Mr. Thorson, the Credibility Committee would like to see you...
Bob (this one)
thing as "food-grade" butane and propane fuels, the
committee has assessed you 11 Incredibility Points. It would
have been less, but your firm insistence without checking
any reliable sources - or even the company whose products
you were discussing - raised it to that level.
Your characterizing Mr. Pastorio as a liar when in fact, he
was not doing so cost you another 13 Points, for two
reasons: First you knew full well that he wasn't lying, and
that is, itself, a lie merely designed to cause distress.
And, second, you offered it as a sneaky, blind-side attack.
Your insistence that only one BernzOmatic product didn't
carry the California warning is either a lie for the sake of
"winning' an argument, or an example of not doing even the
most basic of checks to determine accuracy. In either case,
it has a dishonest overtone that the Committee said should
cost you an additional 18 Points.
The most egregious of your faux-pas was to leap to the
unwarranted and unchecked insistence that because the butane
lighter (not a propane torch) didn't carry the California
warning, it somehow had different properties than other such
products. The fact that there is no separate MSDS as
required by regulation for it, you chose to ignore and
evade. The fact that you were told that BernzOmatic said
they had no "food-grade" fuels made no difference - and you
didn't check to determine the accuracy of the report. You
didn't just say the product was different, you strenuously
and repeatedly asserted that the butane had no "heavy ends"
in it and was therefore free of carcinogenic properties. You
made that statement with no evidence and only the deduction
of your faulty reasoning, based on missing facts which you
didn't try to check. This one cost you 54 Points because the
reality was only a phone call away - to BernzOmatic customer
service - and you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity
to get the correct information.
As you should know, when Credibility Points reach 40, all
further statements should carry a reference to another
source. When they reach 55, they should carry a reference to
a known authority. When they reach 75, they need the
authority and a way to contact them for corroboration. As no
one has ever before surpassed 90 points, the Committee is at
somewhat of a loss to deal with this situation. Members are
divided about how to handle it. Some have suggested that you
need to document everything except your name, while others
want proof of that, as well. Some think your posts should
appear in a special color, perhaps a brilliant mauve, as a
signal that all might not be regular and credible about this
note. Still others think you should henceforward always sign
your posts "Mark Thorson 96CP" so everyone will know
automatically not to believe anything and to suspect
ulterior motive for everything.
The Committee adjourned after unsuccessfully trying to make
a Creme Brulee crust with the BernzOmatic Lighter because
the flame wasn't intense enough to melt enough sugar to
actually create a crust in a 4" souffle bowl. Before
adjourning, two members thought it would be reasonable to
assess you another 25 Points, but that missed carrying by
one vote out of 55. You barely dodged that bullet.
Words to the wise...
The Credibility Committee
Default User
You two are getting very tiresome.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Omelet
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You two are getting very tiresome.
>
>
>
>
> Brian
<shocked look>
You are actually still reading that thread?????
--
Peace, Om
Remove _ to validate e-mails.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson
cybercat
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50ktckF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> You two are getting very tiresome.
>
>
>
>
Getting? My God, but you are generous!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Omelet
"cybercat" <cyber...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:50ktckF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > You two are getting very tiresome.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Getting? My God, but you are generous!
<cough>
I'm going to bed... That ended my day nicely!
Mark Thorson
>
> Your characterizing Mr. Pastorio as a liar when in fact, he
> was not doing so cost you another 13 Points, for two
> reasons: First you knew full well that he wasn't lying, and
> that is, itself, a lie merely designed to cause distress.
> And, second, you offered it as a sneaky, blind-side attack.
Did you not post the following (quoted in its entirety)
on Monday?
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > The facts are that a) this product produces a blue cone
> > of flame indicating a temperature certainly high
> > enough to carmelize anything that is carmelizable,
> > and b) its fuel does not contain the hazards which
> > would require the State of California warning that
> > Bernomatic's other propane- and butane-fuelled are
> > required to carry.
>
> *NONE* of BernzOmatic's products carry that warning. Only
> the MSDS mentions it.
>
> > This is a product which is free of carcinogens.
>
> <LOL> A lighter to caramelize foods. Bwah...
>
> BernzOmatic's customer service people say that the fuel for
> this is their standard product.
>
> Pastorio
I'm aware you've already given a garbled
explanation for this, but here's your chance
to give a clear version of how your posting
can possibly be truthful, given that I've
already posted scanned images of a Bernzomatic
product that has the State of California warning
to alt.binaries.food.
In your more recent postings, you seem to be
trying to make a distinction between a "product"
and "fuel", but in the last sentence I quoted
above, you don't seem to be doing that.
Can you be more clear about this? In what
sense is your statement that "*NONE* of
BernzOmatic's products carry that warning."
not contradicted by the images I posted?
Default User
> In article <50ktckF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You two are getting very tiresome.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian
>
> <shocked look>
>
> You are actually still reading that thread?????
It looked like a new one to me. I haven't really been reading the group
to carefully as I've had a nasty cold since last week.
Little Malice
> Omelet wrote:
> > In article <50ktckF...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You two are getting very tiresome.
> > <shocked look>
> >
> > You are actually still reading that thread?????
> It looked like a new one to me. I haven't really been reading the group
> to carefully as I've had a nasty cold since last week.
Sorry to hear that, Brian -- get better soon!
--
Jani in WA
Curly Sue
wrote:
>Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article <50ktckF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You two are getting very tiresome.
>> >
>> > Brian
>>
>> <shocked look>
>>
>> You are actually still reading that thread?????
>
>It looked like a new one to me. I haven't really been reading the group
>to carefully as I've had a nasty cold since last week.
>
>Brian
I'm alternating between this and Donald v. Rosie.
Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
Bob (this one)
> You two are getting very tiresome.
I'm sure we are. But this - which you obviously didn't read
- wasn't anything like the previous posts. Take a look. You
might even get a grin.
Hope springs eternal.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> Your characterizing Mr. Pastorio as a liar when in fact, he
>> was not doing so cost you another 13 Points, for two
>> reasons: First you knew full well that he wasn't lying, and
>> that is, itself, a lie merely designed to cause distress.
>> And, second, you offered it as a sneaky, blind-side attack.
So it wasn't a blind-side attack? And your statement was
truthful that I had lied about there not being a food-grade
torch?
Did you demonstrate that there is a "food-grade" torch?
These are your words:
"The last time this came up, one of the lies that Bob
Pastorio tried to float was that you couldn't buy a
food-grade torch."
Did you demonstrate there is a "food-grade" torch?
No. You didn't. No. You can't. No. There isn't one.
> Did you not post the following (quoted in its entirety)
> on Monday?
>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> The facts are that a) this product produces a blue cone
>>> of flame indicating a temperature certainly high
>>> enough to carmelize anything that is carmelizable,
>>> and b) its fuel does not contain the hazards which
>>> would require the State of California warning that
>>> Bernomatic's other propane- and butane-fuelled are
>>> required to carry.
>
>> *NONE* of BernzOmatic's products carry that warning. Only
>> the MSDS mentions it.
>>
>>> This is a product which is free of carcinogens.
This "free of carcinogens" lie is a Mark Thorson invention
borne out by no supporting information and directly
contradicted by BernzOmatic customer service people. A
demonstrable lie.
Making up things and trying to get people to believe them is
lying.
>> <LOL> A lighter to caramelize foods. Bwah...
>>
>> BernzOmatic's customer service people say that the fuel for
>> this is their standard product.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
> I'm aware you've already given a garbled
> explanation for this,
Nice try sludgewit, but your shabbiness continues.
Excerpting as you do so you can slime your way to still
defending a clearly false position is exactly what I have
come to know and love about you. My *continued* explanations
detailed it very clearly, as you certainly know.
How garbled is "BernzOmatic's customer service people say
that the fuel for this is their standard product" on Planet
Thorson? Does that not say that the lighter and the fuel are
being considered differently? Is that too complex for you?
> but here's your chance
> to give a clear version of how your posting
> can possibly be truthful, given that I've
> already posted scanned images of a Bernzomatic
> product that has the State of California warning
> to alt.binaries.food.
Poor dishonest Marky can't seem to get his quotations in order.
I said on Monday:
"*NO* BernzOmatic products carry the California warning.
Period. They all use the same, unaltered fuels. Period."
> In your more recent postings, you seem to be
> trying to make a distinction between a "product"
> and "fuel", but in the last sentence I quoted
> above, you don't seem to be doing that.
