wDnnSCPS

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
snip

This is called an uninformed opinion.

Even "uninformed," at least you have one.
Llono

LaVonne

--
"never it takes the brain to supervise."
(-proverb)

wrote in message
...
Carlson LaVonne wrote:
snip

This is called an uninformed opinion.

Even "uninformed," at least you have one.
=== albeit a useless one and it may encompass many
dangerous things. I'm surprised he doesn't claim
cigarette smoking is not a health hazard of any kind.

Uninformed people feed many others, sometimes with
comedic results.

Pop

Llono

LaVonne

--
"never it takes the brain to supervise."
(-proverb)

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...


bobb wrote:
"Pop" wrote in message
...

...

Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't.
bobb

...

And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you don't
believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could collect
anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you do, and
you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would rather
believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can conintue into
the oblivion you are destined for.

Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data?

Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana.

Alcohol in excess causes liver damage, increased risk of high blood
pressure, heart disease, and stroke.

The increased risk is slight for all but the confirmed drunk and even then
it take years to develop. In the meantime, moderate drinking protects the
heart, etc.

Drinking alcohol during pregnancy
increases the infants' risk of being born premature or with low birth
weight. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can result in a child born with
Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, both irreversible
conditions. We know this from research.

Wrong research. Look it up. Again, moderation is the key.


Marijuana is especially problematic for teenagers. We know this from
brain development research.

Hmm.... that could answer the amount of stupidity these days...but I doubt
it.


Eggs, coffee and
butter were foods items to be avoided.

And still are. Eggs contain an incredible amount of cholesterol. Coffee
should not be consumed in excess, and for people with high blood pressure,
not at all, unless the coffee is decaf.

Where did you get the idea coffee raises blood pressure? The additives in
decaf have their own complications.

Butter is extremely
high in fat. Individuals with high cholesterol, high fat diets are at
risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease. We know this
from research.

Again, not so. Fat actually helps to protect the heart contrary to earlier
false studies.


.00007 people get skin cancer...
soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun screen
lest you end up a statistic.

I don't know where you got the .00007 percentage, but the percentage is
actually a lot higher. If you spend a great deal of time outdoors,
sunscreen and/or covering skin is recommended. We know this from
research.

None of these studies are conclusive except we no people who live in daily
sun do not contract skin cancer at a higher rate.. in fact,it may even be
lower. Vitiam D seems to be a controlling factor and is presently be
explored. With fewer people spending time outside and drinking less milk..
which are the only sources for vitiam D.. and number of ailments are being
explored.

Sunscreen also seems to caused breast cancer in woman.

Don't smoke either... but just today it was
announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast cancer.

Smoking significantly and positively correlates with lung cancer,
emphysema, high blood pressure, and a myriad of other health related
problems. We know this from research. Even if it is true that smoking
mothers almost never suffer breast cancer, their children are far more
likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. We know
this from research.

Correlation is not causation. The rate of lung cancer is on the rise, even
as smoking declines. The motality rate has declined but attribute that to
medical science... not smoke.



Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks in
adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in children....
all fully supported by years of testing by the government.

We don't know this. We have correlational data coming in that has
resulted in certain medications from being pulled, and other medications
to carry warnings.

Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited for much
the same reason.

Neither of the above was based on research. This was based solely on
opinion.

Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-)

bobb, it would be good if you understood and read research. Your examples
of alcohol, marijuana, eggs, butter, coffee, and sunscreen actually
strengthen the position for research.

The least is far greater. All of which have been condemned at one time or
another. Asthama is increasing. Any suggestions?
Allergies, are increasing, too? The additives in laundry soaps have
recently been questioned. I'd say it has something to do with McDonald's
but they have enought problems.


Without research, you have nothing but an uninformed opinion. There was a
time when popular opinion held that the earth was flat. Research
demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. Yet there was a time when
certain individuals rejected the research and continued to believe the
earth was indeed, flat.


People beleived what they could see. Today, all they see are reports and
data.
They are no more informed now. A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as .001 percent. Great for marketing
but not much else.

bobb


This is called an uninformed opinion.

LaVonne

bobb

bobb wrote:
"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...


bobb wrote:
"Pop" wrote in message
...

