Science about canola oil

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers—and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/dangers_canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

Biker

Biker said:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers—and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/dangers_canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement
there.

What exactly do you see that's confusing?

Pastorio

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:10:15 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Biker said:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers—and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/dangers_canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement
there. What exactly do you see that's confusing?

In one of your famous beligerent rants (in a previous thread), you
labeled as junk science the March/April 1996 Perceptions magazine
excerpt of John Thomas' book. To be precise, you wrote:

"Pure, cold/expeller-pressed, unsaturated [censored]. [censored] science.
Utter ignorance about biological functions, confused and conflated
connections, outright fraud, flawed reasoning and even more flawed
conclusions."

Yet, the excerpt made simliar claims about Canola and trans-fatty
acids as Enig, as follows:

"Although the destruction of the essential elements of the fat was
originally well intended - to prevent it from spoiling the methods of
processing fats are destroying our health. Avoid any vegetable oil
that is labeled hydrogenated", or "partially hydrogenated", as this
oil contains 100% Trans-fatty acid!

Biker

Biker said:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:10:15 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Biker said:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.
>
>Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
>interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
>Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
>often posted.
>
>http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers—and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/dangers_canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement
there. What exactly do you see that's confusing?

In one of your famous beligerent rants (in a previous thread), you
labeled as junk science the March/April 1996 Perceptions magazine
excerpt of John Thomas' book. To be precise, you wrote:

"Pure, cold/expeller-pressed, unsaturated [censored]. [censored] science.
Utter ignorance about biological functions, confused and conflated
connections, outright fraud, flawed reasoning and even more flawed
conclusions."

Oh, I know what I wrote. Rarely have I seen a pile of [censored] so
detailedly ignorant, wrongheaded, dishonest, and misguided. That fool
hasn't gone to any effort to look into the actual research. And when
he says that mustard gas has anything to do with plants, it marks him
as a total and superficial conspiracy nut who just hasn't done his
homework bad should simply be dismissed.

But your opaque message above doesn't seem to be about that. At least,
if it is, you seem to go to some trouble not to make it clear.

Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same respectful
reading? Are you saying that they're equals in offering substantive
information? Is it your contention that Thomas is anything but a wacko
with an ax to grind? Or that Enig is less than a reliable, if
opinionated, scientist? What's the point of your clumsy effort here?

Quoted message said:

Yet, the excerpt made simliar claims about Canola and trans-fatty
acids as Enig, as follows:

"Although the destruction of the essential elements of the fat was
originally well intended - to prevent it from spoiling the methods of
processing fats are destroying our health. Avoid any vegetable oil
that is labeled hydrogenated", or "partially hydrogenated", as this
oil contains 100% Trans-fatty acid!

Nice tactic. Ignore the outright lies, mistakes, ignorance and obvious
quackery in Thomas' piece and conflate it with the work of a scientist
who has examined research results. Cute stunt.

Hey look the world is flat. And doesn't that agree with those guys who
run fast bikes on the Bonneville Salt FLATS. See the word FLATS! See,
they agree and you say the biker guys aren't real, real smart when
they say the world is flat...

Obviously, it's entirely possible to find a moment of agreement
between an outright idiot like Thomas and the work of actual
scientists. It can't be compared on the basis of a couple somewhat
congruent sentences, but on a larger sampling of the works. Read any 5
paragraphs of Thomas' rant and compare it then. It helps to know a bit
of science and some history to be able to do that. Without that,
you're just as helpless as Thomas to understand where the truths and
potential truths reside.

Pastorio

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:07:17 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same respectful
reading? Are you saying that they're equals in offering substantive
information? Is it your contention that Thomas is anything but a wacko
with an ax to grind? Or that Enig is less than a reliable, if
opinionated, scientist? What's the point of your clumsy effort here?

My point was (is), Jackass, instead of rambling on like a childish
psycho who forgot to take his meds, why not merely explain why you
disagree or agree with the posted information, like a mature
professional.

