Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans?

[CFLarsen]

Can I suggest SG asks the mods to replace the title "Graduate Poster" with " Suspicious character" ?

This will save CFL the need to remind us of past misdeeds in each and every thread SG starts.

I'm happy for Claus to maintain his Stevewatch policy, but I tire of hearing about it so often. Yes , SG has opinions and presumably any number of secret (oops), agendas, but so do we all.
(I'm intent on overthrowing the domination of JREF by cat lovers myself.)

Sorry, but it is necessary to point out what Steve is doing.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry, but it is necessary to point out what Steve is doing.

What am I doing? Expand please. This should be interesting. Answer the question.

 

[brodski]

Sorry, but it is necessary to point out what Steve is doing.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but what is Steve doing?
All I can see is that he is making McDonalds actions seem slightly more sinister than they actually are.
What is his eeeeeeevil agenda here Claus?

 

[Rob Lister]

Why did you do that steve?

CFL and I disagree on many issues but he's never been so dishonest as to edit a post and then claim he answered the question.

Integrity is inportant.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Why did you do that steve?

CFL and I disagree on many issues but he's never been so dishonest as to edit a post and then claim he answered the question.

Integrity is inportant.

I addressed that. The post was edited, it was time stamped. I answered by pointing out I had answered the question in the [original] post which was true. I don't know what posessed me to do this. I feel awful. I realize now that I am just too slow and too old for Claus' rapid response technique. I have afterthoughts. Sometimes they answer questions yet to be asked. I have nowhere near the practice he's had on this forum. Starting now, I will answer him after he goes to sleep in Denmark unless he stays up all night to see who's posting in case he has a question that requires more than 2 days to answer. This could give me time for afterthoughts. What do you think?

 

[CFLarsen]

What am I doing? Expand please. This should be interesting. Answer the question.

It sure is.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but what is Steve doing?
All I can see is that he is making McDonalds actions seem slightly more sinister than they actually are.
What is his eeeeeeevil agenda here Claus?

Steve Grenard has lied, misrepresented, misquoted, broken copyright laws on a regular basis, embellished his reputation, padded his influence, as well as threatened with lawsuits and accused people of the worst things imaginable. E.g., that the reason I moved back to Denmark from the US was because of Denmark's laxer laws on pedophilia.

He has instigated an anonymous smear campaign against JREF. He constantly tries to discredit skeptics, and Randi in particular. E.g., he has claimed that Randi "engineered" the Horizon programme on homeopathy to "discredit" homeopathy. He has also claimed that Emily Rosa's mother "scam" the nurses. He claimed that Prometheus (publisher of many skeptical books) are "extolling the virtues of pedophilia and prostitution" in their catalogue.

Not a single claim was backed up with evidence.

Despite his claims of a scientific approach, he lacks the most basic understanding of science: E.g., he thinks electrical resistence is measured in Volt. He also think that while there are no molecules left in a homeopathic solution, there can still be particles. He has claimed there is "unpublished research with profoundly autistic hyperactive children that had to be kept caged". He thought that Marie and Pierre Curie discovered X-rays, but later changed it into Marie and Pierre Curie discovering medical use of X-rays. They did not.

He helped design an abomination of a paranormal test once. He ended up blaming the test-persons for his own faults.

Again, in none of these examples has he been able to back it up with evidence. In fact, his "evidence" turns out to be hidden, secret and certainly not for our eyes.

A short list, I know.

 

[CFLarsen]

I addressed that. The post was edited, it was time stamped. I answered by pointing out I had answered the question in the [original] post which was true. I don't know what posessed me to do this. I feel awful. I realize now that I am just too slow and too old for Claus' rapid response technique. I have afterthoughts. Sometimes they answer questions yet to be asked. I have nowhere near the practice he's had on this forum. Starting now, I will answer him after he goes to sleep in Denmark unless he stays up all night to see who's posting in case he has a question that requires more than 2 days to answer. This could give me time for afterthoughts. What do you think?