...

Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't.
bobb

...

And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you
don't
believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could
collect
anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you
do, and
you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would
rather
believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can
conintue into
the oblivion you are destined for.

Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data?

Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana.

Alcohol in excess causes liver damage, increased risk of high blood

pressure, heart disease, and stroke.

The increased risk is slight for all but the confirmed drunk and even
then
it take years to develop.

You tried another "Douggism."

The response to you was: "Alcohol in excess."

To reframe and repeat is insinuation the poster you respond to was
incorrect, when in fact the two are in total agreement, your statement
and hers. "Alcohol in excess" = "confirmed drunk."

In fact, if you want to be exact YOU are still incorrect, in that it
does not take a "confirmed drunk" to drink "Alcohol in excess."

Check out the rash of deaths by binging in college students.

In the meantime, moderate drinking protects the
heart, etc.

I do not believe that is in the least conflicting with the poster you
respond to, since she said, "Alcohol in EXCESS."

It's just the usual unethical fallacious arguments, sloppy,
repetitious, and loud that amount to nothing...wind.

Drinking alcohol during pregnancy
increases the infants' risk of being born premature or with low
birth
weight. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can result in a child
born with
Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, both irreversible
conditions. We know this from research.

Wrong research. Look it up. Again, moderation is the key.

No, YOU tried to refute. YOU provide the research that supports the
concept that "moderation in the key" in protecting the developing
fetus, while still drinking.

Since there IS none, and LaVonne is absolutely correct, you sir, are a
liar...something you persist, by your refusal to correct a blatant
personal attack by LYING, in wearing as some kind of award.


Marijuana is especially problematic for teenagers. We know this
from
brain development research.

Hmm.... that could answer the amount of stupidity these days...but I
doubt
it.

You doubt that cannibus is a risk to young people, still
developing...teenagers? Really?

I suppose you think "huffing" is just an innocent passtime for
preteens?


Eggs, coffee and
butter were foods items to be avoided.

And still are. Eggs contain an incredible amount of cholesterol.
Coffee
should not be consumed in excess, and for people with high blood
pressure,
not at all, unless the coffee is decaf.

Where did you get the idea coffee raises blood pressure?

Could it be from some of these sources:

Results 1 - 10 of about 115,000 for coffee high blood pressure
hypertension

Gosh, only 115,000 hits on the search paramaters for coffee and
hypertension.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

The additives in
decaf have their own complications.

And they would be?

Butter is extremely
high in fat. Individuals with high cholesterol, high fat diets are
at
risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease. We know
this
from research.

Again, not so. Fat actually helps to protect the heart contrary to
earlier
false studies.

You been getting those mailers making outrageous medical health claims,
haven't you? R R R ...now I know how old you are, at the minimum. 0:-

Certain KINDS of fats, not cholesterol. We have what is called a
"setpoint," were we need certain substances found in our body, to be
healthy, but the same substance in excess is deadly. Cholesterol is one
of those.

We are anemic without "Iron," but too much is deadly. I have to filter
my well water to precipitate out free iron for that very reason. But
remove all iron or too much from the human body, and you have a dead
body.

You are being conned, and being the sucker that Doug has proven again
and again you are, you love it. Anything that confounds what you think
is the mainstream, or truth you love. It gives you something to live
for.


.00007 people get skin cancer...
soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun
screen
lest you end up a statistic.

I don't know where you got the .00007 percentage, but the
percentage is
actually a lot higher. If you spend a great deal of time outdoors,

sunscreen and/or covering skin is recommended. We know this from
research.

None of these studies are conclusive except we no people who live in
daily
sun do not contract skin cancer at a higher rate.. in fact,it may
even be
lower.

Yep, that australian so called study. It's bogus. People with certain
skin types do not contract skin cancer at a higher rate. Even those
with the less susceptable skin type can and do get skin cancer with
enough sun exposure.

Vitiam D seems to be a controlling factor and is presently be
explored.

Nutcase. D has NOTHING to do with skin cancer. It's simple a vitamin
our body doesn't produce, and needs, that we can get only from the
environment...and ONE way is by exposure to sunlight. But we don't have
to risk melanoma to get it. We can supplement for it. "presently be
explored." R R R R R ......

With fewer people spending time outside and drinking less milk..
which are the only sources for vitiam D.. and number of ailments are
being
explored.

"Milk" is NOT a vitamin D source, you fool. It is simply a convenient
carrier for supplemental D put in by the bottlers of the milk.

From a google with over one MILLION hits on the subject:
"Vitamin D
.... Foods: In Canada, cow's milk and margarine are fortified with
vitamin D, ... But breast milk, which has only small amounts of vitamin
D (15 to 40 IU per ...
www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/VitaminD.htm - 12k -"

See that word "fortified." It means they had to put it IN, so that it
would most likely reach the most vulnerable target, children.

The nearest thing available today on research into any D and melanoma
goes something like this: "Some have suggested that vitamin D may
inhibit melanoma."

No research, just some hints. But that's a long way from the best
protection from skin cancer....simply reducing your sunlight
exposure....and stay away from those tanning booths, you idiot twit.


Sunscreen also seems to caused breast cancer in woman.

Yep, same borderline research. Do you have any idea about
"replications" in research and what they mean, as to credibility? You
are being conned by commercial marketers that are quoting often single
studies that may or may NOT be replicated in the future. And in fact
that's an invitation to you to be a test subject by buying their
product and following the advice in it....usually poorly written
"health" hints.

**** you are stupid.


Don't smoke either... but just today it was
announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast
cancer.

Smoking significantly and positively correlates with lung cancer,
emphysema, high blood pressure, and a myriad of other health
related
problems. We know this from research. Even if it is true that
smoking
mothers almost never suffer breast cancer, their children are far
more
likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. We
know
this from research.

Correlation is not causation.

For about a century you could use electrical energy, based on no more
science than repeted USE that correlated with outcomes. There was
little understanding, and at one time not even an awareness of
"electrons" and their function.

And the research is rather conclusive, bobber. And it's unfortunate
that LaVonne used the word, "correlates" because there are careful
scientific studies that clearly show causation at the molecular
level....the breakdown of living tissue into unwanted changes that kill
us, by the use of tobacco and other dangers to human substances.

The rate of lung cancer is on the rise, even
as smoking declines.

The rate of air pollution hasn't reduced significantly and in fact
during the current administration has risen as manufacturing as
successfully lobbied to get pollution supression reduced in
manufacturing.

The motality rate has declined but attribute that to
medical science... not smoke.


What "motality rate" [sic] are you referring to? The one from smoking?

What's actually happened in science on this subject is that they have
discovered even more sensitivity in children to the effects of second
hand smoke than was previously believed. Children in homes where people
smoke are at a higher risk of disease and death than we once thought.
Look UP the current research Bobber.


Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks
in
adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in
children....
all fully supported by years of testing by the government.

We don't know this. We have correlational data coming in that has
resulted in certain medications from being pulled, and other
medications
to carry warnings.

In other words, bobber, we are learning all the time, based on
available facts...and you on rumor and incidental commercially driven
marketing quotes of insufficiently replicated and peer reviewed
"science."

Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited
for much
the same reason.

Neither of the above was based on research. This was based solely
on
opinion.

bobber, you NEVER bother to respond when you've been proven wrong, just
as you haven't on the lie you told about me, and admit to your error.
Does this mean you still believe you were correct and the poster is
wrong?

Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-)

bobb, it would be good if you understood and read research. Your
examples
of alcohol, marijuana, eggs, butter, coffee, and sunscreen actually

strengthen the position for research.

The least is far greater.

What?

All of which have been condemned at one time or
another. Asthama is increasing. Any suggestions?

Yes, look into the much higher use of deisel fuels in this country. And
the reduction in installation of and replacement and maintenance of
particulate suppression systems in manufacturing.

Allergies, are increasing, too? The additives in laundry soaps have
recently been questioned. I'd say it has something to do with
McDonald's
but they have enought problems.

Do you know what allergies are? Do you know the difference between
reactions to toxins and allergic reactions? Please. Please. READ
something besides the comics back pages and commercial solicitations
for 'health' advice.


Without research, you have nothing but an uninformed opinion.
There was a
time when popular opinion held that the earth was flat. Research
demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. Yet there was a time when

certain individuals rejected the research and continued to believe
the
earth was indeed, flat.


People beleived what they could see. Today, all they see are reports
and
data.

That requires that they learn what the phrase, 'scientific method'
means, and demand, when they get those reams of commercial mailers, and
sensationalist media announcements, that the producers come up with the
methodology, or at least more easily accessed study and research
sources with peer reviewed reports.

They are no more informed now.

Precisely...and it's because they are, like you, too stupid and
stubborn to learn and to seek out the more boring and harder to read
REAL scientific replicated peer reviewed scientific research reports.
Go to a university library near you. Ask for the STARS shelves. You
will find out where all this research "science" you are reading about
comes from. These are, by the way, reports that if they are correct and
you are smart and invest right could make you wealthy.

They are the first reports of research, priliminary research, from
around the world. Hot stuff, if tech reading doesn't numb your brain,
and you know how to USE a library and find dictionaries of scientific
terms for the particular field you are reading about in STARS at that
moment.

And there are people, bobber, that go to libraries and search...that
make a living out of finding such things, and writing them up for the
companies that sell you their product based on the search and writings
of these freelancers.

A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as .001 percent. Great for
marketing
but not much else.

Hmmmm...let me see now...YOUR sources (and I KNOW what they are
now....R R R R) and LaVonne's, who can access a fine university library
with all the current research reports of qualified scientists, with
reviews that reveal of there is sufficient replication to validate the
conclusions as true or false...LaVonne is wrong, and YOU are right.

I see now. R R R R R R

You are the fool accessing, or being fed, rather, unreviewed initial
findings...of which there is a report somewhere on nearly everything
imaginable...without ANY further research, while LaVonne most likely
confines herself to reports out of the high pressure grinder of
academic research, with all one's collegues hanging over your reports
ripping them apart piece by piece.

And you say, " A lot of data and research is not confirmed " as a
"REBUTTAL?"

By the way, did you ever figure out the risks, actual risks based on
outcomes, that the AIDS Tx/Rx for foster children (only ten percent of
the test population)?

Your willingness to babble like an "expert" is a yuk.

bobb


This is called an uninformed opinion.

LaVonne

bobb

And you got a big big case of "uninformed opinion," bobber.

Thank goodness you have no power.

0:-

Bobb wrote
A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as
.001 percent. Great for marketing
but not much else.

This was a point worth reiteration.

Greegor wrote:
Bobb wrote
A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as
.001 percent. Great for marketing
but not much else.

This was a point worth reiteration.

Yes, given the obvious sources for his iterations.

And his exact claims, with no supporting evidence of any kind.

".001 percent?"

No doubt some risks are only .001 percent, but that would take them out
of the argument entirely...we weren't discussing risks that small, but
rather smoking, food, etc.

Now all he has to do is attach that .001 percent, to one of the
subjects HE brought up....that claim these are not that dangerous.

Possibly you could give him a hand.

CLAP.........CLAP............CLAP.........

0:-

Kane's Komments


Kane:

Oooo...bobber, sure hope you don't live in Louisiana. Tsk tsk.

Maybe if you hurry you can write and contribute your special brand of
wisdom while it's still in the state senate. Quick, quick.

Bill extends deadline for molestation charges
But Morrell says it's unfair to defendants
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
By Ed Anderson
Capital bureau

BATON ROUGE -- District attorneys should have an additional 20 years to
bring charges against people suspected of molesting children, the state
House of Representatives voted Monday.

House Bill 17 by Rep. Henry "Tank" Powell, R-Ponchatoula, passed by a
vote of 96-1 and was sent to the Senate for debate.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital...1250276280.xml


Kane:

Well, ol' smiley argued some time back, oh say for two years an running
now, that the incidence of actual child sexual abuse if far higher than
the data collected from the states by the feds might indicate. Further
I posited that any reduction in attention to this crime by reducing
funding to intervention programs would miss that those locked up for it
from the past, when it was dropping because of their absence from the
public body, are now starting to be released back into the public
body...where the kids are.