Biker

Biker said:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:07:17 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same respectful
reading? Are you saying that they're equals in offering substantive
information? Is it your contention that Thomas is anything but a wacko
with an ax to grind? Or that Enig is less than a reliable, if
opinionated, scientist? What's the point of your clumsy effort here?

My point was (is), Jackass, instead of rambling on like a childish
psycho who forgot to take his meds, why not merely explain why you
disagree or agree with the posted information, like a mature
professional.

It appears you have no idea what a question mark is for.

You know, Sparky, a "mature professional" wouldn't have posted the
confused [censored] you did. You posted an incomplete idea, delivered in a
cryptic and snotty tone, phrased as a question, and had to be asked
what it meant because it was so poorly and insufficiently expressed.
It was more an oblique challenge than any effort to actually get
information, if the tone is any indication.

It was stupid on the face of it leading to no conclusion because the
question was itself without immediate context. The posted information
was not contradictory in itself and (later you said) referred to an
earlier post, which makes any direct reply pointless. Like when
somebody asked me why we need to shoot rockets to the moon because
they mess up our weather and won't let it settle down to what it used
to be - somebody said that to me last week. Same levels of
understanding and same level of inquiry.

The reasons why I dismiss Thomas include that he hasn't any more idea
about biological functions than you do. A cursory reading of his
foolish ravings is enough to dismiss him. Just reading how he thinks
glaucoma works is enough to laugh him out of the room. The fact is,
that canola appears to help with it, and that's based on preliminary
results of study. His plainly ignorant comment that mustard gas comes
from brassicas is a hoot and defines him as anything but a serious
scholar or researcher or scientist. His clear lack of chemistry
knowledge sings out in most of the paragraphs. He's a crank.

As for his bozo champion who used it as a reference, he offers no
credentials, posts anonymously under a couple different handles and
uses innuendo, spurious analogies and inferences rather than
substantive data. He falls into the usual claptrap of the fanatical
quack and says that rejection of his and Thomas' patent nonsense is a
signal to confirm his information as correct and that all the readers
who don't leap to accept it are stupid and close-minded.

The reason I respect Enig is because she's clear about who and what
she is and offers very substantial professional credentials. A
moment's searching on Google shows her to be a real scientist
respected in her field. She posits what she says against research and
scientifically solid understandings of how human bodies work. She has
her opinions, but they're based in data, not wearing an aluminum foil
hat and getting messages from the mother ship.

The reason I dismiss you is because you seem unable to actually say
what you mean in rational terms. And you are ruefully ignorant of
biology, chemistry, physics and English. You accept unproven ideas too
easily. Your flawed schooling engenders no responsibility for me to
teach you fundamentals.

Piece of advice: don't write so people understand it; write so they
can't misunderstand it.

Any more issues?

Pastorio

this is an old urban legend, (well, old in internet years) I work at a
cancer center and we used to collect these things....this one had gotten
several people going before it was debunked.
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm
Bob 197+/160/160.5

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures. Decide
based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so often
posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Pastorio

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:31:56 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Biker said:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:07:17 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same respectful
reading? Are you saying that they're equals in offering substantive
information? Is it your contention that Thomas is anything but a wacko
with an ax to grind? Or that Enig is less than a reliable, if
opinionated, scientist? What's the point of your clumsy effort here?

My point was (is), Jackass, instead of rambling on like a childish
psycho who forgot to take his meds, why not merely explain why you
disagree or agree with the posted information, like a mature
professional.

Quoted message said:

It appears you have no idea what a question mark is for.

Quoted message said:

You know, Sparky, a "mature professional" wouldn't have posted the
confused [censored] you did.

Certainly you don't think you are a mature professional, do you,
Little Bobbie? (note the question mark)

Quoted message said:

The reasons why I dismiss Thomas include that he hasn't any more idea
about biological functions than you do. A cursory reading of his
foolish ravings is enough to dismiss him. Just reading how he thinks
glaucoma works is enough to laugh him out of the room. The fact is,
that canola appears to help with it, and that's based on preliminary
results of study. His plainly ignorant comment that mustard gas comes
from brassicas is a hoot and defines him as anything but a serious
scholar or researcher or scientist. His clear lack of chemistry
knowledge sings out in most of the paragraphs. He's a crank.

