Peter A wrote:

> Your post is full of 7th grade level "clever" comebacks but completely
> empty of substance. Congratulations.

Thanks for re-posting its entirety. You're welcome.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article >, says...
> Peter A wrote:
>
> > Your post is full of 7th grade level "clever" comebacks but completely
> > empty of substance. Congratulations.
>
> Thanks for re-posting its entirety. You're welcome.
>

Yet another response that reveals your ignorance and shallowness.
Perhaps you can ROTFLMAO yet again to try to convince yourself that you
are clever.

--
Peter Aitken

Steve Wertz wrote:

> One could make a case, possibly using the Americans With
> Disabilities Act, that a person with no sense of smell could not
> determine if the meat was edible or not. Especially since
> freshness dating is completely voluntary and arbitrary.
>
> My ex had no sense of smell. She got to clean out all the mystery
> containers in the fridge.
>
> -sw
Doesn't hold water in the sense that many perfectly normal smelling and
appearing foods can contain pathogens.

Peter A wrote:
> In article >, says...
>> Peter A wrote:
>>
>>> Your post is full of 7th grade level "clever" comebacks but
>>> completely empty of substance. Congratulations.
>>
>> Thanks for re-posting its entirety. You're welcome.
>>
>
> Yet another response that reveals your ignorance and shallowness.
> Perhaps you can ROTFLMAO yet again to try to convince yourself that
> you are clever.

I love you, Peter.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:
> All --
>
> Please take a look at this animation that Food and Water Watch issued
> today. Everyone is encouraged to pass along to friends and alert
> their Members of Congress. Thanks.

The CO isn't in the meat, it's in the atmosphere around the meat
inside the package. It keeps the meat from oxidizing. Oxidized
meat doesn't harm you, it just doesn't look all that fresh and
tasty, making it harder to sell.

The CO doesn't harm you either, but it could potentially disguise
"aged" meat. If that bothers you, buy your meat at the butcher
counter. The butcher will let you pick out the cut you like, wrap
it in butcher paper, stick a price on it and hand it to you. Just
meat, no CO, no problem.

Rich

In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:02:53 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The fact that it is still news is the point. Congress needs to end
> >> this practice immediately.
> >
> > Why?
>
> One could make a case, possibly using the Americans With
> Disabilities Act, that a person with no sense of smell could not
> determine if the meat was edible or not. Especially since
> freshness dating is completely voluntary and arbitrary.

Good grief, that is ridiculous. The purpose of the ADA is to prevent
and remedy discrimination against persons with disabilities--- and we're
usually talking public accommodation. The statute is not to be used to
remedy other statutory shortcomings like the failure of the government
to have adequate meat labeling or freshness rules.

In order to qualify as a person with a disability under the ADA regs,
the person must have an impairment that substantially limits at least
one *major* life activity (ie - employment, education). So, first of
all, I doubt that an impaired sense of smell would qualify since it's
unlikely to interfere with a major life activity.

Second, even if such a person was qualified pursuant to statute
(extremely unlikely), you would still need to show that the person with
an impaired sense of smell was unable to determine meat freshness in the
same manner as persons without disabilities. In other words, you'd have
to show that the store's method of noting meat freshness was
discriminatory. And since persons w/o disabilities do not typically rely
upon their sense of smell when purchasing meat, you'd have no case.

But for the sake of outlandish argument, let's assume that smell was the
only method for determining the freshness of fish, for instance, that
smell was the *primary* method used by other customers, and the person
actually qualified as disabled. Then, the person could simply request
(and could expect) the store to make a *reasonable* accommodation. The
ADA isn't going to require a change in all US meat packaging just to
accommodate a single person.


> My ex had no sense of smell. She got to clean out all the mystery
> containers in the fridge.

Rich McCormack wrote:
>
> wrote:
>> All --
>>
>> Please take a look at this animation that Food and Water Watch issued
>> today. Everyone is encouraged to pass along to friends and alert
>> their Members of Congress. Thanks.
>
> The CO isn't in the meat, it's in the atmosphere around the meat
> inside the package. It keeps the meat from oxidizing. Oxidized
> meat doesn't harm you, it just doesn't look all that fresh and
> tasty, making it harder to sell.

Nope, it is absorbed by the meat where it forms carboxyhemoglobin and
carboxymyoglobin (which are bright red, and stable.) All it does is
preserve the color.

Bob

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Nope, it is absorbed by the meat where it forms carboxyhemoglobin and
> carboxymyoglobin (which are bright red, and stable.) All it does is
> preserve the color.

ISTR that carboxyhemoglobin is what causes us to check out after
breathing CO. I have no problem with it in meat. In fact, I would have
no problem with irradiated meat in impermeable film stored on shelves
like bread is. But that's just me.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

Leonard Blaisdell > wrote:

>ISTR that carboxyhemoglobin is what causes us to check out after
>breathing CO.

I think that's right. I remember reading that you can build
up a tolerance to it -- cabbies in cities have up to 22% of the
hemoglobin bound up with CO2, and feel fine, most people
would have passed out.

Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Leonard Blaisdell > wrote:
>
> >ISTR that carboxyhemoglobin is what causes us to check out after
> >breathing CO.
>
> I think that's right. I remember reading that you can build
> up a tolerance to it -- cabbies in cities have up to 22% of the
> hemoglobin bound up with CO2, and feel fine, most people
> would have passed out.
>
> Steve

But I don't believe that _eating_ it will affect you at all?

Please correct me if I am wrong...

Breathing carbon monoxide ties up red blood cells, prevents them from
binding the oxygen we need to live.

It makes your own body create carboxyhemoglobin. We have machines at
work to measure the levels to diagnose Carbon Monoxide poisoning. The
treatment is a mask with LOTS of oxygen.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet > wrote:

> (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Leonard Blaisdell > wrote:

>> >ISTR that carboxyhemoglobin is what causes us to check out after
>> >breathing CO.
>>
>> I think that's right. I remember reading that you can build
>> up a tolerance to it -- cabbies in cities have up to 22% of the
>> hemoglobin bound up with CO2, and feel fine, most people
>> would have passed out.
>
>But I don't believe that _eating_ it will affect you at all?

I am guessing not.

Steve

In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:24:49 -0500, Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> > In order to qualify as a person with a disability under the ADA regs,
> > the person must have an impairment that substantially limits at least
> > one *major* life activity (ie - employment, education). So, first of
> > all, I doubt that an impaired sense of smell would qualify since it's
> > unlikely to interfere with a major life activity.

> You mean like ... eating?

Like I said before, your idea of making an ADA claim because your
ex-wife has an impaired sense of smell, and cannot sniff grocery store
meat, likely has no legs because there is no discrimination. You are
not alone in having mistaken (even ridiculous) notions about the ADA,
though most people don't betray as much insecurity or emotionality in
response to plain facts.

> > Second, even if such a person was qualified pursuant to statute
> > (extremely unlikely), you would still need to show that the person
> > with an impaired sense of smell was unable to determine meat
> > freshness in the same manner as persons without disabilities. In
> > other words, you'd have to show that the store's method of noting
> > meat freshness was discriminatory. And since persons w/o
> > disabilities do not typically rely upon their sense of smell when
> > purchasing meat, you'd have no case.

> [rest snipped unread] You're rants are just too long and boring.