Of course not, And you could offer hundreds more that don['t
do it. Because that wasn't the sentence that offered the
idea. The one I just quoted made that clear enough to
everybody but you. This one: "*NO* BernzOmatic products
carry the California warning. Period. They all use the same,
unaltered fuels. Period."
> Can you be more clear about this? In what
> sense is your statement that "*NONE* of
> BernzOmatic's products carry that warning."
> not contradicted by the images I posted?
The distinction is clear enough when you get a 12-year-old
to parse the sentences above.
They say (clearly) "*NO* BernzOmatic products carry the
California warning. Period." Which *could* include
everything under the BernzOmatic label. Until you reach the
next sentence, which says, "They all use the same, unaltered
fuels. Period."
See...? No, I'm sure you don't.
And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
*NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
other companies had the California warning on them, either.
Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
themselves, of course, were so labeled.
So, in addition to your toy lighter, here are a few more
BernzOmatic products without California warnings. They were
all packaged in transparent plastic with fuel cylinder and
attachments:
Basic Use Kit TS3000KC
Basic use Plumber's Kit - PK1001KC
Basic Use - Quickfire - TS3000KC
Power Cell - 94477
3-in-1 Micro torch - ST2200T - butane
I also noted that the ubiquitous, red Bic fire lighter had
no California warning anywhere on the package.
I guess they must all be made with "food-grade" fuels.
I'm still wondering why you won't call BernzOmatic customer
service and ask them instead of all your unfounded guesses,
wishful conjectures and outright lies.
> My explanation is that they are not flouting the law.
> The Flexible Utility Lighter is totally legal and safe.
> The generic butane MSDS does not apply to this product.
Your explanation is bullshit. By law, the company *must*
publish an appropriate MSDS for all such products. They have.
Your explanation is dust in the wind, moron.
Pastorio
Mark Thorson
>
> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
> themselves, of course, were so labeled.
In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
It is a product. And it has the State of
California warning on it. Both the UPC
and the warning can be seen in the images
I posted to alt.binaries.food.
Is this how you defend yourself?
By redefining "product" to exclude
anything that exposes your words
as false? That is transparent nonsense,
but typical of you.
Dave Smith
>
>
>
> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
> It is a product. And it has the State of
> California warning on it. Both the UPC
> and the warning can be seen in the images
Oh for crying out loud Mark. Have you not made a big enough ass
of yourself on this one.
Last year you warned someone to make sure that when caramelizing
the sugar on their creme brulee that they use food grade
propane. That was absolute nonsense because there is no food
grade propane fuel. Period. You were given the opportunity to
provide proof of food grade propane but failed to do so. That did
not surprise us because there is no such thing, so we really
didn't expect you to find it.
Then you came back the the other day saying that Pastorio had
lied when he said one cannot buy a food grade torch. You
provided a link to a product and added that the product does not
contain the carcinogenic "heavy ends" found in other propane and
butane products. The product advertised in that link is not a
propane torch. It is a butane lighter. The MSDS linked to it is
for the Bernzomatic MSDS on the butane it sells, and it clearly
indicates a warning about carcinogenic chemicals in the fuel and
its by-products.
You lied when you said cited it as proof that there is a food
grade propane torch.
You lied about it not containing carcinogenic chemicals.
You may have lied about not having a link to the MSDS for the
company's butane, though your recent comments lead me to accept
that you were simply to dumb to follow them.
You then started another thread where you accused Bob of lying,
and I cannot understand how you how lame it is to fabricate
nonsense to as some sort of proof about someone else lying.
You have steadfastly denied that the MSDS for Bernzomatic butane
gas applies to their butane gas refills without offering any
proof that they have a special refining process for those little
lighter refills.
You have been given ample opportunity to find a cite to prove
that food grade butane or propane is available.
> Is this how you defend yourself?
> By redefining "product" to exclude
> anything that exposes your words
> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
> but typical of you.
there is No need to redefine "product", but we may find ourselves
in the position of having to redefine "stupid" and move the
standard down low enough to include you if you keep this up.
Never mind trying to insult Bob's character. For crying out loud,
have the good sense to find proof that food grade propane is
available or admit that you were wrong. Of course, you have made
it obvious through your lies and allegations that we should not
expect you to be man enough to admit your error, but you could at
least shut up about it and try to save a little bit of dignity.
Mark Thorson
>
> You lied about it not containing carcinogenic chemicals.
That's absolutely untrue. If it had such chemicals
it would be required in California to have the
State of California warning. The Flexible Utility
Lighter does not have that warning. Therefore,
you can be sure there are no such carcinogens in
the fuel of that product (at least not enough to
pose a significant risk of cancer over a lifetime
of exposure, which is the standard written into
the law). The law in California has a penalty of
up to $2500 a day per violation.
> You may have lied about not having a link to the MSDS for the
> company's butane, though your recent comments lead me to accept
> that you were simply to dumb to follow them.
You yourself found a direct link from the web page
for the BF9 refill to the butane MSDS. That is a
product for which the MSDS applies, and it has the
State of California warning on it. There is no such
direct link from the web page for the Flexible
Utility Lighter, and therefore no reason to believe
it applies.
And it's not just the BF9. Here's the web page for
a propane torch kit. Go there, and you'll see a
direct link to its MSDS. That's true of every product
on the Bernzomatic web site for which an MSDS applies.
You're just grasping at straws to deny this, because
it's the only defense you've got.
Dave Bugg
...snip
I did a check on google and couldn't find anything on food grade propane or
butane. I also didn't find anything under food grade gases, although I found
this at
http://www.linde-gas.com/international/web/lg/com/likelgcom30.nsf/docbyalias/nav_biogon
"The gas properties and the interaction of gases with the food ingredients,
e.g. solubility in the foodstuff, should be taken into account when choosing
the gas or gas composition. We supply food-grade CO2, N2, and O2 along with
other gases authorized for foodstuffs as individual gases in cylinders under
high pressure, liquids in insulated tanks for subsequent mixing at the
packaging machine, and premixed."
"Food-grade gases" are defined as gases used as a processing aid and/or
additive in order to ensure that standards are complied with. Our food-grade
gases conform with "food-grade" regulations, e.g. the EC directive 96/77/EC
on food additives within EU countries and the FDA guidelines in the U.S."
I also called our propane dealer who supplies our commercial kitchen site
and asked if there was such a thing as "food grade" propane. The answer was
an unequivocal no.
Since you don't use propane or butane as an additive or to process food, or
as a treatment for illness, it makes sense that there is no such thing as
"food grade" propane or butane.
So, is there anything that states a USDA or FDA or EU standard for "food
grade" propane or butane? Any website of a company that manufactures "food
grade" propane or butane? The easiest way to end this argument is for those
who support the notion that there is such a product or specification to
produce it. If such can't be produced then it is reasonable to say that
there is no such thing as "food grade" propane or butane.
Ob food: After eating brussel sprouts, I have been known to produce "food
grade" methane.
Dan Abel
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> a propane torch kit. Go there, and you'll see a
ObFood: Make some whipped cream. Stick the torch in (only food grade of
course) and bubble some propane in. Serve on some cake.
[Note: may cause gas]
:-)
Bob (this one)
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> You lied about it not containing carcinogenic chemicals.
>
> That's absolutely untrue.
You lied about it. No proof. No evidence, especially not
from BernzOmatic, who should know. And they do. A customer
service rep of the company said that they use conventional
fuels for all their products. None of them is "food-grade."
Call them for yourself. I've posted the number enough times
for you to get it. I got it off their web page.
> If it had such chemicals
> it would be required in California to have the
> State of California warning. The Flexible Utility
> Lighter does not have that warning.
Neither do a few more BernzOmatic products without
California warnings. They are all packaged in transparent
plastic with fuel cylinder and attachments:
Basic Use Kit TS3000KC
Basic use Plumber's Kit - PK1001KC
Basic Use - Quickfire - TS3000KC
Power Cell - 94477
3-in-1 Micro torch - ST2200T - butane
I also noted that the ubiquitous, red Bic fire lighter had
no California warning anywhere on the package.
The lighter is rechargeable. None of BernzOmatic's
rechargeable products have the California warning. Only the
fuel cylinders do.
> Therefore,
> you can be sure there are no such carcinogens in
> the fuel of that product (at least not enough to
> pose a significant risk of cancer over a lifetime
> of exposure, which is the standard written into
> the law).