Just for the record, where did you get your chemistry degree? I
worked with many chemists, engineers, and other scientists in my
career, and they are typically quiet, mature professionals. They are
rarely snide, arrogant, or boastful. And they are never
foaming-at-the-mouth little whiners with profound inferiority
complexes, like you, Little Bobbie.

Quoted message said:

He falls into the usual claptrap of the fanatical
quack and says that rejection of his and Thomas' patent nonsense is a
signal to confirm his information as correct and that all the readers
who don't leap to accept it are stupid and close-minded.

Couldn't the same be said about anyone who doesn't leap to accept your
deranged ranting as fact? (I mean, isn't that how you label them:
stupid and closed-minded? Or would that be "lamentable"?)

Quoted message said:

The reason I respect Enig is because she's clear about who and what
she is and offers very substantial professional credentials. A
moment's searching on Google shows her to be a real scientist
respected in her field. She posits what she says against research and
scientifically solid understandings of how human bodies work. She has
her opinions, but they're based in data, not wearing an aluminum foil
hat and getting messages from the mother ship.

I have no problem with Dr. Enig. UM is a good school.

Quoted message said:

The reason I dismiss you is because you seem unable to actually say
what you mean in rational terms. And you are ruefully ignorant of
biology, chemistry, physics and English.

You have no clue, Little Bobbie.

Quoted message said:

You accept unproven ideas too easily. Your flawed schooling
engenders no responsibility for me to teach you fundamentals.

A lightweight like you shouldn't be teaching scientific fundamentals
to anyone. Best you refer them to the professionals.

Quoted message said:

Piece of advice: don't write so people understand it; write so they
can't misunderstand it.

You would do well to take your own advice, Little Bobbie.

Quoted message said:

Any more issues?

Yes, when are you going to grow up?

Biker

bob said:

this is an old urban legend, (well, old in internet years) I work at a
cancer center and we used to collect these things....this one had gotten
several people going before it was debunked.
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm

I'm not sure what you're calling an urban legend. The Enig article is
pretty solid. The Snopes piece doesn't seem to know that mustard gas
isn't made from any plant, let alone any brassicas, although the rest
seems correct.

This from the Snopes site is interesting: "The Canadian seed oil
industry rechristened the product "canola oil" (Canadian oil) in 1978
in an attempt to distance the product from negative associations with
the word "rape." Canola was introduced to American consumers in 1986."

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

Bob 197+/160/160.5

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures. Decide
based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so often
posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Pastorio

the enig article is bunk, as others in this thread have noted. don't hold to
hoaxes just because they conned you. Been there done that.

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bob said:

this is an old urban legend, (well, old in internet years) I work at a
cancer center and we used to collect these things....this one had gotten
several people going before it was debunked.
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm

I'm not sure what you're calling an urban legend. The Enig article is
pretty solid. The Snopes piece doesn't seem to know that mustard gas isn't
made from any plant, let alone any brassicas, although the rest seems
correct.

This from the Snopes site is interesting: "The Canadian seed oil industry
rechristened the product "canola oil" (Canadian oil) in 1978 in an attempt
to distance the product from negative associations with the word "rape."
Canola was introduced to American consumers in 1986."

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

Bob 197+/160/160.5

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Pastorio

ultimately, i trust the market place of science and ideas. I work with
cancer and medical researchers and everyone one of them would give their
right arm away for the chance to find that a major nutritional or
environmental factor was hazardous. Of such discoveries are tenured
professorships made.
The idea, quite common in hoaxes such as these that some food company,
perfume company, or such could supress this kind of knowledge for any period
of time is far removed from reality. When the first studies came out about
smoking, there was no way the very large tobacco companies could keep the
knowledged down, much as they tried to refute it.

Once I had the misfortune of sitting next to a liability lawyer on a plane.
He was absolutely convinced that medical professionals had already found the
cure for cancer but were holding it back for monetary gain. It was very
difficult to refrain from slugging him. There are kinds of stupidity that
irk me, and complex, anti-dynamic, anti rational conspiratorial ones are one
of them.

