This is the time of the year when we are all out in the backyard,
tossing steaks and hamburgers on the grill. In the past, news sites
and TV shows have featured stories about how meats can turn cancer-
forming by the grilling process. However, new research shows that
there may be a way to decrease this risk dramatically.

Research published in the Journal of Food Science suggests that
marinating meats may decrease the cancer-forming compounds called
heterocyclic amines (HCA), which are produced during grilling, by a
whopping 70 percent or more.

Three commercial spice-containing marinade blends (caribbean,
southwest, and herb) on round beef steaks were tested by researchers
from Kansas State University on grilled steaks. The steaks were
marinated for one hour and then grilled at 400 degrees Fahrenheit.

The food scientists who published this work found that steaks
marinated in the Caribbean blend produced the highest decrease in HCA
content (88 percent), followed by the herb blend (72 percent) and then
the southwest blend (57 percent).

“Commercial marinades offer spices and herbs which have antioxidants
that help decrease the HCAs formed during grilling,” says Dr. J.S.
Smith, principal researcher at Kansas State University. “The results
from our study have a direct application since more consumers are
interested in healthier cooking.”

Cured meats are another story entirely . . . they have far more cancer
causing agents than meat cooked on the grill.

Dave

Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/

Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
> Three commercial spice-containing marinade blends (caribbean,
> southwest, and herb) on round beef steaks were tested by researchers
> from Kansas State University on grilled steaks. The steaks were
> marinated for one hour and then grilled at 400 degrees Fahrenheit.

Note that the risk from grilled meats is nearly
insignificant. Of course, the blogspot spammer
won't tell you that, because he's trying to use
fear to drive traffic to his commercial blogspot
web site.

Here's a table of relative risks from

http://zoology.muohio.edu/oris/ZOO46...s/15b_462.html

Note how 100 charcoal broiled steaks compares to
40 tablespoons of peanut butter or half liter of wine.
There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about
this risk, when there are so many other risks that
completely dwarf this one. When you put the risk
in perspective, it removes the rational basis for
fear. But then it wouldn't be such a good story
for the spammer to exploit.


Table 12. Risks which increase chance of death by 0.000001

Smoking 1.4 cigarettes -- Cancer, heart disease
Drinking ½ litre of wine -- Cirrhosis of the liver
Spending 1 hour in a coal mine -- Black lung disease
Spending 3 hours in a coal mine -- Accident
Living 2 days in New York or Boston -- Air pollution
Travelling 5 minutes by canoe -- Accident
Travelling 10 miles by bicycle -- Accident
Travelling 300 miles by car -- Accident
Flying 1000 miles by jet -- Accident
Flying 6000 miles by jet -- Cancer caused by
cosmic radiation
Living 2 months in Denver on vacation from
New York -- Cancer caused by cosmic radiation
Living 2 months in average stone or brick building
-- Cancer caused by natural radioactivity
One chest X-ray taken in a good hospital -- Cancer
caused by radiation
Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker -- Cancer,
heart disease
Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter -- Liver
cancer caused by aflatoxin B
Drinking Miami drinking-water for 1 year -- Cancer
caused by chloroform
Drinking 30 12 oz. cans of diet soda -- Cancer
caused by saccharin
Living 5 years at site boundary of a typical nuclear
power plant in the open -- Cancer caused by radiation
Drinking 1000 24 oz. soft drinks from recently banned
plastic bottles -- Cancer from acrylonitrile monomer
Living 20 years near PVC plant -- Cancer caused by
vinyl chloride (1976 standard)
Living 150 years within 20 miles of a nuclear power
plant -- Cancer caused by radiation
Eating 100 charcoal broiled steaks -- Cancer from
benzopyrene
Risk of accident by living within 5 miles of a nuclear
reactor for 50 years -- Cancer caused by radiation

On Jul 30, 10:44*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
>
>
> > Three commercial spice-containing marinade blends (caribbean,
> > southwest, and herb) on round beef steaks were tested by researchers
> > from Kansas State University on grilled steaks. The steaks were
> > marinated for one hour and then grilled at 400 degrees Fahrenheit.
>
> Note that the risk from grilled meats is nearly
> insignificant. *Of course, the blogspot spammer
> won't tell you that, because he's trying to use
> fear to drive traffic to his commercial blogspot
> web site.
>
> Here's a table of relative risks from
>
> http://zoology.muohio.edu/oris/ZOO46...s/15b_462.html
>
> Note how 100 charcoal broiled steaks compares to
> 40 tablespoons of peanut butter or half liter of wine.
> There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about
> this risk, when there are so many other risks that
> completely dwarf this one. *When you put the risk
> in perspective, it removes the rational basis for
> fear. *But then it wouldn't be such a good story
> for the spammer to exploit.
>
> Table 12. Risks which increase chance of death by 0.000001
>
> Smoking 1.4 cigarettes -- Cancer, heart disease
> Drinking ½ litre of wine -- Cirrhosis of the liver
> Spending 1 hour in a coal mine -- Black lung disease
> Spending 3 hours in a coal mine -- Accident
> Living 2 days in New York or Boston -- Air pollution
> Travelling 5 minutes by canoe -- Accident
> Travelling 10 miles by bicycle -- Accident
> Travelling 300 miles by car -- Accident
> Flying 1000 miles by jet -- Accident
> Flying 6000 miles by jet -- Cancer caused by
> cosmic radiation
> Living 2 months in Denver on vacation from
> New York -- Cancer caused by cosmic radiation
> Living 2 months in average stone or brick building
> -- Cancer caused by natural radioactivity
> One chest X-ray taken in a good hospital -- Cancer
> caused by radiation
> Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker -- Cancer,
> heart disease
> Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter -- Liver
> cancer caused by aflatoxin B
> Drinking Miami drinking-water for 1 year -- Cancer
> caused by chloroform
> Drinking 30 12 oz. cans of diet soda -- Cancer
> caused by saccharin
> Living 5 years at site boundary of a typical nuclear
> power plant in the open -- Cancer caused by radiation
> Drinking 1000 24 oz. soft drinks from recently banned
> plastic bottles -- Cancer from acrylonitrile monomer
> Living 20 years near PVC plant -- Cancer caused by
> vinyl chloride (1976 standard)
> Living 150 years within 20 miles of a nuclear power
> plant -- Cancer caused by radiation
> Eating 100 charcoal broiled steaks -- Cancer from
> benzopyrene
> Risk of accident by living within 5 miles of a *nuclear
> reactor for 50 years -- Cancer caused by radiation

Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.