Nope. No evidence in offer. You want your words to carry the
day and you're too dense to contact BernzoMatic directly to
settle the question. You insist on your demonstrably flawed
logic based on false premises - and you're dead wrong.
BernzOmatic says you're wrong. Go argue with them.
> The law in California has a penalty of
> up to $2500 a day per violation.
>
>> You may have lied about not having a link to the MSDS for the
>> company's butane, though your recent comments lead me to accept
>> that you were simply to dumb to follow them.
>
> You yourself found a direct link from the web page
> for the BF9 refill to the butane MSDS. That is a
> product for which the MSDS applies, and it has the
> State of California warning on it. There is no such
> direct link from the web page for the Flexible
> Utility Lighter, and therefore no reason to believe
> it applies.
The Lighter isn't yet in full distribution, Only available
limitedly. But before it can be sold at all, there must be
an MSDS - and there is. Look at their butane sheet.The fact
that you can't find a distinct MSDS for the fuel means that
they use butane to refill it and the butane already has a
MSDS, nothing new needed.
What say you about all those other BernzOmatic products
without a California warning?
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
I bet you think that BernzOmatic processes their own
propane. Right? I bet that you think that everything with
their brand name on it is made by them. Right? Employees
hammering out metallic things, sticking them in plastic
packaging and heat-welding them shut...?
The lighter is made in China. The fuel is packed in that
cute little yellow container in China. The fuel refills are
not available as a separate purchase in the U.S. yet, and
won't be until the end of the month according to "Crystal" a
customer service rep at BernzOmatic. She said to try Walmart
in a few weeks. You might just want to ask the people from
BernzOmatic about it instead of wildly conjecturing. And
being so wrong.
Pastorio
Default User
> Default User wrote:
> > You two are getting very tiresome.
>
> I'm sure we are. But this - which you obviously didn't read - wasn't
> anything like the previous posts. Take a look. You might even get a
> grin.
I don't think there's anything either of you could do right now after
your behavior that would make the least amused. And no, I won't bother
reading it.
Default User
Mostly there. My ears are stopped up, but nose is clear and chest
almost.
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
>> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
>> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
>> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
>> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
>> themselves, of course, were so labeled.
>
> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
Mark, a gas cylinder is a product. I'm my original statement
which I've tried to translate into Thorson-speak several
times, I apparently haven't been able to make it simple
enough. In the interests of a wild curiosity to see if you
can grasp this, I hereby concede that I didn't write with
perfect, uninterpretable clarity. And I apologize for that.
I was trying to create a parallel with your assertion that
the packaging of the Lighter didn't carry the warning by
citing *all other* fuel-using products. Alas, my diction was
imperfect.
A gas cylinder is a product. You are correct in that statement.
But that doesn't negate the simple fact that *only* the
cylinders carry the California warning. The BernzOmatic
products that use fuel cylinders aren't so marked.
Competitive products from other companies also lack that
warning.
What is your conclusion from that series of facts?
> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
> It is a product. And it has the State of
> California warning on it. Both the UPC
> and the warning can be seen in the images
> I posted to alt.binaries.food.
>
> Is this how you defend yourself?
I don't need to defend myself. Have you forgotten that you
began all this with your insane business about "food-grade"
propane and have continued it to this Lighter, asserting
that it's got a non-carcinogenic fuel because the packaging
doesn't carry a California warning?
Are you going to continue to evade dealing with the other
products that I specifically sited with no California
warning on them? Are you going to insist that they, too,
have this non-carcinogenic fuel?
> By redefining "product" to exclude
> anything that exposes your words
> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
> but typical of you.
Of course you have to say that, there's nothing else left.
No evidence for food-grade fuels. Period.
<LOL> I certainly hope you don't actually imagine that you
have somehow made your case for food-grade fuels. Here's a
sad, sad reality for you. No matter how wrong or right I
might be about any facet, trivial or large, you have offered
no substantive evidence for the existence of a food-grade
fuel. Period. Period. It's all based on your mistaken belief
that only the lighter has no California warning, and that it
somehow signals a non-carcinogenic fuel. Both plainly false
assumptions.
You haven't contacted the best source of all - the
manufacturer. You're still trying to make a phony assertion
stand in the face of demolishing counter-information from
*all* other posters. Nope.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>> You two are getting very tiresome.
>> I'm sure we are. But this - which you obviously didn't read - wasn't
>> anything like the previous posts. Take a look. You might even get a
>> grin.
>
> I don't think there's anything either of you could do right now after
> your behavior that would make the least amused. And no, I won't bother
> reading it.
> Brian
I prostrate myself before your perfection.
No, seriously...
Pastorio
Dave Smith
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > You lied about it not containing carcinogenic chemicals.
>
> That's absolutely untrue. If it had such chemicals
> it would be required in California to have the
> State of California warning.
That's nice, but we aren't in California and I won't bother
discussing California law with it because I am not versed in the
law and you display an incredible deficit of logic. Your claim
was that Pastorio had lied about there not being a food grade
propane torch but you had found on. The food grade torch that you
linked to was not a food grade torch. It was a butane lighter.
The company's MSDS for the fuels all say that they contain
chemicals that the state of California believes to be
carcinogenic. There is nothing at all to say they are food grade,
but you claimed that they did not have the carcinogens found in
other propane products. You have been unable to provide a cite
for that and most of us are well aware that the reason you cannot
provide a cite for it is that you lied when made that claim. You
simply made it up.
> > You may have lied about not having a link to the MSDS for
the
> > company's butane, though your recent comments lead me to accept
> > that you were simply to dumb to follow them.
>
> You yourself found a direct link from the web page
> for the BF9 refill to the butane MSDS. That is a
> product for which the MSDS applies, and it has the
> State of California warning on it. There is no such
> direct link from the web page for the Flexible
> Utility Lighter, and therefore no reason to believe
> it applies.
The MSDS sheets apply to the propane and butane. If it has butane
it gets the butane MSDS. If it has propane it gets the propane
MSDS. There is no MSDS for food grade fuels so there is no reason
to think that they use a different food grade fuel.
>
> And it's not just the BF9. Here's the web page for
> a propane torch kit. Go there, and you'll see a
> direct link to its MSDS. That's true of every product
> on the Bernzomatic web site for which an MSDS applies.
>
> http://www.bernzomatic.com/bernzomatic/consumer/jhtml/detail.jhtml;jsessionid=?prodId=BernzoProd100070
Well Bravo..... it is the same MSDS that they use for all their
propane products. I might have been more impressed with your
argument if the MSDS indicated that it was a food grade food.
However, I trust you noted that the brochure boasts that you can
use it to strip pain, thaw copper pipes, loosen rusted bolts,
strip paint and "Even top off the perfect creme brulee.
> You're just grasping at straws to deny this, because
> it's the only defense you've got.
The only defence you have at this point is the insanity clause.
Peter A
You guys are going to be the poster children for the "Save the Morons"
foundation.
--
Peter Aitken
Default User
> Default User wrote:
You really don't get it, do you?
Dave Smith
>
>>
> You guys are going to be the poster children for the "Save the Morons"
> foundation.
>
topics or, even easier, skip messages.
Peter A
says...
I don't suppose you could favor us with an actual English sentence? You
know, subject, verb, object, all those little things that are taught in
junior high school.
--
Peter Aitken
Bob (this one)
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>
>>> I don't think there's anything either of you could do right now
>>> after your behavior that would make the least amused. And no, I
>>> won't bother reading it.
>>> Brian
>
>> I prostrate myself before your perfection.
>
> You really don't get it, do you?
Of course I do, Brian. But we see the world very
differently. This is an explanation, not a challenge, not an
invitation to duel.
You assume that your pursed-lip condemnation should be
important to me. And that some unstated standard of behavior
acceptable to you is how I should comport myself. That
somehow, it seems, the form of the behavior is more
important than the content. Perhaps that I shouldn't
strenuously reply to moronic attacks, turning my restrained
shoulders away and walk a different path. That list is no
more likely to happen than for you to suddenly adopt my way
of being and doing.
You appear to think that heated contest is somehow
unsanitary, perhaps unseemly. And it might well be in
certain quarters. But this is an unfettered arena where
Sheldon can freely dispense his insane hatreds and
error-filled twaddle. A "venue" with few of the civilizing
elements that meatspace demands, so PVC can spew
stomach-wrenching vulgarities. And where people like Mark
can post scurrilous, unmerited attacks. There are several
choices in dealing with these sorts of events and actions.