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bob said:

this is an old urban legend, (well, old in internet years) I work at a
cancer center and we used to collect these things....this one had gotten
several people going before it was debunked.
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm

I'm not sure what you're calling an urban legend. The Enig article is
pretty solid. The Snopes piece doesn't seem to know that mustard gas isn't
made from any plant, let alone any brassicas, although the rest seems
correct.

This from the Snopes site is interesting: "The Canadian seed oil industry
rechristened the product "canola oil" (Canadian oil) in 1978 in an attempt
to distance the product from negative associations with the word "rape."
Canola was introduced to American consumers in 1986."

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

Bob 197+/160/160.5

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

I wouldn't call Enig's position on trans fats "an agenda". Canola oil
is processed junk that has absolutely no reason for existence as a
food item. The ones pushing it and other industrially expedient
materials like soybean oil have an agenda.

bob said:

the enig article is bunk, as others in this thread have noted.

Um, I missed that debunking. The Enig articles (actually two were
cited) are the generally accepted science now. It's one thing to
merely disagree, another to offer countering information. Snopes isn't
a scientific site, although I have a good deal of respect for their
intentions.

Quoted message said:

don't hold to hoaxes just because they conned you. Been there done
that.

I suspect you don't know who Fallon and Enig do and have done. I've
been reading their work for several years, along with others who delve
into the same subject areas. They're considered controversial, but
certainly good scientists.

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bob said:

this is an old urban legend, (well, old in internet years) I
work at a cancer center and we used to collect these
things....this one had gotten several people going before it
was debunked. http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm

I'm not sure what you're calling an urban legend. The Enig
article is pretty solid. The Snopes piece doesn't seem to know
that mustard gas isn't made from any plant, let alone any
brassicas, although the rest seems correct.

This from the Snopes site is interesting: "The Canadian seed oil
industry rechristened the product "canola oil" (Canadian oil) in
1978 in an attempt to distance the product from negative
associations with the word "rape." Canola was introduced to
American consumers in 1986."

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

Bob 197+/160/160.5

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a
> viewpoint.
>
> Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at
> least an interpretation of actual information rather than
> silly conjectures. Decide based on something substantial
> rather than the foolishness so often posted.
>
> http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/
>
>
> Pastorio

Biker said:

Bob (this one) said:

Biker said:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:07:17 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same
> respectful reading? Are you saying that they're equals in
> offering substantive information? Is it your contention that
> Thomas is anything but a wacko with an ax to grind? Or that
> Enig is less than a reliable, if opinionated, scientist?
> What's the point of your clumsy effort here?

My point was (is), Jackass, instead of rambling on like a
childish psycho who forgot to take his meds, why not merely
explain why you disagree or agree with the posted information,
like a mature professional.

Quoted message said:

It appears you have no idea what a question mark is for.

Quoted message said:

You know, Sparky, a "mature professional" wouldn't have posted
the confused [censored] you did.

Certainly you don't think you are a mature professional, do you,
Little Bobbie? (note the question mark)

Doesn't really matter what I think of myself. The point is that if
you're going to cast aspersions, do try to be sure they don't apply to
you so fully. See, telling me I'm not professional while ranting like
a berserk banshee drooling badly formed insults sorta makes you look a
little silly. Just a word from a close friend.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reasons why I dismiss Thomas include that he hasn't any more
idea about biological functions than you do. A cursory reading of
his foolish ravings is enough to dismiss him. Just reading how he
thinks glaucoma works is enough to laugh him out of the room. The
fact is, that canola appears to help with it, and that's based on
preliminary results of study. His plainly ignorant comment that
mustard gas comes from brassicas is a hoot and defines him as
anything but a serious scholar or researcher or scientist. His
clear lack of chemistry knowledge sings out in most of the
paragraphs. He's a crank.

Just for the record, where did you get your chemistry degree?

I don't have a degree in chemistry, but I did take 6 courses of
chemistry at university. All part of the pre-med program. That
knowledge does help me read the science from several sources for most
of the areas covered by that quack. I use information from qualified
professionals. You should try it once.