This doesn't address the issue of you claiming that you had already answered me, when in fact you hadn't.

Rob,

Told you so.

 

[westphalia]

"Is McDonald's Selectively Killing Americans?"

I hope so, and I hope they're using my list.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: Steve Grenard has lied, misrepresented, misquoted, broken copyright laws on a regular basis, embellished his reputation, padded his influence, as well as threatened with lawsuits and accused people of the worst things imaginable. E.g., that the reason I moved back to Denmark from the US was because of Denmark's laxer laws on pedophilia.

Reply: I posted material deemed copyright when it was the practice to do so by others on this forum so I felt it was appropriate to do so. Even after I was singled out and, in fact even suspended, for doing this, others continued to do this with impunity. I heard Denmark had a major crackdown and this is a good thing. You get what you give Larsen. So if this wasn't true, why did you leave our shores?

Larsen: He has instigated an anonymous smear campaign against JREF. He constantly tries to discredit skeptics, and Randi in particular.

Reply: I do not discredit skeptics. I discredit debunkers who cannot back up their assertions with scientific evidence for their claims. If there is no evidence then I extol them to say so.

I have never instigated an anonymous smear campaign against JREF. Mr. Larsen felt since I used my first intiial and last name I was anonymous. And if it was anonymous how do you know about it? Because it is a product of your vivid imagination perhaps? What I did do is help push to get the language here cleaned up so the site would not be banned/filtered by schools and libraries catering to kids. This was as a result of Randi's published complaint that he had received reports the site was being banned but didn't know why. We found out why. Subsequently JREF imposed new rules against the use of obscenities, thus negating the effect of such filters.


Larsen: E.g., he has claimed that Randi "engineered" the Horizon programme on homeopathy to "discredit" homeopathy.

Reply: I do not know if Randi engineered anything with respect to Horizon. I doubt it. However, I did claim that it was inappropriate to conduct a single scientific experiment on television and expect it to be acceptable science. There were other objections which were not mine. The person or persons preparing the solutions, for example, were not homeopathic pharmacists as I recall.


Larsen: He has also claimed that Emily Rosa's mother "scam" the nurses.

Reply: I do not know nor do I believe that therapeutic touch has any value. I do know that DEmily Rosa’s study was riddled with inconsistencies; that Emily’s parents got her the space in JAMA for her school science project. I do not believe nor do I still believe that a scientific experiment conducted by an 11 year old as a science fair project should be published in JAMA where the oversight was provided by the student’s parents.

COX, T.
Virginia Commonwealth University School of Nursing, Richmond, USA.

This article presents a reanalysis of data used to support the work of Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch (TT) science fair project published as an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1998. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at the assumptions, data, statistical procedures, and conclusions of the JAMA article. This is accomplished by focusing on (1) the conclusion that there was no overall effect of TT, (2) the conclusion that TT practitioners did not perform better depending on which hand was used, and (3) the assumptions about the capability of Rosa's experiment to validate an existing skill. Reanalysis of the Rosa data suggests contradictions to the authors' conclusions. Based on this reanalysis, the authors' recommendations against the use of TT can and should be challenged because of inappropriate design and analysis as well as incorrect statistical assumptions and conclusions.

Larsen: He claimed that Prometheus (publisher of many skeptical books) are "extolling the virtues of pedophilia and prostitution" in their catalogue.


Reply: The Prometheus Catalog speaks for itself. It’s online. Prometheus publishes many excellent books. It’s s-x oriented titles are thin veils for pornography and paedophilia and do their publishing program an injustice. The editor of this s-x section at one point had his own website where he (I will not mention his name here) presented himself as a self-confessed paedophile replete with justification. This person also is or was a CSICOP fellow. Check the list of titles from their website that I am referring to. It includes an 8 volume catalogue of x-rated videotapes.

You can go to their website www.prometheusbooks.com and use the drop down menu under “Know What You are Looking For?” and click on Human S-x-ality or Se-x-al Autobiography.