I'm a poster here on Rec.Food just like you. My blog is listed as it
is the source of the article, and it has no ads or commercial content.
Just a compendium of 300+ articles like the one you object to.

It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
of people every year when people like you formulate these products?

You should be ashamed of yourself for objecting to a post about the
genuine risk of cancer from grilled meats. This is based on research
from a legitimate university, with named people, not anonymous posters
like you who don't leave a trace of their identity behind them. Look
at everything of mine, and like the people from Kansas in this
article, I have my full details and biosketch open. Good luck getting
details on "Mark Thorsen, internet policeman"!

Dave

Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
> Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
> pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.

It's not name-calling to call you a spammer.
You are abusing a non-commercial discussion
newsgroup for commercial purposes, and that
makes you a spammer.

> I'm a poster here on Rec.Food just like you. My blog is listed as it
> is the source of the article, and it has no ads or commercial content.
> Just a compendium of 300+ articles like the one you object to.

Your web site has commercial content, as you
admitted when you said in a posting made on
7/21/07:

> On occasion, I will mention a product that
> I am affiliated with, and this is clearly
> presented in the text. That only happens
> in about one out of ten or twelve posts.

You can't spin those words as anything else.
Your web site is commercial, and every time
you plug it in a non-commercial discussion
newsgroup, you are spamming. That makes
you a spammer. It is not name-calling
to correctly identify you as a spammer,
any more than it would be name-calling
to call O.J. Simpson a murderer.

> It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
> can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
> livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
> body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
> of people every year when people like you formulate these products?

I've never worked for a pharmaceutical or chemical
company. Now, it's not name-calling to call
you a LIAR in addition to SPAMMER. You invent
these lies because you can't defend yourself
with truth. You are a dishonest spammer
trying to steal some free advertising for
your Internet-get-rich-quick scheme.
You disgust me with your ignorance, your lies,
your plagiarism, and your crass commercialism.

On Jul 30, 11:03*am, Dave > wrote:

> Cured meats are another story entirely . . . they have far more cancer
> causing agents than meat cooked on the grill.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll eat my meat grilled and my bacon crispy.
I just don't have it in me to worry about cancer.

Cindy Hamilton

On Jul 30, 2:49*pm, Cindy Hamilton >
wrote:
> On Jul 30, 11:03*am, Dave > wrote:
>
> > Cured meats are another story entirely . . . they have far more cancer
> > causing agents than meat cooked on the grill.
>
> Thanks, but no thanks. *I'll eat my meat grilled and my bacon crispy.
> I just don't have it in me to worry about cancer.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Every time you turn around, somebody is banging on the cancer risk
panic button. They've done it over bacon, coffee, sacchran, cell
phones, fried food, grilled food, smoked food, meat, processed meat,
Allar, free radicals, preservatives, plastic water bottles, the sun
and anyone smoking a Chesterfield within a thousand yards of me. They
have screamed Wolf! so many times that I don't even listen to them
anymore. Besides, I'd rather die of cancer at 50 than live to 85 or so
nibbling on raw bean sprouts and organic acorns and living in abject
terror of every other food item in the universe.

Nina wrote:
>
> So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
> hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
> just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
> like Nutrasweet). It's harder to dismiss it all completely. Makes
> you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
> out the odds.

In the U.S., all food additives are regulated by the FDA.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended in 1958,
allows no level of any carcinogenic food additive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaney_clause

You have much greater exposure to natural carcinogens
such as aflatoxins in peanuts and dried corn.

Abe wrote:
>
> >Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
> >> pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.
> >
> >It's not name-calling to call you a spammer.
> >You are abusing a non-commercial discussion
> >newsgroup for commercial purposes, and that
> >makes you a spammer.
> >snip rest of accusations<
> Not being invested in this ****ing contest, I took a look at the blog.
> While he does mention and point to his supplements company in one
> standard sidebar in the blog, none of the articles (and I read them
> all) have a commercial bent to them. You're being a bit too harsh.

You can't be too harsh on spammers. If any spam
is permissable, all spam becomes permissable, and
the non-commercial discussion newsgroups will be
lost in an ocean of spam. I'm not in favor of
unlimited spamming in the newsgroups. Remember
all the spam we were recently receiving for
counterfeit leather goods from China? It'll
be worse than that. There are no good spammers,
there are no innocent spammers.

There are commercial newsgroups where it is
permissible to plug your commercial web site.
Why can't he limit himself to those newsgroups?
It's because he doesn't care about the future
of this newsgroup. He only cares about his own
interests, not the on-line community that has
developed here. He sees it as free advertising
for his business, nothing more.