My choice has sometimes been to wade in with sneers and
facts and lay waste the erroneous assertions - and the
person behind them, particularly when aimed at me directly,
as this latest electronic conflagration. Other times - most
times - let it ride.
Yes, I know, crude behavior. Yet it's all electrons on
screens. No bloodshed, no body bags, no families trying to
repair the slash in their fabric of life. The only
demolition is to external views of the posters involved.
And there's one other facet of it all. You are under no
obligation to watch any of it. It's as easy as filtering it
out of the incoming. Clearly you disapprove of some
components of this latest fiasco with Thorson - I don't know
which elements distress you. Perhaps just the general
"noise" level. Or the contempt dripping from the posts. Or
the rather straightforward combat. Or that it casts ripples
around this serene pond (that's soft sarcasm). I don't know
- exactly - what you want or don't want because you haven't
actually said.
I'm sorry that it causes you discomfort.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
<LOL> Thank you, Peter, for your considered and
information-filled post.
No, seriously...
Pastorio
Peter A
> Thank you, Peter, for your considered and
> information-filled post.
>
A post does not have to be "considered and information-filled" to be
right on-target. In any case, unlike you, I am not an expert on berzo-o-
matic cannisters.
While you and your pal have been obsessing about this moronic topic, I
have completed another book chapter, made and enjoyed a couple of
martinis, cooked osso busso and risotto, enjoyed dinner with my wife,
and watched a Toshiro Mifune movie. You have obsessed about "being
right" and the labels on bernz-o-matic cannisters. Gee, you must be
proud of time so well-spent.
--
Peter Aitken
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> I bet you think that BernzOmatic processes their own
> propane. Right? I bet that you think that everything with
> their brand name on it is made by them. Right? Employees
> hammering out metallic things, sticking them in plastic
> packaging and heat-welding them shut...?
I didn't write that. Don't be ascribing words to me
that I didn't write, no matter how convenient you find
it to be.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
> >> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
> >> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
> >> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
> >> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
> >> themselves, of course, were so labeled.
> >
> > In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
>
> Mark, a gas cylinder is a product.
Great! We're making progress here.
You now admit that a gas cylinder is a product.
Now, how do you reconcile that with your
statement that:
> *NONE* of BernzOmatic's products carry that warning.
I posted images of the Bernzomatic BF9 refill
to alt.binaries.food, which show that it is
marked with the State of California warning.
Did you see those images? Do you deny that
they show that the product is marked with
the warning?
You are not being consistent. Did you learn
nothing from Henry Kissinger's advice on
telling the truth?
The Ranger
news:MPG.20105aaec...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
[snip typical Peter-A braying of assinine proportion]
Escaped my filters again. You have less appeal than the more-obvious
rfc troll.
The Ranger
--
My day is not complete unless I've made some deserving asshole stamp
his feet, turn blue in the face, and shout, "Drop dead, you bitch!"
It makes me gooshy all over.
- Lenore Levine, ap, 2001
Bob (this one)
Jayzus, Thorson. Have you no sense at all of hyperbole? Do
you see any quotation marks in there? Do you see any
statements of attribution? Get a grip. Understand?
Rhetorical question...
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>>> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
>>>> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
>>>> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
>>>> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
>>>> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
>>>> themselves, of course, were so labeled.
>>> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
>> Mark, a gas cylinder is a product.
>
> Great! We're making progress here.
> You now admit that a gas cylinder is a product.
>
> Now, how do you reconcile that with your
> statement that:
>
>> *NONE* of BernzOmatic's products carry that warning.
Mark, quit being such a simple fuckwit. In the post to which
you replied, and which you edited severely enough to remove
the explanation, it's laid out. Explained. Detailed. This
diversionary smokescreen does you no good.
But the important part is the evidence you're supposed to be
offering about food-grade fuels.
Where is it?
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> I posted images of the Bernzomatic BF9 refill
> to alt.binaries.food, which show that it is
> marked with the State of California warning.
Speaking of fuels, I had a very interesting conversation
with Christie from BernzOmatic today. I called and asked
asked her about the fuel for the Lighter two days ago.
"Since it's a refillable butane-fueled lighter, can anyone's
fuel canisters be used?" I asked. She said no because
conventional butane refills wouldn't work properly. I asked
why and she said she'd go find the info for me. She called
me back today with this interesting bit of info.
The units are made in China and the fuel refills are, too.
They are filled with a special fuel that is a blend of
conventional butane and conventional propane. If they were
using just butane, she explained, the flame would be just
like a disposable cigarette lighter. They want the flame to
be a bit more forceful, so the propane guarantees greater
pressure and a flame that can be directed up, sideways or
down. She also said that plain butane fuel would damage the
unit. I asked if the fuels were food-grade. She laughed.
The MSDS for *both* butane and propane apply to the lighter.
1-800-654-9011
> You are not being consistent.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
> Did you learn
> nothing from Henry Kissinger's advice on
> telling the truth?
<LOL> Now I understand a whole lot more. Henry Kissinger is
your role model for telling the truth. No further
explanation needed.
Moron.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> In article <12qd2rd...@corp.supernews.com>, B...@nospam.com says...
>
>> Thank you, Peter, for your considered and
>> information-filled post.
>
> A post does not have to be "considered and information-filled" to be
> right on-target.
No but being "right-on-target" needs a bit more than merely
a display of dyspeptic attitude.
> In any case, unlike you, I am not an expert on
berzo-o-matic cannisters.
Or much else, if your posts are any indication.
> While you and your pal have been obsessing about this moronic topic, I
> have completed another book chapter, made and enjoyed a couple of
> martinis, cooked osso busso and risotto, enjoyed dinner with my wife,
> and watched a Toshiro Mifune movie. You have obsessed about "being
> right" and the labels on bernz-o-matic cannisters. Gee, you must be
> proud of time so well-spent.
Peter, you're an expiration to us all. While you've been
doing those things, I've put together the final menus and
staffing plans for a small get-together here in Virginia
next month for 25,000 people. Went to a chiropractor for the
herniated disk and the bursitis in my hip. Did some food
shopping afterward, picked my daughter up from school and
drove her to her job. Came home and put together the fixings
for three loaves of bread to bake tomorrow, made dinner for
us, picked up the kid after work and am now wasting time
replying to your egregiously smug self-congratulations.
I've completed the rewrites on the current novel and started
on the new one the day before yesterday. I know you're happy
for me. Someday you'll have almost as much published
material as I do, and that day, you'll be a man. Bwah...
I supremely love it when self-satisfied prigs know how
everyone else should live, and how they make such brilliant
assumptions that merely advance their own stunted
prejudices. You seem to believe that I live life at the
sluggish pace you describe.
And I mean all that in the nicest possible place, Peter. Um,
way. Yeah. Way.
Pastorio
Gregory Morrow
Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> > And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
> > *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
> > warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
> > other companies had the California warning on them, either.
> > Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
> > themselves, of course, were so labeled.
>
> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?
> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
> It is a product. And it has the State of
> California warning on it. Both the UPC
> and the warning can be seen in the images
> I posted to alt.binaries.food.
>
> Is this how you defend yourself?
> By redefining "product" to exclude
> anything that exposes your words
> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
> but typical of you.
Subject line changed...
And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...
--
Best
Greg
sf
<gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> >
<snip>
>
>
>Subject line changed...
>
>And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...
Oh, thanks.... you did it so those of us who killed the subject(s) get
to see more? Whoopeee.
--
See return address to reply by email
Gregory Morrow
sf wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2007 23:21:31 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
> <gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> >> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >> >
> <snip>
> >
> >
> >Subject line changed...
> >
> >And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...
>
> Oh, thanks.... you did it so those of us who killed the subject(s) get
> to see more? Whoopeee.
Who was it that said that Usenet is dead...???
:-)
--
Best
Greg
Bob (this one)
> Subject line changed...
This what passes for wit back at the redneck saloon...?
> And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...
<LOL> This is a hilarious observation. Apparently you're
reading all the posts while whining about how boring it all is.
The "fuel feud" is over with my posting of the components of
the fuel as explained by the company that peddles the
product. No "food-grade" anything. All the carcinogens still
in there.
Done.
Pastorio
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark, quit being such a simple fuckwit. In the post to which
> you replied, and which you edited severely enough to remove
> the explanation, it's laid out. Explained. Detailed. This
> diversionary smokescreen does you no good.