Quoted message said:

I worked with many chemists, engineers, and other scientists in my
career, and they are typically quiet, mature professionals. They
are rarely snide, arrogant, or boastful.

Sorry you didn't learn how to act from them. Or think.

Quoted message said:

And they are never foaming-at-the-mouth little whiners with
profound inferiority complexes, like you, Little Bobbie.

<LOL> And where did you get your psychology degree? Rhetorical question...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He falls into the usual claptrap of the fanatical quack and says
that rejection of his and Thomas' patent nonsense is a signal to
confirm his information as correct and that all the readers who
don't leap to accept it are stupid and close-minded.

Couldn't the same be said about anyone who doesn't leap to accept
your deranged ranting as fact? (I mean, isn't that how you label
them: stupid and closed-minded? Or would that be "lamentable"?)

Nice construction. No answer possible. I haven't asked anyone to
believe me about the facts or non-facts in the articles. I've offered
citations and the information derived from professionals in the
fields. Well, until it became all about your bruised ego.

I love "deranged ranting." Lots of people say stuff like that right
after they get their asses handed to them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I respect Enig is because she's clear about who and
what she is and offers very substantial professional credentials.
A moment's searching on Google shows her to be a real scientist
respected in her field. She posits what she says against research
and scientifically solid understandings of how human bodies work.
She has her opinions, but they're based in data, not wearing an
aluminum foil hat and getting messages from the mother ship.

I have no problem with Dr. Enig. UM is a good school.

The quality of the school isn't at issue. Obviously, "no problem" is
different than recognizing science when it bites you in the ass.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I dismiss you is because you seem unable to actually say
what you mean in rational terms. And you are ruefully ignorant of
biology, chemistry, physics and English.

You have no clue, Little Bobbie.

Sure I do. So does anyone else reading what you've posted. All the
clue I need to make those criticisms are contained in your writing
here. What's not to see?

But I haven't guessed about your life away from here. As you seem to
like to do. You also don't do scorn very well. Maybe read some Ann
Coulter for tips.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You accept unproven ideas too easily. Your flawed schooling
engenders no responsibility for me to teach you fundamentals.

A lightweight like you shouldn't be teaching scientific
fundamentals to anyone. Best you refer them to the professionals.

<LOL> I'm terribly sorry I blasted your ego so hard. You can hand it
out but not take it. I understand. Lots of self-conscious people
behave like that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Piece of advice: don't write so people understand it; write so
they can't misunderstand it.

You would do well to take your own advice, Little Bobbie.

Good try, crayon-boy. I'm paid rather well for my writing. How about
you? Maybe name some magazines you write for. Encyclopedias.
Newspapers. I bet your list will humble me.

Bwah.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Any more issues?

Yes, when are you going to grow up?

Nice parting shot. Actually some scintilla of truth in it. But
unfortunately for you, it really doesn't matter. It won't excuse your
"lamentable" lack of knowledge, skill or capability.

But, hey, I just wrote a letter to get you one of those handicapped
parking thingies to put on your handlebars. No need to thank me.

Pastorio

Bob (this one) said:

bob said:

the enig article is bunk, as others in this thread have noted.

Um, I missed that debunking. The Enig articles (actually two were
cited) are the generally accepted science now. It's one thing to merely
disagree, another to offer countering information. Snopes isn't a
scientific site, although I have a good deal of respect for their
intentions.

Quoted message said:

don't hold to hoaxes just because they conned you. Been there done
that.

I suspect you don't know who Fallon and Enig do and have done.

*what* Fallon and Enig do and have done...

Um, ooops. That sure changes the subject.

Pastorio

I've been

Quoted message said:

reading their work for several years, along with others who delve into
the same subject areas. They're considered controversial, but certainly
good scientists.

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bob wrote:

> this is an old urban legend, (well, old in internet years) I
> work at a cancer center and we used to collect these
> things....this one had gotten several people going before it
> was debunked. http://www.snopes.com/toxins/canola.htm

I'm not sure what you're calling an urban legend. The Enig
article is pretty solid. The Snopes piece doesn't seem to know
that mustard gas isn't made from any plant, let alone any
brassicas, although the rest seems correct.