On Jul 30, 4:53*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Abe wrote:
>
> > >Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
> > >> Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
> > >> pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.
>
> > >It's not name-calling to call you a spammer.
> > >You are abusing a non-commercial discussion
> > >newsgroup for commercial purposes, and that
> > >makes you a spammer.
> > >snip rest of accusations<
> > Not being invested in this ****ing contest, I took a look at the blog.
> > While he does mention and point to his supplements company in one
> > standard sidebar in the blog, none of the articles (and I read them
> > all) have a commercial bent to them. You're being a bit too harsh.
>
> You can't be too harsh on spammers. *If any spam
> is permissable, all spam becomes permissable, and
> the non-commercial discussion newsgroups will be
> lost in an ocean of spam. *I'm not in favor of
> unlimited spamming in the newsgroups. *Remember
> all the spam we were recently receiving for
> counterfeit leather goods from China? *It'll
> be worse than that. *There are no good spammers,
> there are no innocent spammers.
>
> There are commercial newsgroups where it is
> permissible to plug your commercial web site.
> Why can't he limit himself to those newsgroups?
> It's because he doesn't care about the future
> of this newsgroup. *He only cares about his own
> interests, not the on-line community that has
> developed here. *He sees it as free advertising
> for his business, nothing more.

Honestly, Mark, I don't know why this newsgroup puts up with YOU.

You try to control everyone's access to information, claiming "spam"
when you haven't even looked at what I write. I put the entire article
up, not some teaser. The link is there if people want to look at what
I write and what I do, or to see my biosketch. Pure ego, not a "get
rich scheme," because there is nothing sold there. Not even one lonely
Google ad.

But when it comes to you, all is mystery. Good luck finding out
anything about our Internet cop, eh Mark!

Dave

Dave the SPAMMER wrote:
>
> You try to control everyone's access to information, claiming
> "spam" when you haven't even looked at what I write. I put the
> entire article up, not some teaser. The link is there if people
> want to look at what I write and what I do, or to see my
> biosketch. Pure ego, not a "get rich scheme," because there
> is nothing sold there. Not even one lonely Google ad.

Do you deny saying this in a posting made on
7/21/07:

> On occasion, I will mention a product that
> I am affiliated with, and this is clearly
> presented in the text. That only happens
> in about one out of ten or twelve posts.

Certainly, when you promote products you
are "affiliated with", you are advertising.
That makes it a commercial web site, and
it makes you a spammer. Spam has no place
in a non-commercial discussion newsgroup.
When this is pointed out, you respond with
insults and lies. Your behavior is truly
loathesome.

On Jul 30, 6:07*pm, Christopher Helms > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2:49*pm, Cindy Hamilton >
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 11:03*am, Dave > wrote:
>
> > > Cured meats are another story entirely . . . they have far more cancer
> > > causing agents than meat cooked on the grill.
>
> > Thanks, but no thanks. *I'll eat my meat grilled and my bacon crispy.
> > I just don't have it in me to worry about cancer.
>
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Every time you turn around, somebody is banging on the cancer risk
> panic button. They've done it over bacon, coffee, sacchran, cell
> phones, fried food, grilled food, smoked food, meat, processed meat,
> Allar, free radicals, preservatives, plastic water bottles, the sun
> and anyone smoking a Chesterfield within a thousand yards of me. They
> have screamed Wolf! so many times that I don't even listen to them
> anymore. Besides, I'd rather die of cancer at 50 than live to 85 or so
> nibbling on raw bean sprouts and organic acorns and living in abject
> terror of every other food item in the universe.

Well, I've made it past 50. I'll probably die of a heart attack.
Preferably
the one you didn't see coming and weren't aware you were having.
But not just yet, please.

Cindy Hamilton

Nina wrote:

> I don't know. I always said *exactly* that. And then I watched both
> my uncle and my mother die of cancer, just recently, and you really
> kind of don't look at anything the same way ever again.
>
> So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
> hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
> just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
> like Nutrasweet). It's harder to dismiss it all completely. Makes
> you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
> out the odds.
>
> Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but it's hard to get it out of
> your mind when you watch the process.
>
I understand that. After my mom died of pancreatic cancer, I became a
vegetarian for several years. It made me feel like I might have some
control over my destiny. I still do avoid things--and this whole issue
is one reason why my current consumption of sausages (albeit uncured
etc.) is odd. I really need to stop that.

--
Jean B.

On Jul 31, 6:43*am, "Jean B." > wrote:
> Nina wrote:
> > I don't know. *I always said *exactly* that. *And then I watched both
> > my uncle and my mother die of cancer, just recently, and you really
> > kind of don't look at anything the same way ever again.
>
> > So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
> > hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
> > just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
> > like Nutrasweet). *It's harder to dismiss it all completely. *Makes
> > you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
> > out the odds.
>
> > Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but it's hard to get it out of
> > your mind when you watch the process.
>
> I understand that. *After my mom died of pancreatic cancer, I became a
> vegetarian for several years. *It made me feel like I might have some
> control over my destiny. *I still do avoid things--and this whole issue
> is one reason why my current consumption of sausages (albeit uncured
> etc.) is odd. *I really need to stop that.
>
> --
> Jean B.

Jean, the same thing happened to me. My dad died of cancer, in his
early 60's, and so I tried to "clean up my act" for quite some time,
but I've slipped back into most of my old eating habits. I must admit
that I felt the best when I was a veggie -- it was indeed a good,
healthy feeling (perhaps its in the head). But it was impossible when
my family wasn't supporting it, and my wife and son were sitting there
eating a filet mignon and I had a salad in front of me. The family
peer pressure snapped me out of that after about 8 or 9 months.

Still, its funny, but when you mention something about health on RFC,
people ALWAYS come out in support of their poor eating habits. Hey, we
all do it, but it doesn't hurt now and again to at least confront our
eating habits and think about ways that we can improve them for our
own health. I think the problem is, as someone put it in the string
above, that just above everything that tastes good has been nailed by
the health police at one time or another.