Okay. Here's the whole of your posting, with
nothing edited out. What explains how your
statement that "*NONE* of BernzOmatic's products
carry that warning." can possibly be true, when
I have in fact PROVEN that at least one of those
products DOES have that warning by posting
images of it to alt.binaries.food?
You can try to dodge and play word games
all you want, but nothing changes those facts.
Here is your complete, unedited porting:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > The facts are that a) this product produces a blue cone
> > of flame indicating a temperature certainly high
> > enough to carmelize anything that is carmelizable,
> > and b) its fuel does not contain the hazards which
> > would require the State of California warning that
> > Bernomatic's other propane- and butane-fuelled are
> > required to carry.
>
> *NONE* of BernzOmatic's products carry that warning. Only
> the MSDS mentions it.
>
> > This is a product which is free of carcinogens.
>
> <LOL> A lighter to caramelize foods. Bwah...
>
> BernzOmatic's customer service people say that the fuel for
> this is their standard product.
>
> Pastorio
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > You lied about it not containing carcinogenic chemicals.
> >
> > That's absolutely untrue. If it had such chemicals
> > it would be required in California to have the
> > State of California warning.
>
> That's nice, but we aren't in California and I won't bother
> discussing California law with it because I am not versed in the
> law and you display an incredible deficit of logic.
Logic? Let's see isf I can make this simple enough
for you.
There are only two possibilities:
1) The fuel is clean (of carcinogens, etc.)
enough to meet the California standard.
2) The fuel is dirty.
Under condition 1, if you state the fuel is dirty
in the MSDS, do you get in trouble? Nope.
If you sell it in California without the warning
on the label, do you get in trouble? Nope.
Under condition 2, if you state the fuel is dirty
in the MSDS, do you get in trouble? Nope.
If you sell it in California without the warning
on the label, do you get in trouble? YOU BET!
The California law not only empowers the state
Attorney General to sue anybody in violation,
it empowers "any person in the public interest"
to file a lawsuit against the violator. That
has unleashed a large number of lawsuits by
lawyers claiming to be acting in the public
interest. No large manufacturer is going to
risk something like that.
And yet you seem to think that logic dictates
that condition 2 is more likely to apply in this
case than condition 1. Have I misinterpreted
your view on this subject?
Bob (this one)
> Okay.
I must say I admire your accepting the fact that your
failure to demonstrate that food-grade fuels exist shows you
to be a bigger man than everyone thinks you are and capable
of sublime logic. A logic almost like music to the untrained
ear.
.
Like what Mark Twain said about Wagner's music. "It's really
much better than it sounds."
Congratulations.
Pastorio
Dave Bugg
> There are only two possibilities:
>
> 1) The fuel is clean (of carcinogens, etc.)
> enough to meet the California standard.
Esoteric and red-herring jibber-jabber. This whole thing isn't about MSDS,
that's a whole different argument. This is about whether such a thing as
"food-grade" propane or butane is a reality or not. Please just provide
direct information that says that there is such a thing as "food-grade"
propane or butane. MSDS prove nothing in this regard. Even materials used
for cooking foods may have an MSDS, including charcoal lighter fluid and
charcoal briquettes.
http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/products/msds/charcoalproducts/kingsfordodorlesscharcoallighter.pdf
http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/products/msds/charcoalproducts/kingsfordcharcoalbriquets.pdf
So, quit the nonsense and show us the proof of "food-grade" propane and
butane. Anything. If you had a mistaken notion (which is understandable)
that such a thing existed, just admit you made a mistake about "food-grade"
propane and butane.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
Dave Bugg
> Okay. Here's the whole of your posting, with
> nothing edited out. What explains how your
> statement that "*NONE* of BernzOmatic's products
> carry that warning." .....snip
Gregory Morrow
Bob (this one) wrote:
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > Subject line changed...
>
> This what passes for wit back at the redneck saloon...?
Hey, you replied...
> > And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...
>
> <LOL> This is a hilarious observation. Apparently you're
> reading all the posts while whining about how boring it all is.
>
> The "fuel feud" is over with my posting of the components of
> the fuel as explained by the company that peddles the
> product. No "food-grade" anything. All the carcinogens still
> in there.
>
> Done.
Yaaaaaaaaaawn...
Just so you know, a *good* feud needs to involve insulting each other's
physical and mental characteristics and also needs to include some sort
of sexual component...this 'feud' is lame and boring.
An example of a good and entertaining feud would be the kinda train
wreck - ish stuff that I've engaged in in the past with people like
Mothra Hughes and Sheryl Rosen...
Heck, even one of Sheldon's one - line insults is far more entertaining
than the boring DRECK in this thread...ya gotta have a gimmick and play
yer audience, see.
--
Best
Greg
tert in seattle
>Heck, even one of Sheldon's one - line insults is far more entertaining
>than the boring DRECK in this thread...ya gotta have a gimmick and play
>yer audience, see.
this thread may be bad but "the dishwasher IQ test" is the worst/best
example of how far downhill this news - group has gone...!!!
Dave Smith
>
>
>
> Okay. Here's the whole of your posting, with
> nothing edited out. What explains how your
> statement that "*NONE* of BernzOmatic's products
> carry that warning." can possibly be true, when
> I have in fact PROVEN that at least one of those
> products DOES have that warning by posting
> images of it to alt.binaries.food?
>
Why not save yourself the work and just post a link to a source
for food grade propane or butane.
Dave Bugg
Oh, I don't know. The signal to noise ratio seems pretty moderate. Sure
there a dumb threads, but not overwhelmingly so. Besides, some of 'em can be
a fun distraction :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
Nancy Young
"tert in seattle" <te...@ftupet.com> wrote
So what do you want to talk about? Your turn to pick the topic.
nancy
Dave Smith
>
>
> >
> > this thread may be bad but "the dishwasher IQ test" is the worst/best
> > example of how far downhill this news - group has gone...!!!
>
> Oh, I don't know. The signal to noise ratio seems pretty moderate. Sure
> there a dumb threads, but not overwhelmingly so. Besides, some of 'em can be
> a fun distraction :-)
I have been having fun with this, but I almost feel guilty about
it because Mark has demonstrated an incredible ability to be
extremely dense. Last here he stepped into it when he advised
someone to make sure that they used food quality propane. He
never was able to provide a link to a source of this product. I
was stunned when he came back this week and accused Pastorio of
lying about the there not being a food quality propane torch. If
he could just provide us with a ling\k of a supplier of the stuff
we would have no choice but to accept that he was right about it,
but he hasn't and he can't. Yet, he persists in his claims, and
then has to gall to accuse us of lying.
Peter A
gregor...@earthlink.net says...
> Hey, you replied...
Is this "fallacious" or "fellatio?" (look them up)
I know that it is uncharitable to laugh at dimwits, but I can't help
myself. My karma takes another hit.
Peter Aitken
Dave Smith
Peter A wrote:
>
> In article <1168639053.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> gregor...@earthlink.net says...
>
> > Hey, you replied...
>
> Is this "fallacious" or "fellatio?" (look them up)
It was Gregory Morrow who altered the spelling. he confused his
hobby with the topic.
cybercat
this is the guy who makes soup with cans of creamed corn. *gag*
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
cybercat
"Nancy Young" <rjy...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kt2dnSXbHuiOgjXY...@comcast.com...
Dave Bugg
> I have been having fun with this, but I almost feel guilty about
> it because Mark has demonstrated an incredible ability to be
> extremely dense. Last here he stepped into it when he advised
> someone to make sure that they used food quality propane. He
> never was able to provide a link to a source of this product. I
> was stunned when he came back this week and accused Pastorio of
> lying about the there not being a food quality propane torch. If
> he could just provide us with a ling\k of a supplier of the stuff
> we would have no choice but to accept that he was right about it,
> but he hasn't and he can't. Yet, he persists in his claims, and
> then has to gall to accuse us of lying.
Since there are "food-grade" gasses (co2 for example), I'm sure Mark assumed
(wrongly) that there must be "food-grade" propane. It would have been no big
deal to just say 'oops, my bad'. For whatever reason he just won't back down
from this, 'cause he's spinning his arguments and ratioanlizations so fast
and furious it's been like watching a pinwheel in a hurricane.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
Nancy Young
"cybercat" <cyber...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Nancy Young" <rjy...@comcast.net> wrote
>> So what do you want to talk about? Your turn to pick the topic.
>>
> Puleeeeeze. The topic is Newsgroup Topic Critiques.