You are going to see much more of this folks, and I wish I had been
wrong.

As for the question being asked at the end of this piece I've snipped
out to paste here...I have the answers, some of them. Drugs...they
reduce inhibitions. Untold numbers of molestors that have NEVER been
caught, that successfully intimidate or fool their victims into NOT
reporting, and programs to uncover it are increasing. Don't that just
fry yah, child rapist apologists?

bobber? Hello? bobber?

News: Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Grand Jury Cites Rise In Molestations
By Doug Keeler, Midway Driller Editor

Taft has long been known as a town where a lot of illegal drugs are
used and sold.

Now, it seems the community is getting a much darker reputation.

A Kern County Grand Jury report released earlier this month says Taft
is getting more than its share of child molestation cases.

That information came right from the Kern County Sheriff's Office.

It was underscored last week by the arrest of a Ford City man on
serious child molestation charges (see related story below).

"The Sheriff's Department states that the Taft area is well known for a
high drug problem and now (is) also known as a high child molestation
area," the grand jury report said.

The problem is so bad that the grand jury has recommended that the
Sheriff and county Department of Human Services create a joint task
force to look for the reason behind the high incidence of child
molestation in the area.....
.....full story at:

http://www.taftmidwaydriller.com/art...ews/news02.txt


Kane:

Looks like some sensible progress in child protection in this state.
Interesting response and use of technology;

Officers soon could monitor some sex offenders wherever they go

5/17/05

Wearing the device would be part of their probation or parole.

By: Laurie Patton, KY3 News


SPRINGFIELD -- A crime bill that just needs the governor's
signature to become Missouri law has many measures in it to protect
children. One includes constant monitoring of sex offenders.

The monitoring system in the bill is different than the usual
electronic monitoring systems. Those systems tell law officers if a
person stays at home.

The system allowed by the bill uses a Global Positioning System
to keep track of everywhere a person goes.....
.....full story at:

http://www.ky3.com/newsdetailed.asp?id=8081

Kane's Komments

I'v noticed, because I'm such a sensitive soul really, that some of the
responses to my little WDNNSCPS - Kane's Komments, what appears to be
barely suppressed irritation with me for using this forum for my own
personal little web log.

Well, I agree. It's probably not nice of me to do that. 0:-

On the other hand, we are here today to celebrate the many lovely folks
that went to make up the "column" a forerunner of the "Blog" that was
here for many years under the sender name "Fernnnnn"

I wonder if the idea for blogs came to someone reading
Fern-the-group-effort?

Well, I decided that despite the annoyance it might cause a few of you,
and in the best tradition of Fern's informative and helpfull postins of
news clipppings from all about, and that fabulous capacity It showed to
stay on topic, and not just blame CPS for everything in the known
universe, that I will post this Komments and WDNNSCPS for the same
length of time "Fern-the-group" posted.

Seems fair. No?

Enjoy.

And now for the lovely sound of "!PLONK!" R R R R R R R R R R R ....R
R R..

You guys break me up, really you do.

0:-

wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane's Komments

Well, you've been at it with thw wdnnscps for nearly six months and how many
serious cases have you posted? 15? 25?

CPS took 100 or 200 thousand kids since you started wdnnscps. Maybe you
could post more iffin ya tried? Maybe ya missed some?? 20 serious cases out
of 150,000 ain't much.

For every case of serious abuse, there's 1000 innocent families destroyed.
That's CPS. Thanks for pointin out just how few serious cases CPS really
deals with.

Uncle Chester wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane's Komments

Well, you've been at it with thw wdnnscps for nearly six months and
how many
serious cases have you posted? 15? 25?

CPS took 100 or 200 thousand kids since you started wdnnscps. Maybe
you
could post more iffin ya tried? Maybe ya missed some?? 20 serious
cases out
of 150,000 ain't much.

For every case of serious abuse, there's 1000 innocent families
destroyed.
That's CPS. Thanks for pointin out just how few serious cases CPS
really
deals with.

Yo Chet. Hey bro, thought you done died. Ain't heard from you for
months. Don't waste your time with limpdick aka stoneman, he's a jerk.

Hey - hi to all, and again, miss your mails.