This from the Snopes site is interesting: "The Canadian seed oil
industry rechristened the product "canola oil" (Canadian oil) in
1978 in an attempt to distance the product from negative
associations with the word "rape." Canola was introduced to
American consumers in 1986."

Pastorio

> Bob 197+/160/160.5
>
> "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
>
>> Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a
>> viewpoint.
>>
>> Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at
>> least an interpretation of actual information rather than
>> silly conjectures. Decide based on something substantial
>> rather than the foolishness so often posted.
>>
>> http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/
>>
>>
>> Pastorio

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:11:50 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Biker said:

Bob (this one) said:

Biker wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:07:17 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same
>> respectful reading? Are you saying that they're equals in
>> offering substantive information? Is it your contention that
>> Thomas is anything but a wacko with an ax to grind? Or that
>> Enig is less than a reliable, if opinionated, scientist?
>> What's the point of your clumsy effort here?
>
> My point was (is), Jackass, instead of rambling on like a
> childish psycho who forgot to take his meds, why not merely
> explain why you disagree or agree with the posted information,
> like a mature professional.

Quoted message said:

It appears you have no idea what a question mark is for.

Quoted message said:

You know, Sparky, a "mature professional" wouldn't have posted
the confused [censored] you did.

Certainly you don't think you are a mature professional, do you,
Little Bobbie? (note the question mark)

Doesn't really matter what I think of myself.

You think of nothing but yourself, Little Bobbie.

Quoted message said:

See, telling me I'm not professional while ranting like
a berserk banshee drooling badly formed insults sorta makes
you look a little silly.

That is ironic. One of the most verbose psychos in the history of the
internet labels me a "ranter".

Quoted message said:

Just a word from a close friend.

Come on, now, Bobbie. Admit it. You are no one's friend except
yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reasons why I dismiss Thomas include that he hasn't any more
idea about biological functions than you do. A cursory reading of
his foolish ravings is enough to dismiss him. Just reading how he
thinks glaucoma works is enough to laugh him out of the room. The
fact is, that canola appears to help with it, and that's based on
preliminary results of study. His plainly ignorant comment that
mustard gas comes from brassicas is a hoot and defines him as
anything but a serious scholar or researcher or scientist. His
clear lack of chemistry knowledge sings out in most of the
paragraphs. He's a crank.

Just for the record, where did you get your chemistry degree?

I don't have a degree in chemistry, but I did take 6 courses of
chemistry at university. All part of the pre-med program. That
knowledge does help me read the science from several sources for most
of the areas covered by that quack. I use information from qualified
professionals.

Let me see: you took inorganic and organic. What were the others?
PChem? What else?

Quoted message said:

You should try it once.

Okay. For you, just once.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I worked with many chemists, engineers, and other scientists in my
career, and they are typically quiet, mature professionals. They
are rarely snide, arrogant, or boastful.

Sorry you didn't learn how to act from them. Or think.

But I did, Little Bobbie. You are only sorry that I did not become a
submissive little wimp that would run and hide every time you went
into one of your famous, incoherent rants.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And they are never foaming-at-the-mouth little whiners with
profound inferiority complexes, like you, Little Bobbie.

<LOL> And where did you get your psychology degree? Rhetorical question...

I don't have a degree in Psychology (my degree is in engineering).
However, I took eight Psychology and Sociology courses in college.
Six were upper-level, including abnormal psychology which discusssed
your mental illness. I would recommend you check out a book on
Abnormal Psychology so you can learn more about your illness.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He falls into the usual claptrap of the fanatical quack and says
that rejection of his and Thomas' patent nonsense is a signal to
confirm his information as correct and that all the readers who
don't leap to accept it are stupid and close-minded.

Couldn't the same be said about anyone who doesn't leap to accept
your deranged ranting as fact? (I mean, isn't that how you label
them: stupid and closed-minded? Or would that be "lamentable"?)