Heh, I didn't mean to sound snotty. I really meant, start a
new one.
nancy
tert in seattle
okay
let's talk about condiments
Goomba38
> okay
>
> let's talk about condiments
Mongolian Fire Oil is wonderful stuff. I like to sprinkle it in my
pureed cauliflower-carrot soup. It is very pretty on top also.
Dave Smith
>
> Since there are "food-grade" gasses (co2 for example), I'm sure Mark assumed
> (wrongly) that there must be "food-grade" propane. It would have been no big
> deal to just say 'oops, my bad'. For whatever reason he just won't back down
> from this, 'cause he's spinning his arguments and ratioanlizations so fast
> and furious it's been like watching a pinwheel in a hurricane.
After checking things out and seeing one is wrong it should not
be hard to say "oops. I was wrong". Instead, he accuses others of
lying, of playing dumb, twisting facts etc.
It's pretty sad. But at the same time, it's funny.
tert in seattle
Thank you goomba, I appreciate that. I was thinking of a more general
approach, such as ... condiments are interesting because they are
food that you don't eat on their own, they are not necessary, but they
can make a big difference to your enjoyment of other foods. I think
condiments are overlooked and neglected and taken for granted. Part
of the problem might be because they're usually "free" and in our
hypercommodified culture they are unconsciously assigned to products
of the lowest class. We should be more mindful of condiments.
sf
<gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>sf wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jan 2007 23:21:31 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
>> <gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Mark Thorson wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> >> >
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >
>> >Subject line changed...
>> >
>> >And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...
>>
>> Oh, thanks.... you did it so those of us who killed the subject(s) get
>> to see more? Whoopeee.
>
>
>Who was it that said that Usenet is dead...???
>
>:-)
LOLOL! Yep, it's alive and kicking some of us in the teeth.
;)
Bob (this one)
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>> Subject line changed...
>> This what passes for wit back at the redneck saloon...?
>
> Hey, you replied...
This is your index of success? Someone replies to a post of
yours? With standards like that, your mother must be very
proud. And you're thrilled with the wit and enduringly
entertaining subject line, I'll bet. Right?
>> And I have to add that this is one of rfc's more BORING "feuds"...
>> <LOL> This is a hilarious observation. Apparently you're
>> reading all the posts while whining about how boring it all is.
>>
>> The "fuel feud" is over with my posting of the components of
>> the fuel as explained by the company that peddles the
>> product. No "food-grade" anything. All the carcinogens still
>> in there.
>>
>> Done.
>
>
> Yaaaaaaaaaawn...
<LOL> You're just so...you know... sophisticated and
worldly. So knowledgeable and all. It's almost like... magic
how wise and smart 'n shit you are.
> Just so you know, a *good* feud needs to involve insulting each other's
> physical and mental characteristics and also needs to include some sort
> of sexual component...this 'feud' is lame and boring.
It's not a feud, Greg, it's a small spanking. But here's my
advice about it, don't read any of the boring posts. Your
time is clearly too valuable to waste it on plebeian
bagatelles like these.
> An example of a good and entertaining feud would be the kinda train
> wreck - ish stuff that I've engaged in in the past with people like
> Mothra Hughes and Sheryl Rosen...
Why am I not surprised that you would hold up one of your
"feuds" as the standard? The One True Standard for how one
should function. Does it astonish you to note that I recall
not a single one of your cataclysmic forays? Not one
noteworthy enough to read all the way through. As you have
apparently done with these "boring" posts. Sad, really.
> Heck, even one of Sheldon's one - line insults is far more entertaining
> than the boring DRECK in this thread...ya gotta have a gimmick and play
> yer audience, see.
<LOL> How brilliantly sublime. And if that's not the
intention, then what?
I see.
No, seriously...
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
Peter, are you under the impression that the subject change
was a mistake?
I'm sorry for you. Your karma is up to its knees in doodoo...
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> let's talk about condiments
Few decades back when TupperWare parties were new, a group
of us husbands were roped in to go. The hostess brought out
some foods in different containers, explaining each. We
tasted devilled eggs. Gicky salads. Jell-O things...
Then she came out with several small containers which she
characterized as "con-dye-mint" caddies.
The party was over.
Pastorio
Mark Thorson
>
> So, quit the nonsense and show us the proof of "food-grade"
> propane and butane. Anything. If you had a mistaken notion
> (which is understandable) that such a thing existed, just admit
> you made a mistake about "food-grade" propane and butane.
There's no question that food-grade propane
and butane exist. The only dispute was whether
food-grade propane and butane are ever used for
fuel.
You certainly are not suggesting that food-grade
propane and butane don't ever exist in any form,
are you?
Mark Thorson
statement that "*NONE* of BernzOmatic's products
Dave Bugg
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>> So, quit the nonsense and show us the proof of "food-grade"
>> propane and butane. Anything. If you had a mistaken notion
>> (which is understandable) that such a thing existed, just admit
>> you made a mistake about "food-grade" propane and butane.
>
> There's no question that food-grade propane
> and butane exist.
Yes, there is a question. All you need to do is provide us with the proof.
> The only dispute was whether
> food-grade propane and butane are ever used for
> fuel.
No, that is not the dispute. The dispute is whether or not you can prove
that food-grade propane and butane exist.
> You certainly are not suggesting that food-grade
> propane and butane don't ever exist in any form,
> are you?
Yes. BTW, nice try ducking the info I've provided in my other posts to
avoid a direct response. There is no corroboration to your assertation that
food-grade propane or butane exists.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
Dave Smith
And you don't have any proof that there is a food grade propane
burner, if we may direct you back to your original comment where
you said that Pastorio lied when he said there was no food grade
propane torch available and attempted to prove it by linking to a
butane lighter from a company that not only fails to indicate
that the fuel is food grade but which has an MSDS that indicates
it contains chemicals that cause cancer.
Can that be for real?
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>
> >> So, quit the nonsense and show us the proof of "food-grade"
> >> propane and butane. Anything. If you had a mistaken notion
> >> (which is understandable) that such a thing existed, just admit
> >> you made a mistake about "food-grade" propane and butane.
> >
> > There's no question that food-grade propane
> > and butane exist.
>
> Yes, there is a question. All you need to do is provide us with the proof.
The big corporation Cargill believes it exists:
Quoting from U.S. Patent 6,610,343 to Cargill:
"Most preferably, the solvent is a category I solvent
approved by The Council of the European Committees
(Jun. 13, 1988 Council Directive) for use in food
processing. Food grade propanes and butanes generally
meet all of the above stated preferences."
> > The only dispute was whether
> > food-grade propane and butane are ever used for
> > fuel.
>
> No, that is not the dispute. The dispute is whether or not you can prove
> that food-grade propane and butane exist.
The USDA's Agricultural Research Service believes it exists
[this is a link to Google's cache of the document]:
"A new commercial invention incorporating a supercritical,
low-pressure, liquified gas extraction process using
food-grade butane as the extraction gas is currently
being used to extract chocolate liquor and peanuts and
the oil and residue solids are both edible products."
> > You certainly are not suggesting that food-grade
> > propane and butane don't ever exist in any form,
> > are you?
>
> Yes. BTW, nice try ducking the info I've provided in my other posts to
> avoid a direct response. There is no corroboration to your assertation that
> food-grade propane or butane exists.
I'll take Cargill's and USDA's expertise over yours,
any day.
Mark Thorson
>
> that the fuel is food grade but which has an MSDS that indicates
> it contains chemicals that cause cancer.
> Can that be for real?
Let's see if I can make this simple enough
for you.
There are only two possibilities:
1) The fuel is clean (of carcinogens, etc.)
enough to meet the California standard.
2) The fuel is dirty.
Under condition 1, if you state the fuel is dirty
in the MSDS, do you get in trouble? Nope.
If you sell it in California without the warning
on the label, do you get in trouble? Nope.
Under condition 2, if you state the fuel is dirty
in the MSDS, do you get in trouble? Nope.
If you sell it in California without the warning
on the label, do you get in trouble? YOU BET!
The California law not only empowers the state
Attorney General to sue anybody in violation,
it empowers "any person in the public interest"
to file a lawsuit against the violator. That
has unleashed a large number of lawsuits by
lawyers claiming to be acting in the public
interest. No large manufacturer is going to
risk something like that.
And yet you seem to think that logic dictates
that condition 2 is more likely to apply in this
case than condition 1. Have I misinterpreted
your view on this subject?
Dave Smith
>
> And yet you seem to think that logic dictates
> that condition 2 is more likely to apply in this
> case than condition 1. Have I misinterpreted
> your view on this subject?
Let's just say that logic dictates that if there is a food grade
propane fuel or a fuel grade propane torch available you should
have no problem finding it. I had no trouble finding sources for
food grade carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, liquid nitrogen and a
few other food grade gases, but can find no source for food grade
propane or butane.
I certainly did not misinterpret you comment to Pastorio where
you said he lied about there not being a food grade propane torch
available and tried to back up your claim with a link to a butane
lighter that is not indicated to be food grade, as food grade
gases are, and for which the company's MSDS indicates chemicals
that cause cancer. My view is hard to misinterpret.
Dave Bugg
> The big corporation Cargill believes it exists:
>
> Quoting from U.S. Patent 6,610,343 to Cargill:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,610,343.PN.&OS=PN/6,610,343&RS=PN/6,610,343
...snip
My bad, I knew there was such a thing as special processed butane and
propane as food processing solvents and I fell into the trap of semantic
usage. I will give you that. There are also propane and butane solvents use
for industrial applications. Neither application of which are capable of
being used for heating fuels. But I walked into it the setup. Nicely done.
So, do you hold to your contention that food-grade propane and butane are
used as fuels for torches?
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
Bob (this one)
Mark, what I have no explanation for is how you can be so
sludgewitted after being given the explanation. I explained
it. In clear English. I explained that the subject was
whether a California warning was on the package of the
Lighter and, comparing apples to apples, I said that none of
BernzOmatic's products had that warning. By products I meant
fuel-using products, just like the lighters, not the
canisters themselves. I didn't state it restrictively enough
to suit you. You chose to try to make it a semantic game and
it still continues. I have agreed that canisters carry that
warning, but that none of the fuel-using BernzOmatic
products do. It's that simple.
Go back upthread and read all the explanation your cramped
little mind can handle. If you think that miring yourself in
semantic quicksand and these diversionary tactics somehow
gets you off the hook of your own making, I can only feel
pity for you and the prison of your own mental restrictions.
And you still have not dealt with why *NONE* of the
fuel-using BernzOmatic products carry that warning. Do they
all use "food-grade" fuels?
But I note you still have made no contact with BernzOmatic
to ascertain the facts in the case of the lighter, the
California label and "food-grade" propane or butane fuels.
As long as you try to rely on your crippled reasoning, your
off-the-mark deductions, your uninformed legal
pronouncements and your lack of understanding of propane and
butane fuels, you will remain as wrong as you are. Very simple.
You may be the lousiest researcher in all of human history.
You have an opportunity to actually speak with the people
who make the product you've so pitiably humiliated yourself
over, and you've avoided it. Why is that? Why not just ask
BernzOmatic and put the whole issue to rest?
Is not admitting you're wrong so desperately important? Sad
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> that the fuel is food grade but which has an MSDS that indicates
>> it contains chemicals that cause cancer.
>> Can that be for real?
>
> Let's see if I can make this simple enough
> for you.
>
> There are only two possibilities:
Sorry. No. There are no separate grades of fuel.
The reality here is that you've invented a labeling standard
for packaging that only exists in your mind. California
doesn't demand that fuel-using products carry the warning;
only the fuels. Your repeated insistence on this is the
first error in a long string. You've been given model
numbers for several BernzOmatic products whose packaging
doesn't carry the warning. Yet you still insist that only
the lighter doesn't have it.
> 1) The fuel is clean (of carcinogens, etc.)
> enough to meet the California standard.
Such a thing doesn't exist. There are no propane or butane
fuels that don't get that warning.
> 2) The fuel is dirty.
They all are. MSDS provide the proof. There are none that
omit the warning.
> Under condition 1, if you state the fuel is dirty
> in the MSDS, do you get in trouble? Nope.
> If you sell it in California without the warning
> on the label, do you get in trouble? Nope.
>
> Under condition 2, if you state the fuel is dirty
> in the MSDS, do you get in trouble? Nope.
> If you sell it in California without the warning
> on the label, do you get in trouble? YOU BET!
Only the canister needs to have the warning. None of the
packages of fuel-using products carry the warning.
> And yet you seem to think that logic dictates
> that condition 2 is more likely to apply in this
> case than condition 1. Have I misinterpreted
> your view on this subject?
Condition 2 is the only one that exists. If there were any
others, the MSDS would so indicate. Show us one.
Perhaps you should bring it to the attention of the
authorities in California. Since BernzOmatic says they use a
blend of butane and propane in the Lighter and there's no
warning on the packaging, you might be doing a
public-spirited thing.
As if...
Pastorio
Mark Thorson
>
> And you still have not dealt with why *NONE* of the
> fuel-using BernzOmatic products carry that warning.
> Do they all use "food-grade" fuels?
That's one possibility. You can be sure that
any item sold in California that lacks that
warning does not contain carcinogens (or not
enough to trigger the legal standard, which
would mean that the level is below the amount
that would pose a significant risk of cancer
over a lifetime of exposure).
Mark Thorson
>
> California
> doesn't demand that fuel-using products carry the warning;
> only the fuels.
Another whopper from Bob.
Any product sold with fuel falls under the same
compliance requirements as the fuel sold separately.
There is no exemption for a product sold in a fueled
condition. The Flexible Utility Lighter is sold
in a fueled condition, and it is sold with a refill
cartridge, neither of which is marked with the
State of California warning.
The California law applies to all products, without
regard to form. Even flatware and other tableware
has to comply with this law. (Not necessarily
easy to do, now that California has established
allowable leachable concentrations of lead at
0.226 parts per million (ppm) for flatware and
0.100 ppm for all other tableware.)
> Perhaps you should bring it to the attention of the
> authorities in California. Since BernzOmatic says they use a
> blend of butane and propane in the Lighter and there's no
> warning on the packaging, you might be doing a
> public-spirited thing.
Interesting that none of the MSDSs on the Bernzomatic
web site describe a blend of butane and propane.
The data on specific gravity, flash point, etc.
for pure propane and pure butane on the MSDSs for
those fuels is not correct for the blend. Therefore,
those MSDSs do not apply to the Flexible Utility
Lighter, even though Dave falsely asserted that the
butane MSDS did apply. Thanks, Bob, for pointing
that out.
As a consumer product, Bernzomatic may have
decided the Flexible Utility Lighter is exempt
from the requirement for an MSDS:
http://www.ilpi.com/msds/osha/I19960528B.html
I assume this puts the final nail in the coffin
for the argument that Bernzomatic's butane MSDS
applies to the Flexible Utility Lighter. It was
obvious to me from the beginning that it did not
apply to this product.
Dave Smith
>
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> > California
> > doesn't demand that fuel-using products carry the warning;
> > only the fuels.
>
> Another whopper from Bob.
>
> Any product sold with fuel falls under the same
> compliance requirements as the fuel sold separately.
I have seen cars from California. They have no stickers like
that. I am pretty sure they run on fuel.
Gregory Morrow
Nancy Young wrote:
> "tert in seattle" <te...@ftupet.com> wrote
>
> > gregor...@earthlink.net writes:
> >
> >>Heck, even one of Sheldon's one - line insults is far more entertaining
> >>than the boring DRECK in this thread...ya gotta have a gimmick and play
> >>yer audience, see.
> >
> > this thread may be bad but "the dishwasher IQ test" is the worst/best
> > example of how far downhill this news - group has gone...!!!
>
> So what do you want to talk about? Your turn to pick the topic.
As Tart is a regular on chi.general he *always* has something
scintillating to say...!!!
;---p
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
tert in seattle wrote:
We should try to get ken - hoe and T*sh*r over here to post...
--
Best
Greg
Omelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
<snipped idiotic rant>
Congrats moron.
You are now plonked...... I've had enough of this crap taking up screen
space.
E-mail me when you've decided to admit that you were wrong and are
defending a pointless view.
--
Peace, Om
Remove _ to validate e-mails.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson
sf
<gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>As Tart is a regular on chi.general
how many news groups do you read daily?
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> California
>> doesn't demand that fuel-using products carry the warning;
>> only the fuels.
>
> Another whopper from Bob.
Sorry, Mark. Not a whopper at all. The truth. I've cited the
packages complete with model numbers. You've tried very hard
to ignore them.
> Any product sold with fuel falls under the same
> compliance requirements as the fuel sold separately.
No, it doesn't. I mentioned the ubiquitous red Bic
firelighter - no California warning. Sold fueled.