Larsen: Not a single claim was backed up with evidence.

Reply: See above. Some are personal opinions. Rosa’s study is available for review. The Prometheus catalogue is available for review. The transcript of the Horizon program is or was available for review. The reviewer can draw their own conclusions.

Larsen: Despite his claims of a scientific approach, he lacks the most basic understanding of science: E.g., he thinks electrical resistence is measured in Volt.

I use an impedance meter every day. It sends a current, in microAmperes and measures the offset voltage in microvolts, to test for human skin impedance which is measured in K-ohms.The current is sent through the electrode wire plugged into the meter. The impedance is received through a second wire and measured in K-ohms. I presented websites where these devices are described and can be purchased such as:

www.grass-telefactor.com/products/electrodes/prepcheck.html



Larsen: He also think that while there are no molecules left in a homeopathic solution, there can still be particles.

Reply: This has been the conclusions of other researchers. I have reported this but have no interest or experience in the preparation of these substances or lack of substance as the case may be. . I provided references.

I would not use a homeopathic remedy in place of my high blood pressure, my anticoagulants, my diuretics, beta blockers, Ace receptor blockers or in lieu of any other medication I am required to use as a result of my cardiac arrest and recent heart surgery. I would, however, like to see more studies done that either confirm or successfully refute positive studies published to date which you can find in MedLine. My original thoughts came from reading Martin Chaplin’s papers at:

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html


A separate discussion of these may be of interest.


Larsen: He has claimed there is "unpublished research with profoundly autistic hyperactive children that had to be kept caged".

Reply: I have seen small children so profoundly hyperactive they are a danger to themselves. These children are kept in padded cribs with covers which resemble cages. I never said there was research on this. I did say that medications could be used to treat these children and eliminate the need for such measures. Among the medications that quiet such children are Ritalin and amphetamines. They are widely used to treat ADHD whether you agree or not. Professor Corey, for example, thinks this is wrong because they are stimulants.


Larsen: He thought that Marie and Pierre Curie discovered X-rays, but later changed it into Marie and Pierre Curie discovering medical use of X-rays. They did not.

In December 1895, a German, Wilhelm Roentgen, had discovered rays that could travel through solid wood or flesh. Shortly afterwards a French physicist, Henri Becquerel, discovered that minerals containing uranium also gave off rays. Medical use of these rays was largely ignored.

Fast forward to: August 1914, Germany invaded France. Marie Curie searched for ways her science could help. She knew that doctors could use X-rays to save the lives of wounded soldiers by revealing bullets, shrapnel, and broken bones. The problem was to get the X-ray machines to the doctors near the front. Curie talked wealthy people into donating their cars, and assembled a fleet of 20 mobile X-ray stations as well as 200 stationary stations. If it wasn’t for Marie Curie and WW I the first use of largely medically ignored X-Rays for medical purposes would not have occurred. You cannot ignore or denigrate Marie Curie’s contribution in this respect as much as Mr. Larsen would like to.

Larsen: He helped design an abomination of a paranormal test once. He ended up blaming the test-persons for his own faults.

Reply: I did NOT design or help design the test. I was asked to recruit control subjects which I did. Unfortunately some of the control subjects knew each other and compared notes, thus negating their value. The experiment was completed without this particular group of controls . I had no other role. It was my fault for not cautioning the controls NOT to talk to each other. I should have gone further and made sure they did not know each other at all.

Mr. Larsen’s series of half-truths turn out to be just that, and mostly just whole lies. Mr. Larsen is engaged in a thinly disguised attempt to censor differences of opinion and to silence those he does not agree with. He has done this ever since I know him. If his behavior is tolerated here then he is among like minded people. More's the pity. It is a threat to legitimate inquery.

 

[Z]

Hmmmm...

When we switched to vegetarianism (for health reasons only) we asked for nutrition cards from several restaurants. I have one here, dated 2002, which at the bottom reads, "Nutritional values presented represent the national averages based on standard formulations; however, actual values may vary by region, local suppliers, and season. Also, these formulations are subject to change without notice. If you have specific concerns, please contact your local McDonald's manager..."

Seems like they're being pretty up-front to me.

 

[Z]

In fact, with just three minutes of Googling, I found a number where you can request specific nutritional information from McDonalds.

Again, hardly a 'secret'.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Hmmmm...

When we switched to vegetarianism (for health reasons only) we asked for nutrition cards from several restaurants. I have one here, dated 2002, which at the bottom reads, "Nutritional values presented represent the national averages based on standard formulations; however, actual values may vary by region, local suppliers, and season. Also, these formulations are subject to change without notice. If you have specific concerns, please contact your local McDonald's manager..."

Seems like they're being pretty up-front to me.

They sound like it to me. So did you contact the Manager and ask him anything? Did he provide you with any information that was a surprise?

 

[SteveGrenard]

In fact, with just three minutes of Googling, I found a number where you can request specific nutritional information from McDonalds.

Again, hardly a 'secret'.

It would be interesting to call them and ask them the same question re fries and nuggets like gms of fat present. One time say you are in San Francisco and the next time say you want to know for a store you go to in New York. Although now that this Danish study has been published they may be on to anyone calling with such questions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Reply: I posted material deemed copyright when it was the practice to do so by others on this forum so I felt it was appropriate to do so. Even after I was singled out and, in fact even suspended, for doing this, others continued to do this with impunity. I heard Denmark had a major crackdown and this is a good thing. You get what you give Larsen. So if this wasn't true, why did you leave our shores?

I got a divorce. You know that. Nothing sinister. No reason to imply that I moved back to Denmark because of laxer laws on pedophilia. Yet, you chose to do it.

Reply: I do not discredit skeptics.

That is a bald-faced lie.

I discredit debunkers who cannot back up their assertions with scientific evidence for their claims. If there is no evidence then I extol them to say so.

Hey, go ahead, Steve. Problem is, that's not what you are doing at all. You waste no opportunity - even if you have to make it up yourself - to discredit skeptics.

I have never instigated an anonymous smear campaign against JREF. Mr. Larsen felt since I used my first intiial and last name I was anonymous. And if it was anonymous how do you know about it? Because it is a product of your vivid imagination perhaps?

Because I found out and confronted you with the evidence.

What I did do is help push to get the language here cleaned up so the site would not be banned/filtered by schools and libraries catering to kids. This was as a result of Randi's published complaint that he had received reports the site was being banned but didn't know why. We found out why. Subsequently JREF imposed new rules against the use of obscenities, thus negating the effect of such filters.

You are such a liar, Steve. What you did was to try to get the JREF site on the list of banned sites, because it contained words that you yourself had put there. You were oh, so eager to post words like "Randi" and "pedophilia" close together, so the whole site would be banned from libraries.

Reply: I do not know if Randi engineered anything with respect to Horizon. I doubt it.

Oh yeah?

Randi attempted to refute thousands of trials with a set-up, singular trial on a television program. This is my opinion and statement as well as evidence (he did it, didn't he? it speaks for itself--I am sure there is a Latin legal term for that somewhere). that Randi engineered this televised stunt with the producers.

I find the notion of homeopathy far fetched as well and pesonally have a difficult time udnerstanding its claims or how it could possibly work. However, in the interests of answering Claus' question, well his assertion, about nothing having been proved in the 200 years since Samuel Hahnemann developed his theories concerning this subject, it is important to understand that there are even recent research findings which need to be dealt with and confirmed in the lab (as opposed to a Randi engineered television stunt to discredit) if in fact they are replicable at all.

Oops. You are a liar, Steve.