Nice construction. No answer possible. I haven't asked anyone to
believe me about the facts or non-facts in the articles. I've offered
citations and the information derived from professionals in the
fields. Well, until it became all about your bruised ego.
I love "deranged ranting." Lots of people say stuff like that right
after they get their asses handed to them.

Bob, you are so delusional it is worrisome. You really should
consider professional help.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I respect Enig is because she's clear about who and
what she is and offers very substantial professional credentials.
A moment's searching on Google shows her to be a real scientist
respected in her field. She posits what she says against research
and scientifically solid understandings of how human bodies work.
She has her opinions, but they're based in data, not wearing an
aluminum foil hat and getting messages from the mother ship.

I have no problem with Dr. Enig. UM is a good school.

The quality of the school isn't at issue. Obviously, "no problem" is
different than recognizing science when it bites you in the ass.

How exactly did it "bite me in the ass", Little Bobbie? As I recall
the theme of my posts on this thread has been to alert you of the
possibility that you are in need of a major-league attitude
adjustment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I dismiss you is because you seem unable to actually say
what you mean in rational terms. And you are ruefully ignorant of
biology, chemistry, physics and English.

You have no clue, Little Bobbie.

Sure I do. So does anyone else reading what you've posted. All the
clue I need to make those criticisms are contained in your writing
here. What's not to see? But I haven't guessed about your life away
from here. As you seem to like to do.

Quoted message said:

You also don't do scorn very well.

You may not be aware of this fact, but that is a compliment. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You accept unproven ideas too easily. Your flawed schooling
engenders no responsibility for me to teach you fundamentals.

A lightweight like you shouldn't be teaching scientific
fundamentals to anyone. Best you refer them to the professionals.

<LOL> I'm terribly sorry I blasted your ego so hard. You can hand it
out but not take it. I understand. Lots of self-conscious people
behave like that.

Bob, I picked up that line (e.g., lightweight) from a post you made to
someone else in another forum. It seems you love to label people as
inferior, lightweights, etc.. At least now you admit that such
behavior is a sign of inferiority, althought I am certain you would
not had you realized it was pointing back to you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Piece of advice: don't write so people understand it; write so
they can't misunderstand it.

You would do well to take your own advice, Little Bobbie.

Good try, crayon-boy. I'm paid rather well for my writing. How about
you? Maybe name some magazines you write for. Encyclopedias.
Newspapers. I bet your list will humble me.

Now, now, Little Bobbie. Are you going to brag to us (again!) about
your accomplishments? If you were secure in your professional
abilities you would have no need to brag.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Any more issues?

Yes, when are you going to grow up?

//>

Quoted message said:

Nice parting shot. Actually some scintilla of truth in it. But
unfortunately for you, it really doesn't matter. It won't excuse your
"lamentable" lack of knowledge, skill or capability.

LOL. You love to use that word "lamentable", don't you, even though
such behavior is a sign of inferiority (as you previously noted).

Quoted message said:

But, hey, I just wrote a letter to get you one of those handicapped
parking thingies to put on your handlebars. No need to thank me.

LOL. Now, that is funny.

Biker

Biker said:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:11:50 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, hey, I just wrote a letter to get you one of those handicapped
parking thingies to put on your handlebars. No need to thank me.

LOL. Now, that is funny.

You misspelled "appropriate."

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Pastorio

"A change in regulation would be necessary before canola could be marketed
in the US.4 Just how this was done has not been revealed, but GRAS status
was granted in 1985, for which, it is rumored, the Canadian government spent
$50 million to obtain."

....and at that point, I quit reading. Another GRASsy knoll conspiracy
theory.

The Low-Carb Bartender said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/conditioncardioself/1042/

Pastorio

"A change in regulation would be necessary before canola could be
marketed
in the US.4 Just how this was done has not been revealed, but GRAS status
was granted in 1985, for which, it is rumored, the Canadian government
spent
$50 million to obtain."

...and at that point, I quit reading. Another GRASsy knoll conspiracy
theory.

So, based on your reasoning, we should continue to eat margarine?

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply