't even bothered to read the web page that spells out exactly what the compound used is when it was spoon fed to me).

[Winehole23]

Which is also about the time you lost my readership.

I wouldn't miss it. Doubt RG and CD would either.

[Parker2112]

What is your position?

I showed pretty conclusively that you are ignorant and choose to remain so.

The others did quite a good job of it. No need for me to pile on.

Not at all. They are pretty poor "cites."

I wouldn't expect you to admit defeat, although you did admit to being ignorant and expressed your intent to remain so.

That's really all I need.

Last one for the afternoon.

Position: fluoridation is 1. unconst, 2. ineffective, 3. puts sensitives at risk, 4. done without a full disclosure to public, and 5. unnecessary expense.

I am still su ious about Toyota, but will consider myself uninformed here because I couldnt stomach any more of RGs misreps.

The quality of the cites: might want to call some reps from those 11 distinct federal employees unions and tell them that their reps are wasting dues on stupid pe ions to congress. And that the professional scientists that are represented in that may want to reconsider their conclusions because you have decided that the position is without merit, laymans credentials be damned.





Ill wait.

[ChumpDumper]

you did admit to being ignorant and expressed your intent to remain so.

That's really all I need.

I won't wait for you to not be ignorant.

[Parker2112]

Originally Posted by Parker2112
Curbstomping on the strawman bull you guys tied me to (Toyota sells SAWS NaF)?




Originally Posted by Parker2112
Toyota sell SAWS NaF (even though the contract is specifically for a compound that contains no sodium but SAWS gets NaF from Toyota through some shadowy intermediary whom we will never know because I know the process is not transparent because I haven't even bothered to read the web page that spells out exactly what the compound used is when it was spoon fed to me).

oh .

fuggity .

[RandomGuy]

What is your position?

I don't think he really has one, either.

"look at this coincidence" becomes... "well, what I really meant was..."

"look at the iron clad science" becomes "these people agree with me"

"this it toxic" becomes "well of course when you dilute it, it isn't all that harmful"

"look at this expensive thing they are doing" becomes "well, since you pointed out it is less than .5% of their revenues"



Given how badly conspira-boyz do when they have the nutz to make testable claims, is it really all that shocking that they stick to innuendo?

[Winehole23]

You first, Parker.

[Parker2112]

when the quote doesnt exist, just put it in a quote box labeled Parker2112!

What a .

[Parker2112]

I don't think he really has one, either.

"look at this coincidence" becomes... "well, what I really meant was..."

"look at the iron clad science" becomes "these people agree with me"

"this it toxic" becomes "well of course when you dilute it, it isn't all that harmful"

"look at this expensive thing they are doing" becomes "well, since you pointed out it is less than .5% of their revenues"



Given how badly conspira-boyz do when they have the nutz to make testable claims, is it really all that shocking that they stick to innuendo?

RG, you made tons of assumptions, misdirections, and miscalculations from the word go.

And I will say, youre a good guy who means well, but you just run a few quarts short of operating level. The only problem: youre leaps of logic crammed into my mouth become offensive.

I challenged you for some quotes on the you claim, you couldnt come up with the because it doesnt exist.

And I would go through your posts to find the infractions at issue, but I dont want to get covered in the of your masturbatory mental gymnastical feats of ignorance, and so....I wont.

[RandomGuy]

Position: fluoridation is
1. unconst,

Specific section of the cons ution violated?

2. ineffective,

Proof?

3. puts sensitives at risk,

So?

4. done without a full disclosure to public, and

SAWS and other large municipal water utilities put it on their front web page. it's voted on in most places. What disclosure do you want?

5. unnecessary expense.

Blake posted a link to an economic study showing it saved far more than it costs. I posted information showing it cost less than .5% of SAWS revenue. Why should I care about less than half a penny out of every dollar spent on water?

(especially when that half penny saves me whole dollars in dental premiums)

[Blake]

Last one for the afternoon.

Position: fluoridation is 1. unconst, 2. ineffective, 3. puts sensitives at risk, 4. done without a full disclosure to public, and 5. unnecessary expense.

1. proven false
2. proven false
3. unproven
4. proven false
5. proven false by yourself

I am still su ious about Toyota, but will consider myself uninformed here because I couldnt stomach any more of RGs misreps.

If you are claiming ignorance, why are you still claiming victory?

The quality of the cites: might want to call some reps from those 11 distinct federal employees unions and tell them that their reps are wasting dues on stupid pe ions to congress. And that the professional scientists that are represented in that may want to reconsider their conclusions because you have decided that the position is without merit, laymans credentials be damned.

Do you believe all EPA employee union members are in 100% agreement on the fluoride issue?

I would definitely question why my union dues are being spent on Hirzy trying to protect me from fluoridated water.

[Blake]

If Jesus exists, why did he put fluroide in the water?

[RandomGuy]

Still think this crap isnt industrial waste?

Provide one quote from anybody in this thread stating that the poster did not believe that certain forms of floride used in water was sourced from industrial waste.

If you can't, then you have made an assumption and put words in someone else's mouth.

Go on.

I'll wait.

[Parker2112]

Provide one quote from anybody in this thread stating that the poster did not believe that certain forms of floride used in water was sourced from industrial waste.

If you can't, then you have made an assumption and put words in someone else's mouth.

Go on.

I'll wait.

Actually, you fuggin' little maggot...

My position went from:

Parker2112: From a policy standpoint, It makes sense, for both policy makers and corps, to dilute poisonous waste products like flouride (see vid #3) to safe levels spread over the water supply nationwide rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry and ultimately the national economy.

and

Parker2112: It doesnt sound that damn threatening, right? Well true...at current levels, very little is seen in the way of side effects, other than flourosis. The other stuff is a bit overdramatic.

Its the bigger issue that needs addressing...like why we have this industrial waste product being dumped into our water when the science on both the benefits and the potential risks posed is disputed. And when you look at the origins of the practice, you find even more reason to doubt this practice.

So why do we do it? And why are more communities banning the practice? And why is there even a backlash when the practice comes under fire? Who has interests to protect here?

ON PAGE 2... to your summary of my position on page three of:

RG: Originally Posted by Parker2112

[Floride is really really bad for you and part of a secret government/sinister plot]

you trick. You twisted this whole plain and simple, with anti-conspiracy banter. That was the beginning of all of this. On the record. Eat a , RG, bad intent or none.


(Ive been waiting to use that.)

[LnGrrrR]

I still think the whole "Round Earth" thing should be looked at. I mean, some people dispute the idea of a Round Earth, saying we have a Flat Earth instead.

[LnGrrrR]

Parker, I don't see why you get so pissed off about us calling it a conspiracy, when you've admitted that

a) you haven't bothered to research the facts yourself

b) you you don't accept the evidence contra to your opinions.

Here's your argument style Parker.

1) Throw out random

2) Claim that opinions that disprove yours are done so by bgus science/scientists

3) State that unless you personally see the results you can't expect to trust them

4) ????

5) Claim victory

[Parker2112]

Parker, I don't see why you get so pissed off about us calling it a conspiracy, when you've admitted that

a) you haven't bothered to research the facts yourself

b) you you don't accept the evidence contra to your opinions.

Here's your argument style Parker.

1) Throw out random

2) Claim that opinions that disprove yours are done so by bgus science/scientists

3) State that unless you personally see the results you can't expect to trust them

4) ????

5) Claim victory

Im not really that mad. But that was a move by RG. But do you see the misrep above?

[LnGrrrR]

Im not really that mad. But that was a move by RG. But do you see the misrep above?

If there is a misrepresentation, it's because you do not honestly argue. You readily admit to lack of research and throwing out claims with no empirical verification on your part. Why should your opponents keep your arguments straight when you haven't done the basic research to verify?

The very example that you used a " you" smiley, when you're not even that mad, is misrepresentation. You claim to be mad, but aren't.

[Parker2112]

2) Claim that opinions that disprove yours are done so by bgus science/scientists

never did this.

Also: do you see how lukewarm my position was from the beginning? Do you see how the got twisted?

I call that the flagrant flailings of a sucker.

Im just saying.

[LnGrrrR]

never did this.

Are you saying you've never intimated that some scientists are bribed/bought out?

[Parker2112]

If there is a misrepresentation, it's because you do not honestly argue. You readily admit to lack of research and throwing out claims with no empirical verification on your part. Why should your opponents keep your arguments straight when you haven't done the basic research to verify?

I never moved from my lukewarm stance. I didnt claim to know "the truth." I didnt need to verify, I wanted to discuss, and thats essentially what I did. RG took the and ran with the . And this was just the first instance...his was rank with misrep over the course of 15+ pages.

[Parker2112]

Are you saying you've never intimated that some scientists are bribed/bought out?

I did, and I still believe that. I believe professionals in every field are bought. I didnt say tons. But the example I used was the scientific body that is used by the right to undermine global warming. They are paid for those findings by oil cos.

[Blake]

4) ????

5) Claim victory

4) Admit to ignorance

5) Claim victory

[Parker2112]

If there is a misrepresentation, it's because you do not honestly argue. You readily admit to lack of research and throwing out claims with no empirical verification on your part. Why should your opponents keep your arguments straight when you haven't done the basic research to verify?

The very example that you used a " you" smiley, when you're not even that mad, is misrepresentation. You claim to be mad, but aren't.

I mean that... him. But I dont have to be mad to say him. Its just that simple: him.

[Parker2112]

4) Admit to ignorance

5) Claim victory

I won on some sub-issues with Winehole, including the cons utional component. I didnt win on fluoridation...

Go back and look for chess play...you will see nothing but sub-issues.