However, I did claim that it was inappropriate to conduct a single scientific experiment on television and expect it to be acceptable science. There were other objections which were not mine. The person or persons preparing the solutions, for example, were not homeopathic pharmacists as I recall.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Reply: I do not know nor do I believe that therapeutic touch has any value. I do know that DEmily Rosa’s study was riddled with inconsistencies;

Let's see them.

that Emily’s parents got her the space in JAMA for her school science project.

Prove it.

I do not believe nor do I still believe that a scientific experiment conducted by an 11 year old as a science fair project should be published in JAMA where the oversight was provided by
the student’s parents.

What does her age have to do with anything? Please define how a scientific experiment has to be done.

A nurse-statistician reanalyzes data from the Rosa therapeutic touch study.

Cox T.

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Nursing, Richmond, USA.

This article presents a reanalysis of data used to support the work of Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch (TT) science fair project published as an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1998. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at the assumptions, data, statistical procedures, and conclusions of the JAMA article. This is accomplished by focusing on (1) the conclusion that there was no overall effect of TT, (2) the conclusion that TT practitioners did not perform better depending on which hand was used, and (3) the assumptions about the capability of Rosa's experiment to validate an existing skill. Reanalysis of the Rosa data suggests contradictions to the authors' conclusions. Based on this reanalysis, the authors' recommendations against the use of TT can and should be challenged because of inappropriate design and analysis as well as incorrect statistical assumptions and conclusions.

That's nice. What were the contradictions mentioned in this paper? (Because I assume that you read it, so it should be easy for you to just list...oh, three contradictions? Just one? (Direct quote, of course)

Larsen: He claimed that Prometheus (publisher of many skeptical books) are "extolling the virtues of pedophilia and prostitution" in their catalogue.


Reply: The Prometheus Catalog speaks for itself. It’s online. Prometheus publishes many excellent books. It’s s-x oriented titles are thin veils for pornography and paedophilia and do their publishing program an injustice. The editor of this s-x section at one point had his own website where he (I will not mention his name here) presented himself as a self-confessed pedophile replete with justification. This person also is or was a CSICOP fellow. Check the list of titles from their website that I am referring to. It includes an 8 volume catalogue of x-rated videotapes.

Please point to where they are "extolling the virtues of pedophilia and prostitution". Exactly where.

You can go to their website www.prometheusbooks.com and use the drop down menu under “Know What You are Looking For?” and click on Human S-x-ality or Se-x-al Autobiography.

I can't see where they are "extolling the virtues of pedophilia and prostitution". Please point out where. Exactly where.

Larsen: Not a single claim was backed up with evidence.

Reply: See above. Some are personal opinions. Rosa’s study is available for review. The Prometheus catalogue is available for review. The transcript of the Horizon program is or was available for review. The reviewer can draw their own conclusions.

Yep. So far, you have shown no evidence whatsoever.

Reply: Despite his claims of a scientific approach, he lacks the most basic understanding of science: E.g., he thinks electrical resistence is measured in Volt.

I use an impedance meter every day. It sends a charge, measured in microvolts, to test for human skin impedance which is measured in the case of in K-ohms.The charge in volts is sent through the electrode wire plugged into the meter. The impedance is received through a second wire and measured in K-ohms. I presented websites where these devices are described and can be purchased
such as:

http://www.grasstelefactor.com/products/electrodes/prepcheck.html

What a load of crock, Steve. You claimed that electrical resistence is measured in Volt:

You were, as you were in your follow-up regarding your lack of knowledge regarding skin's resistance, the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms.

Larsen: He also think that while there are no molecules left in a homeopathic solution, there can still be particles.

Reply: This has been the conclusions of other researchers. I have reported this but have no interest or experience in the preparation of these substances or lack of substance as the case may be. . I provided references.

Ah, again: When cornered, you didn't claim it. You merely reported it. :rolleyes.

I would not use a homeopathic remedy in place of my high blood pressure, my anticoagulants, my diuretics, beta blockers, Ace receptor blockers or in lieu of any other medication I am required to use as a result of my cardiac arrest and recent heart surgery. I would, however, like to see more studies done that either confirm or successfully refute positive studies published to date which you can find in MedLine. My original thoughts came from reading Martin Chaplin’s papers at:

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html

Blah, blah, blah.