Dave

Dave wrote:
> On Jul 31, 6:43 am, "Jean B." > wrote:
>> Nina wrote:
>>> I don't know. I always said *exactly* that. And then I watched both
>>> my uncle and my mother die of cancer, just recently, and you really
>>> kind of don't look at anything the same way ever again.
>>> So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
>>> hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
>>> just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
>>> like Nutrasweet). It's harder to dismiss it all completely. Makes
>>> you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
>>> out the odds.
>>> Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but it's hard to get it out of
>>> your mind when you watch the process.
>> I understand that. After my mom died of pancreatic cancer, I became a
>> vegetarian for several years. It made me feel like I might have some
>> control over my destiny. I still do avoid things--and this whole issue
>> is one reason why my current consumption of sausages (albeit uncured
>> etc.) is odd. I really need to stop that.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
> Jean, the same thing happened to me. My dad died of cancer, in his
> early 60's, and so I tried to "clean up my act" for quite some time,
> but I've slipped back into most of my old eating habits. I must admit
> that I felt the best when I was a veggie -- it was indeed a good,
> healthy feeling (perhaps its in the head). But it was impossible when
> my family wasn't supporting it, and my wife and son were sitting there
> eating a filet mignon and I had a salad in front of me. The family
> peer pressure snapped me out of that after about 8 or 9 months.
>
> Still, its funny, but when you mention something about health on RFC,
> people ALWAYS come out in support of their poor eating habits. Hey, we
> all do it, but it doesn't hurt now and again to at least confront our
> eating habits and think about ways that we can improve them for our
> own health. I think the problem is, as someone put it in the string
> above, that just above everything that tastes good has been nailed by
> the health police at one time or another.
>
> Dave

Well, I agree with all of this--and I still think I should get back to
more of a straight and narrow diet.... Actually, I could do that and
lose weight too, I guess. Mostly fruits and veggies. Grains and
legumes. I think the way we eat has little to do with what our bodies
actually require now.

Your family made a healthier way of eating difficult for you just as my
daughter makes it hard for me. Her eating habits aren't excatly My
ideal, to say the least. And there is food here for her and her friends....

--
Jean B.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:44:40 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>>
>> Three commercial spice-containing marinade blends (caribbean,
>> southwest, and herb) on round beef steaks were tested by researchers
>> from Kansas State University on grilled steaks. The steaks were
>> marinated for one hour and then grilled at 400 degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>Note that the risk from grilled meats is nearly
>insignificant. Of course, the blogspot spammer
>won't tell you that, because he's trying to use
>fear to drive traffic to his commercial blogspot
>web site.
>
>Here's a table of relative risks from
>
>http://zoology.muohio.edu/oris/ZOO46...s/15b_462.html
>
>Note how 100 charcoal broiled steaks compares to
>40 tablespoons of peanut butter or half liter of wine.
>There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about
>this risk, when there are so many other risks that
>completely dwarf this one. When you put the risk
>in perspective, it removes the rational basis for
>fear. But then it wouldn't be such a good story
>for the spammer to exploit.
>

trepidation is an essential food group for some people.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave >
wrote:

>On Jul 30, 10:44*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>>
>
>It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
>can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
>livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
>body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
>of people every year when people like you formulate these products?
>

mark thorson is a chemical industry tout? most of us here think he's
even more of a nervous nellie than you appear to be.

blake

On Jul 31, 10:24*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave >
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 30, 10:44*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >> Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
> >It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
> >can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
> >livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
> >body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
> >of people every year when people like you formulate these products?
>
> mark thorson is a chemical industry tout? *most of us here think he's
> even more of a nervous nellie than you appear to be.
>
> blake

Blake, read his posts in other newsgroups, in the chemical groups.
I'll admit that most of what Mark says on this forum has value. But in
some newsgroups his comments are primarily name calling and flames.
I'm ashamed to admit that I will follow suit when attacked - and this
forum deserves more than that. Sorry.

Dave

Dave tthe SPAMMER wrote:
>
> Blake, read his posts in other newsgroups, in the chemical groups.
> I'll admit that most of what Mark says on this forum has value. But in
> some newsgroups his comments are primarily name calling and flames.
> I'm ashamed to admit that I will follow suit when attacked - and this
> forum deserves more than that. Sorry.

What you term "name-calling" is objecting to spammers
touting their multi-level marketing schemes or
commercial web sites. You obviously consider
spamming to be a noble profession, but I consider
such people to be like the people who litter in
National Parks. They are polluting a space owned
in common by all of the people. You are one of these
polluters. It is not name-calling to correctly
identify you as a spammer when you plug your commercial
blogspot web site in a non-commercial discussion
newsgroup.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave >
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 30, 10:44 am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >> Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
> >
> >It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
> >can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
> >livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
> >body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
> >of people every year when people like you formulate these products?
>
> mark thorson is a chemical industry tout? most of us here think he's
> even more of a nervous nellie than you appear to be.

That's one of lies Dave uses against me in the
alternative medicine newsgroup, where such
characterization is considered a great smear.
Of course, in this newsgroup, that characterization
is not much more damning than being accused of
being an accountant or a system administrator.
The spammer has gotten so familiar with this lie
that he fails to realize it doesn't have any
traction when used in a newsgroup populated
by normal people. If he could think of a better
lie, I'm sure he'd use it. Perhaps he'll accuse
me of working for Olive Garden or Starbucks.

He invents these lies because he needs some kind
of distraction to pull the spotlight off his
spamming activities. His strategy is to attack
the critic, not the criticism. This is one of
two lines of evidence which leads me to suspect
he may be a Scientologist, but I will not make
that accusation without a reasonable degree of
certainty that it is true.