> There is no exemption for a product sold in a fueled
> condition. The Flexible Utility Lighter is sold
> in a fueled condition, and it is sold with a refill
> cartridge, neither of which is marked with the
> State of California warning.
<LOL>
> The California law applies to all products, without
> regard to form. Even flatware and other tableware
> has to comply with this law. (Not necessarily
> easy to do, now that California has established
> allowable leachable concentrations of lead at
> 0.226 parts per million (ppm) for flatware and
> 0.100 ppm for all other tableware.)
<LOL> How red is your herring...?
>> Perhaps you should bring it to the attention of the
>> authorities in California. Since BernzOmatic says they use a
>> blend of butane and propane in the Lighter and there's no
>> warning on the packaging, you might be doing a
>> public-spirited thing.
>
> Interesting that none of the MSDSs on the Bernzomatic
> web site describe a blend of butane and propane.
> The data on specific gravity, flash point, etc.
> for pure propane and pure butane on the MSDSs for
> those fuels is not correct for the blend. Therefore,
> those MSDSs do not apply to the Flexible Utility
> Lighter, even though Dave falsely asserted that the
> butane MSDS did apply. Thanks, Bob, for pointing
> that out.
Sorry, Mark. False logic.
*BOTH* apply since the fuel is a combination. BernzOmatic
says so. No guessing like you're doing.
The Lighter isn't fully rolled out yet. Soon, you'll be able
to buy the fuel cylinders in 3-packs (the plan so far with
BernzOmatic) at Walmart.
> As a consumer product, Bernzomatic may have
> decided the Flexible Utility Lighter is exempt
> from the requirement for an MSDS:
<LOL> "May have decided..." But I note you still haven't
called them to ask. You continue guessing when *the*
authoritative source is at the other end of your phone.
> http://www.ilpi.com/msds/osha/I19960528B.html
>
> I assume this puts the final nail in the coffin
> for the argument that Bernzomatic's butane MSDS
> applies to the Flexible Utility Lighter. It was
> obvious to me from the beginning that it did not
> apply to this product.
<LOL> No nails here, Zippy. I quoted the words from the
BernzOmatic customer service people blowing that foolishness
out of the water. What should have been obvious to you from
the beginning is that *none* of the BernzOmatic fuel-using
products carry the warning. I cited specific ones that you
have steadfastly ignored.
You're dead wrong. I remain utterly astonished at your
performance here. The facts are available from BernzOmatic.
Their customer service people have gone out of their way to
get me answers to the questions I raised with them. The
simple fact that you have avoided contacting them - for
better or worse - speaks volumes about your real priorities.
It's certainly not accuracy. It's most assuredly not truth.
It's only your frantic scurrying around any semblance of
logic to continue to insist on your correctness when it's
been demonstrated that you're simply wrong. I'm opting out
of this game. You're not equipped - morally, intellectually,
spiritually - to participate. I'm truly sorry for you.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> And you still have not dealt with why *NONE* of the
>> fuel-using BernzOmatic products carry that warning.
>> Do they all use "food-grade" fuels?
>
> That's one possibility.
No, it's not. BernzOmatic says it's not. I'll take their
word over yours. They know what's in and not in their
products. You're guessing.
Pastorio
Gregory Morrow
sf wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2007 21:51:44 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
> <gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >As Tart is a regular on chi.general
>
> how many news groups do you read daily?
Lessee...hmmmm....:
alt.gossip.celebrities
alt.radio.talk.dr-laura
chi.general
chi.eats
rec.food.cooking
rec.travel.europe
rec.travel.air
there are others I 'll check every few days or weekly (ba.food,
alt.movies.silent alt.autos.studebaker...), but those above are my
daily "dose" of Usenet...
--
Best
Greg
Omelet
"Gregory Morrow" <gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Heh!
I have about 20 or so in my queue, but I only seriously follow 3 of
them. This one, misc.fitness.weights and tx.guns. I'm fixin' to add a
fishing group as soon as I do a search for one.
Mark Thorson
>
> I have seen cars from California. They have no stickers like
> that. I am pretty sure they run on fuel.
The notice is given on a sign at the gas station.
All gas stations in California have these signs.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >> California
> >> doesn't demand that fuel-using products carry the warning;
> >> only the fuels.
> >
> > Another whopper from Bob.
>
> Sorry, Mark. Not a whopper at all. The truth. I've cited the
> packages complete with model numbers. You've tried very hard
> to ignore them.
The authority in this matter isn't a package,
it's the law. The law doesn't make an exception
based on how something is packaged. A device
which contains fuel has the same compliance
requirement as a fuel refill cartridge.
If you disagree with that, cite the part of
the law which exempts fuel-using products
(that are sold filled with fuel) from these
requirements. I can tell you right now that
you can't do that, because you're full of
baloney.
Here's the California law:
Mark Thorson
>
> Here's the California law:
>
> http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65law72003.html
That link are the 2003 updates to the law.
The complete law (updated and non-updated parts)
is available here:
Gregory Morrow
Dave Smith wrote:
> Peter A wrote:
> >
> > In article <1168639053.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > gregor...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> > > Hey, you replied...
> >
> > Is this "fallacious" or "fellatio?" (look them up)
>
> It was Gregory Morrow who altered the spelling. he confused his
> hobby with the topic.
Lol...
Dave, I dig yer dry Canadian humour...
;-)
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
cyberPUKE drivels:
> "Peter A" <pai...@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2011ec71f...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> > In article <1168639053.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > gregor...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> >> Hey, you replied...
> >
> > Is this "fallacious" or "fellatio?" (look them up)
> >
> > I know that it is uncharitable to laugh at dimwits, but I can't help
> > myself. My karma takes another hit.
> >
> >
>
> this is the guy who makes soup with cans of creamed corn. *gag*
Run along, trashbag...mebbe we'll get lucky and a pyrex dish will
EXPLODE in yer face...
:-)
--
Best
Greg
Dave Smith
So it is only dangerous in California?
Dave Smith
>
> If you disagree with that, cite the part of
> the law which exempts fuel-using products
> (that are sold filled with fuel) from these
> requirements. I can tell you right now that
> you can't do that, because you're full of
> baloney.
>
He is not full of baloney. You are. You are the one who said that
he lied about there not being a food grade propane torch.
Bob (this one)
Dave, save your fingers. Mark can't concede that any part of
anything he posts isn't perfectly correct. The very simple
fact that he refuses to contact BernzOmatic about their
product to settle all these questions shows him to be the
fool he acts.
Nothing like a good plonk to clear the intellectual colon.
Pastorio
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >> California
> >> doesn't demand that fuel-using products carry the warning;
> >> only the fuels.
> >
> > Another whopper from Bob.
>
> Sorry, Mark. Not a whopper at all. The truth. I've cited the
> packages complete with model numbers. You've tried very hard
> to ignore them.
The authority in this matter isn't a package,
it's the law. The law doesn't make an exception
based on how something is packaged. A device
which contains fuel has the same compliance
requirement as a fuel refill cartridge.
If you disagree with that, cite the part of
the law which exempts fuel-using products
(that are sold filled with fuel) from these
requirements. I can tell you right now that
you can't do that, because you're full of
baloney. But that doesn't stop you from
trying to float that baloney as truth in the
hope nobody will shoot it down.
Here's the 2003 updates to the California law,
which includes the major sections:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65law72003.html
And here's where the complete law can be downloaded.
It includes a summary. I suggest doing keyword
searches on "package", "packaging", "refill" etc.
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65Regs.html
Consider your baloney to be shot down.
tert in seattle
>In article <1168767638.4...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "Gregory Morrow" <gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>> > On 13 Jan 2007 21:51:44 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
>> > <gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >As Tart is a regular on chi.general
>> >
>> > how many news groups do you read daily?
>>
>>
>> Lessee...hmmmm....:
>>
>> alt.gossip.celebrities
>> alt.radio.talk.dr-laura
>>
>> chi.general
>> chi.eats
>>
>> rec.food.cooking
>> rec.travel.europe
>> rec.travel.air
>>
>> there are others I 'll check every few days or weekly (ba.food,
>> alt.movies.silent alt.autos.studebaker...), but those above are my
>> daily "dose" of Usenet...
>
>Heh!
>
>I have about 20 or so in my queue, but I only seriously follow 3 of
>them. This one, misc.fitness.weights and tx.guns. I'm fixin' to add a
>fishing group as soon as I do a search for one.
that's all I can say