A separate discussion of these may be of interest.

Go ahead, Steve.

Larsen: He has claimed there is "unpublished research with profoundly autistic hyperactive children that had to be kept caged".

Reply: I have seen small children so profoundly hyperactive they are a danger to themselves. These children are kept in padded cribs with covers which resemble cages. I never said there was research on this. I did say that medications could be used to treat these children and eliminate the need for such measures. Among the medications that quiet such children are Ritalin and amphetamines. They are widely used to treat ADHD whether you agree or not. Professor Corey, for example, thinks this is wrong because they are stimulants.

Which "resembles" cages. Yet, this is what you claimed:

There is some unpublished research with profoundly autistic hyperactive children that had to be kept caged. They'd bounce off the walls 24 X7. 1 ml of caffeine was diluted in 300 ml bottle of milk and shaken and they stopped what they were doing and fell asleep after two sips. Sorry its not published but is widely used by some group home mothers who are nurses, with their doctor's agreement , to allow such cases to sleep; otherwise they would die. The first time I saw this I thought the child had a cardiac arrest; I flipped out because they had so suddenly and completely outwardly shut down whereas nothing else would do this including the standard dose of methylphenidate.

Once again, you are shown to be a liar, Steve.

Larsen: He thought that Marie and Pierre Curie discovered X-rays, but later changed it into Marie and Pierre Curie discovering medical use of X-rays. They did not.

I note that you had nothing to say about this. Gee, here's the evidence:

These case histories are no more anecdotal than Marie and Pierre Curie's discovery of x-rays, the Wright brother's lst flight, the inventions of Leonard DaVinci, Pasteur's development of rabies vaccine, Fleming's discovery of pencilllin, so on. These are old cases of scientific observation . Are you suggesting we "throw them out" just because they are old? Because the people involved are no longer around for you to talk to? I think not. The same is true of these 20 cases selected by Professor Archie Roy of the University of Edinburgh. Roy selected them because they were well documented by credible scientists who could be trusted to give an accurate account of their details. I agree with Miike I may not be doing them justice or providing all the details so if you are worried about that you can search the literature and research them yourself.

But if you don't want to learn from history, that is your problem.

And you claimed to be the "science moderator" on your own forum. Yeah, the one where you had to summarily ban dozens of JREF forum members, solely because they were JREF forum members.

Larsen: He helped design an abomination of a paranormal test once. He ended up blaming the test-persons for his own faults.

Reply: I did NOT design or help design the test. I was asked to recruit control subjects which I did. Unfortunately some of the control subjects knew each other and compared notes, thus negating their value. The experiment was completed without this particular group of controls . I had no other role. It was my fault for not cautioning the controls NOT to talk to each other. I should have gone further and made sure they did not know each other at all.

Oops:

Source

Source

Mr. Larsen’s series of half-truths turn out to be just that, and mostly just whole lies. Mr. Larsen is engaged in a thinly disguised attempt to censor differences of opinion and to silence those he does not agree with. He has done this ever since I know him. If his behavior is tolerated here then he is among like minded people. More's the pity. It is a threat to legitimate inquery.

Yeah, yeah, Steve. You are still up to your old tricks. But, as you can see, I provide evidence of your ongoing deceit.

 

[CFLarsen]

It would be interesting to call them and ask them the same question re fries and nuggets like gms of fat present. One time say you are in San Francisco and the next time say you want to know for a store you go to in New York. Although now that this Danish study has been published they may be on to anyone calling with such questions.

Stop talking around the issue.

This is not "secret", like you claimed.

 

[SteveGrenard]

In order to reply to self-appointed censor Larsen's requests, I would be forced to violate copyright rules of this forum. I would also have to publish obscenities from "Pornetheus" titles which would similarly be against the rules here so I will be content to allow others to review my post, links and make up their own minds. Mr. Larsen is up to his old tricks and getting people to violate the rules here is one of his favorites.

If anyone can tell me the redeeming academic value of publishing an eight volume catalogue of x-rated videos, I would like to hear it.

 

[CFLarsen]

In order to reply to self-appointed censor Larsen's requests

How am I a "censor", Steve?

, I would be forced to violate copyright rules of this forum.

Bull.

I would also have to publish obscenities from "Pornetheus" titles which would similarly be against the rules here so I will be content to allow others to review my post, links and make up their own minds.

Bull. If you make accusations and know you can't back them up, you shouldn't make them. Yet, you chose to, so the onus is on you.

Mr. Larsen is up to his old tricks and getting people to violate the rules here is one of his favorites.

I notice that you have done nothing to counter the evidence I provided.

Oh, wait. You can't!

If anyone can tell me the redeeming academic value of publishing an eight volume catalogue of x-rated videos, I would like to hear it.

Why not? It isn't illegal, is it?

Are you trying to suppress legal information, based on your own sexual prejudices?

And what does X-rated videos have to do with "extolling the virtues of pedophilia"?

Let's see these "inconsistencies" that Emily Rosa's experiment was "riddled" with. With direct quotes, please.

Prove that Emily’s parents got her the space in JAMA for her school science project.

What does her age have to do with anything?

Please define how a scientific experiment has to be done.

Please point to where they are "extolling the virtues of pedophilia and prostitution". Exactly where.

 

[Luke T.]

I wonder if the writers of the article in the OP checked Burger King's fat levels from city to city, and so on. Wendy's?

My favorite fast food place is Subway. I have noticed in my travels around the country that some Subways use low-fat mayo in their tuna and some use regular mayo. I hate low-fat mayo, and when I asked, they said that was the local preference. Just like you will see little signs in some Subway restaurants in some areas that say their tuna is dolphin free.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: Why not? It isn't illegal, is it?

Answer: So is editing a post but you object if I do it. It is not befitting a company of otherwise high publishing standards. But that's their problem and CSICOPs.

Larsen: Are you trying to suppress legal information, based on your own sexual prejudices?

Answer: Now you presume to know my sexual prejudices. I am prejudiced against promoting immoral behavior, the proliferation of which not only leads to deplorable illegal activities such as paeodphilia but to wideranging medical and social problems such as AIDS and unwanted babies.



Larsen: And what does X-rated videos have to do with "extolling the virtues of pedophilia"?

Answer: Why don't you purchase the entire video catalogue and then screen some of the tapes they review therein. Also review some of the other books they have. You can make some educated guesses on the
subject matter from the titles. Have you even done that? Have you looked at the site? Are you really denying the existence of these titles by an otherwise respectable publishing company closely allied with CSICOP? I
have asked repeatedly why they needed to publish such titles. They even could've done them under a different imprint. If Paul Kurtz or someone else on the top has a special interest in this kind of stuff. they could do it under a different name and no one would know. They besmirch the fine skeptical and classical titles by including them under the Prometheus banner.


Larsen: Let's see these "inconsistencies" that Emily Rosa's experiment was "riddled" with. With direct quotes, please.

Answer: Better than that. Here is an objective review of Emily's (I should say Emily's parents) study from the Rocky Mountain Skeptics. They have hit on many of the problems with this study that others have:

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-edit.html

Larsen: Prove that Emily’s parents got her the space in JAMA for her school science project.

Answer: Because Emily never saw JAMA and wouldn't know how to submit a paper to them on her own. Her father was a co-author. I am rreasonably certain he arranged it down to licking the envelope.

Larsen: What does her age have to do with anything?

Nothing since her mother wrote the paper.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re. The OP " Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans? "

Only the ones who choose to eat their food.. They can't kill the ones who don't..

So yes, it looks like they are... But I would say they get some help from Burger King, et al ...