On Jul 31, 11:07*am, Dave > wrote:

> Still, its funny, but when you mention something about health on RFC,
> people ALWAYS come out in support of their poor eating habits. Hey, we
> all do it, but it doesn't hurt now and again to at least confront our
> eating habits and think about ways that we can improve them for our
> own health. I think the problem is, as someone put it in the string
> above, that just above everything that tastes good has been nailed by
> the health police at one time or another.

Well, we don't like to be lectured at or condescended to. You come
off
as more than a little self-righteous, and it makes us defensive.

Screw it. I'm going to eat what I enjoy. If I get colon cancer from
the
occasional piece of bacon or seared steak, there's always the 9mm
retirement plan. Nobody leaves the planet alive, no matter how much
self-denial they practice at the table.

Here's the thing. If you die at age 50 rather than at age 90, you're
still
just as dead. Once it's done, you don't know the difference.

Cindy Hamilton

Dave wrote:

<<read his posts in other newsgroups>>

I skimmed a few and he seems to be a strong voice for rationality.
I'm sure an alternative medicine newsgroup needs just that and hates
it all the more. Go Mark!

On Jul 31, 12:46*pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> <<read his posts in other newsgroups>>
>
> I skimmed a few and he seems to be a strong voice for rationality.
> I'm sure an alternative medicine newsgroup needs just that and hates
> it all the more. *Go Mark!

Hey Greg -- Check out his line above, where he starts bringing in some
religion to the group, and tell me if that sounds rational? Here's
what he said,

"His strategy is to attack the critic, not the criticism. This is one
of two lines of evidence which leads me to suspect he may be a
Scientologist, but I will not make that accusation without a
reasonable degree of certainty that it is true."

He sounds so reasonable here, doesn't he? But why in God's name (of
any religion, pick one - personally, I'm not a scientologist) would he
bring "religion" into a newsgroup discussion about foods?? That's just
a part of Mark's agenda. If he thinks that calling someone a religious
name is going to "smear" them, he begins it quietly, with so much
grace. He certainly wouldn't do anything "without a reasonable degree
of certainty that it is true." And yet, as you watch here, if the
discussion continues, it will move from there into other areas of
strange, strange attacks.

Mark has literally been kicked off of newsgroups because of his attack
dog posture. Here, on this forum (must be one of his favorites), he
starts slowly, with smears that begin as insinuations of religion, and
then he will move from that into other categories of smear, but oh so
gracefully . . .

Dave

Dave wrote:

<<would he bring "religion" into a newsgroup discussion about foods??
>>

I'm not sure you can call Scientology a religion, something I assume
you agree with since you use the scare quotes. But overall, I think
his remark amusing, since he draws an allusion to Scientology's
tendency to attack the person, rather than what they say.

Regardless, getting thrown off newsgroups isn't necessarily shameful;
people that are immersed in woo get really annoyed when you ask for
evidence. I frequently hear that creationist sites, such as Uncommon
Descent, will instantly ban you if you disagree with the moderator,
and delete all your posts. It's sorta become a badge of honor.

BTW, I noticed that you made no attempt to refute the data he posted
in response to your original post. That leads me to believe that you
consider it accurate.

Dave the SPAMMER wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 12:46 pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> > <<read his posts in other newsgroups>>
> >
> > I skimmed a few and he seems to be a strong voice for rationality.
> > I'm sure an alternative medicine newsgroup needs just that and hates
> > it all the more. Go Mark!
>
> Hey Greg -- Check out his line above, where he starts bringing in some
> religion to the group, and tell me if that sounds rational? Here's
> what he said,
>
> "His strategy is to attack the critic, not the criticism. This is one
> of two lines of evidence which leads me to suspect he may be a
> Scientologist, but I will not make that accusation without a
> reasonable degree of certainty that it is true."

Which is exactly true. Instead of responding to the
criticism, you attack the critic (me). This is exactly
what L. Ron Hubbard advised his minions to do.

> He sounds so reasonable here, doesn't he? But why in God's name (of
> any religion, pick one - personally, I'm not a scientologist) would he
> bring "religion" into a newsgroup discussion about foods?? That's just

If you deny being a Scientologist, I will accept that
at face value, in the absence of other information,
as I always do. That's why I did not make that
accusation, even when you launched damning untrue
accusations against me. Despite your behavior,
I adhere to a higher standard of evidence than you do.

> a part of Mark's agenda. If he thinks that calling someone a religious
> name is going to "smear" them, he begins it quietly, with so much
> grace. He certainly wouldn't do anything "without a reasonable degree
> of certainty that it is true." And yet, as you watch here, if the
> discussion continues, it will move from there into other areas of
> strange, strange attacks.

Uh huh. We know me. We don't know you.
Except from your spamming postings
to a non-commercial discussion newsgroup.

> Mark has literally been kicked off of newsgroups because of his attack

Name one such newsgroup. You LIAR!

You have no interest in posting to any newsgroup
except to drive traffic to your commercial blogspot
web site. You deserve no respect as a source
of information for anything, much less anything
relevant to this newsgroup.

On Jul 31, 2:11*pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
Greg wrote:

> BTW, I noticed that you made no attempt to refute the data he posted
> in response to your original post. *That leads me to believe that you
> consider it accurate.

As I mentioned, some of what Mark says is valuable, but he ends up
losing friends everywhere he goes because he tries to censor others.
Just another usenet bully, and there are a lot of those. In the case
of his data posted in response to my original, it all got lost in the
fact that he started into his name-calling again. Actually, I'd seen
that listed posted before on the Internet, probably by Mark. Is it
accurate? In the case of cancer, WHO KNOWS. Cancer is still a great
big mystery box. Personally, I'd take the word of researchers from
Kansas State University (they know about grilled meat in Kansas!) over
some list of information provided by a Usenet poster who makes mixed
accusations of spam or scientology (take your pick) every where he
goes.

Dave

On Jul 31, 2:11*pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
Greg wrote:

> BTW, I noticed that you made no attempt to refute the data he posted
> in response to your original post. *That leads me to believe that you
> consider it accurate.

No, not at all . . . I report on health news. So, if this list of
Mark's came out tomorrow in a new press release with updated facts and
peer-reviewed science behind it, I'd report THAT list. In the world of
cancer research, I've become used to the fact that Doc's never agree
with one another. As someone else said better than I in this thread
earlier, no one can agree on what causes cancer and what doesn't. At
some point, you have to think that it is the LABORATORY that gives
laboratory rats cancer.

I'd tend to place a high regard on people at Kansas State University,
though, as they know an awful lot about grilled meats in Kansas! Ever
eaten any Kansas City BBQ? They probably have state government funding
for their research on marinades in Kansas, of all places.

Actually, what you point out IS a problem with Mark. Because he comes
up with generally valid comments, but covers them in oddball
accusations of (pick one) "spam" or "scientology", you get distracted
from his message by the name calling. He's done this for years.

Dave

Dave the SPAMMER wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2:11 pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> Greg wrote:
>
> > BTW, I noticed that you made no attempt to refute the data he posted
> > in response to your original post. That leads me to believe that you
> > consider it accurate.
>
> As I mentioned, some of what Mark says is valuable, but he ends up
> losing friends everywhere he goes because he tries to censor others.
> Just another usenet bully, and there are a lot of those. In the case

What the spammer calls "bully" is pointing out that
he doesn't always write his own material. He follows
the blogspot model of stealing content, posting it to his
blogspot web site under his own name, and collecting the
credit and profits for doing it. A very unwholesome
business model, indeed.

And when he's called out on it, he goes ballistic.
He responds with insults and lies.

Here is a typical example, interspersed with my comments.
Quotes from his plagiarized posting are preceded with "> ".
My comments are in square brackets [ ].

The original source article that was plagiarized is he

http://news.emory.edu/Releases/dolph...198011396.html

The remaining quotes without the "> " are from that web page.


Dave the SPAMMER wrote in a posting on 12/19/07:
>
> There are some really weird therapies out there on the nutty
> side of alternative healthcare. One of these strange alternative
> therapies is "Dolphin therapy," and it has recently been
> called a dangerous fad by Emery researchers who warn us that
> not only is this a fraud being perpetrated on people who are
> often quite ill, the practice mistreats these animals who have
> no desire to be rounded up and used as "therapy" for humans.

[That's Emory University, of course.]

> These Emery scientsts say that people suffering from chronic
> mental or physical disabilities should NOT resort to a
> dolphin-assisted therapy experience, or what is often
> referred to as DAT. "Dolphin-assisted therapy is not
> a valid treatment for any disorder," says Lori Marino,
> a leading dolphin and whale researcher. "We want to get
> the word out that it's a lose-lose situation, both
> for people and for dolphins."

People suffering from chronic mental or physical disabilities
should not resort to a dolphin "healing" experience, warn two
researchers from Emory University.

"Dolphin-assisted therapy is not a valid treatment for any
disorder," says Marino, a leading dolphin and whale researcher.
"We want to get the word out that it's a lose-lose situation
-- for people and for dolphins."

> Doesn't swimming with dolphins sound like a great thing
> to do, and possiblly even therapeutic? However, no scientific
> evidence exists for any benefit from DAT. People who spend
> thousands of dollars for DAT don't just lose out financially,
> they put themselves, and the dolphin, at risk of injury or
> infection. And they are supporting an industry that takes
> dolphins from the wild in a brutal process that often
> leaves several dolphins dead for every surviving captive.

While swimming with dolphins may be a fun, novel experience,
no scientific evidence exists for any long-term benefit from
DAT, Marino says. She adds that people who spend thousands
of dollars for DAT don't just lose out financially - they put
themselves, and the dolphin, at risk of injury or infection.
And they are supporting an industry that - outside of the
United States - takes dolphins from the wild in a brutal
process that often leaves several dolphins dead for every
surviving captive.

> Marino her colleagues at Emery reviewed five studies
> published during the past eight years and found that
> the claims for efficacy for DAT were invalid. Their
> conclusions were published recently in Anthrozoology,
> the journal of the International Society for
> Anthrozoology, in a paper entitled "Dolphin-Assisted
> Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions."

Marino and Lilienfeld [at Emory University] reviewed
five studies published during the past eight years and
found that the claims for efficacy for DAT were invalid.
Their conclusions were published recently in Anthrozoology,
the journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology,
in a paper entitled "Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed
Data and More Flawed Conclusions."

> While Marino is against taking dolphins from
> the wild and holding them captive for any purpose,
> she finds DAT especially egregious, because
> the people who are being exploited are the most
> vulnerable--including desperate parents who are
> willing to try anything to help a child with
> a disability. Many people are under the impression
> that dolphins would never harm a human. "In reality,
> injury is a very real possibility when you place
> a child in a tank with a 400-pound wild animal that
> may be traumatized from being captured," Marino says.

While Marino is against taking dolphins from the wild
and holding them captive for any purpose, she finds DAT
especially egregious, because the people who are being
exploited are the most vulnerable - including desperate
parents who are willing to try anything to help a child
with a disability.

Many people are under the impression that dolphins would
never harm a human. "In reality, injury is a very real
possibility when you place a child in a tank with a
400-pound wild animal that may be traumatized from
being captured," Marino says.

> In some countries dolphins are often taken from
> the wild. "If people knew how these animals were
> captured, I don't think they would want swim with
> them in a tank or participate in DAT," Marino says,
> referring to an annual "dolphin drive" in Japan.

Dolphins are bred in captivity in U.S. marine parks,
but in other countries they are often taken from the wild.
"If people knew how these animals were captured, I don't
think they would want to swim with them in a tank or
participate in DAT," Marino says, referring to an annual
"dolphin drive" in Japan.

> "During the Japanese dolphin drives, hundreds
> of animals are killed, or panicked and die of
> heart attacks, in water that's red with their
> blood, while trainers from facilities around
> the world pick out young animals for their
> marine parks. They hoist them out of the water,
> sometimes by their tail flukes, and take them
> away." Each live dolphin can bring a fisherman
> $50,000 or more.

"During the dolphin drives hundreds of animals are killed,
or panicked and die of heart attacks, in water that's red
with their blood, while trainers from facilities around
the world pick out young animals for their marine parks.
They hoist them out of the water, sometimes by their
tail flukes, and take them away." Each live dolphin can
bring a fisherman $50,000 or more, she says.

> Dolphins appear to be one of the most loved
> --and most exploited-- animals in the world.

[Exploited by a spammer trying to drive traffic to his
commercial blogspot web site, yes.]

Emory University is one of the nation's leading private
research universities and a member of the Association
of American Universities. Known for its demanding
academics, outstanding undergraduate college of arts
and sciences, highly ranked professional schools and
state-of-the-art research facilities, Emory is ranked
as one of the country's top 20 national universities
by U.S. News & World Report. In addition to its nine
schools, the university encompasses The Carter Center,
Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Emory
Healthcare, the state's largest and most comprehensive
health care system.

Dave the SPAMMER wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2:11 pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> Greg wrote:
>
> > BTW, I noticed that you made no attempt to refute the data he posted
> > in response to your original post. That leads me to believe that you
> > consider it accurate.
>
> No, not at all . . . I report on health news. So, if this list of

Report? The SPAMMER does not "report".

The SPAMMER follows the blogspot model of stealing
content, posting it to his blogspot web site, then
touting it in non-commercial discussion newsgroups.

On Jul 31, 8:51*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Dave the SPAMMER wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 2:11 pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> > Greg wrote:
>
> > > BTW, I noticed that you made no attempt to refute the data he posted
> > > in response to your original post. *That leads me to believe that you
> > > consider it accurate.
>
> > No, not at all . . . I report on health news. So, if this list of
>
> Report? *The SPAMMER does not "report".
>
> The SPAMMER follows the blogspot model of stealing
> content, posting it to his blogspot web site, then
> touting it in non-commercial discussion newsgroups.

Mark, you are as loony as the day is long.

Ever hear the word "Press Release"? Press releases show up as written,
or modified slightly, on hundreds of sites. The one you point out is
just such a case. Spending the time you do to research and plan out
your attacks proves that you've gone over the top. I am sure there is
someone who loves you who is very concerned.

Dave

Dave wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 8:51 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > Dave the SPAMMER wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 31, 2:11 pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> > > Greg wrote:
> >
> > > > BTW, I noticed that you made no attempt to refute the data he posted
> > > > in response to your original post. That leads me to believe that you
> > > > consider it accurate.
> >
> > > No, not at all . . . I report on health news. So, if this list of
> >
> > Report? The SPAMMER does not "report".
> >
> > The SPAMMER follows the blogspot model of stealing
> > content, posting it to his blogspot web site, then
> > touting it in non-commercial discussion newsgroups.
>
> Mark, you are as loony as the day is long.

Just because you say so? No evidence, of course.

I like the saying:

In God we trust, everybody else, bring data.

ARR YOU NOW DENYING YOU WROTE THIS STUFF, SPAMMER:


http://news.emory.edu/Releases/dolph...198011396.html

The remaining quotes without the "> " are from that web page.


Dave the SPAMMER wrote in a posting on 12/19/07:
>
> There are some really weird therapies out there on the nutty
> side of alternative healthcare. One of these strange alternative
> therapies is "Dolphin therapy," and it has recently been
> called a dangerous fad by Emery researchers who warn us that
> not only is this a fraud being perpetrated on people who are
> often quite ill, the practice mistreats these animals who have
> no desire to be rounded up and used as "therapy" for humans.

[That's Emory University, of course.]

> These Emery scientsts say that people suffering from chronic
> mental or physical disabilities should NOT resort to a
> dolphin-assisted therapy experience, or what is often
> referred to as DAT. "Dolphin-assisted therapy is not
> a valid treatment for any disorder," says Lori Marino,
> a leading dolphin and whale researcher. "We want to get
> the word out that it's a lose-lose situation, both
> for people and for dolphins."

People suffering from chronic mental or physical disabilities
should not resort to a dolphin "healing" experience, warn two
researchers from Emory University.

"Dolphin-assisted therapy is not a valid treatment for any
disorder," says Marino, a leading dolphin and whale researcher.
"We want to get the word out that it's a lose-lose situation
-- for people and for dolphins."

> Doesn't swimming with dolphins sound like a great thing
> to do, and possiblly even therapeutic? However, no scientific
> evidence exists for any benefit from DAT. People who spend
> thousands of dollars for DAT don't just lose out financially,
> they put themselves, and the dolphin, at risk of injury or
> infection. And they are supporting an industry that takes
> dolphins from the wild in a brutal process that often
> leaves several dolphins dead for every surviving captive.

While swimming with dolphins may be a fun, novel experience,
no scientific evidence exists for any long-term benefit from
DAT, Marino says. She adds that people who spend thousands
of dollars for DAT don't just lose out financially - they put
themselves, and the dolphin, at risk of injury or infection.
And they are supporting an industry that - outside of the
United States - takes dolphins from the wild in a brutal
process that often leaves several dolphins dead for every
surviving captive.

> Marino her colleagues at Emery reviewed five studies
> published during the past eight years and found that
> the claims for efficacy for DAT were invalid. Their
> conclusions were published recently in Anthrozoology,
> the journal of the International Society for
> Anthrozoology, in a paper entitled "Dolphin-Assisted
> Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions."

Marino and Lilienfeld [at Emory University] reviewed
five studies published during the past eight years and
found that the claims for efficacy for DAT were invalid.
Their conclusions were published recently in Anthrozoology,
the journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology,
in a paper entitled "Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed
Data and More Flawed Conclusions."

> While Marino is against taking dolphins from
> the wild and holding them captive for any purpose,
> she finds DAT especially egregious, because
> the people who are being exploited are the most
> vulnerable--including desperate parents who are
> willing to try anything to help a child with
> a disability. Many people are under the impression
> that dolphins would never harm a human. "In reality,
> injury is a very real possibility when you place
> a child in a tank with a 400-pound wild animal that
> may be traumatized from being captured," Marino says.

While Marino is against taking dolphins from the wild
and holding them captive for any purpose, she finds DAT
especially egregious, because the people who are being
exploited are the most vulnerable - including desperate
parents who are willing to try anything to help a child
with a disability.

Many people are under the impression that dolphins would
never harm a human. "In reality, injury is a very real
possibility when you place a child in a tank with a
400-pound wild animal that may be traumatized from
being captured," Marino says.

> In some countries dolphins are often taken from
> the wild. "If people knew how these animals were
> captured, I don't think they would want swim with
> them in a tank or participate in DAT," Marino says,
> referring to an annual "dolphin drive" in Japan.

Dolphins are bred in captivity in U.S. marine parks,
but in other countries they are often taken from the wild.
"If people knew how these animals were captured, I don't
think they would want to swim with them in a tank or
participate in DAT," Marino says, referring to an annual
"dolphin drive" in Japan.

> "During the Japanese dolphin drives, hundreds
> of animals are killed, or panicked and die of
> heart attacks, in water that's red with their
> blood, while trainers from facilities around
> the world pick out young animals for their
> marine parks. They hoist them out of the water,
> sometimes by their tail flukes, and take them
> away." Each live dolphin can bring a fisherman
> $50,000 or more.

"During the dolphin drives hundreds of animals are killed,
or panicked and die of heart attacks, in water that's red
with their blood, while trainers from facilities around
the world pick out young animals for their marine parks.
They hoist them out of the water, sometimes by their
tail flukes, and take them away." Each live dolphin can
bring a fisherman $50,000 or more, she says.

> Dolphins appear to be one of the most loved
> --and most exploited-- animals in the world.

[Exploited by a spammer trying to drive traffic to his
commercial blogspot web site, yes.]

Emory University is one of the nation's leading private
research universities and a member of the Association
of American Universities. Known for its demanding
academics, outstanding undergraduate college of arts
and sciences, highly ranked professional schools and
state-of-the-art research facilities, Emory is ranked
as one of the country's top 20 national universities
by U.S. News & World Report. In addition to its nine
schools, the university encompasses The Carter Center,
Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Emory
Healthcare, the state's largest and most comprehensive
health care system.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:35:28 -0700 (PDT), Dave wrote:

> On Jul 31, 10:24*am, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 30, 10:44*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>>> Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>>
>>>It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
>>>can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
>>>livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
>>>body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
>>>of people every year when people like you formulate these products?
>>
>> mark thorson is a chemical industry tout? *most of us here think he's
>> even more of a nervous nellie than you appear to be.
>>
>> blake
>
> Blake, read his posts in other newsgroups, in the chemical groups.
> I'll admit that most of what Mark says on this forum has value. But in
> some newsgroups his comments are primarily name calling and flames.
> I'm ashamed to admit that I will follow suit when attacked - and this
> forum deserves more than that. Sorry.
>
> Dave

well, i don't know if he's shananagagging in other groups, but he sure
seems anti-chemical here. maybe i should get out more.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:35:28 -0700 (PDT), Dave wrote:
>
> > Blake, read his posts in other newsgroups, in the chemical groups.
> > I'll admit that most of what Mark says on this forum has value. But in
> > some newsgroups his comments are primarily name calling and flames.
> > I'm ashamed to admit that I will follow suit when attacked - and this
> > forum deserves more than that. Sorry.
>
> well, i don't know if he's shananagagging in other groups, but
> he sure seems anti-chemical here. maybe i should get out more.

It's just an extension of his smear campaign
against me, in retaliation for pointing out the
inappropriateness of his spamming to non-commercial
discussion newsgroups. It enrages him that I've
shot down his Internet-get-rich-quick scheme.

He doesn't usually read this newsgroup, unless
he's recently posted one of his advertisements
for his blogspot web site. That's why he isn't
familiar with my posting history here.

On Aug 2, 5:47*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:35:28 -0700 (PDT), Dave wrote:
>
> > > Blake, read his posts in other newsgroups, in the chemical groups.
> > > I'll admit that most of what Mark says on this forum has value. But in
> > > some newsgroups his comments are primarily name calling and flames.
> > > I'm ashamed to admit that I will follow suit when attacked - and this
> > > forum deserves more than that. Sorry.
>
> > well, i don't know if he's shananagagging in other groups, but
> > he sure seems anti-chemical here. *maybe i should get out more.
>
> It's just an extension of his smear campaign
> against me, in retaliation for pointing out the
> inappropriateness of his spamming to non-commercial
> discussion newsgroups. *It enrages him that I've
> shot down his Internet-get-rich-quick scheme.
>
> He doesn't usually read this newsgroup, unless
> he's recently posted one of his advertisements
> for his blogspot web site. *That's why he isn't
> familiar with my posting history here.

Mark,

I've been reading this discussion and posting here for a long time.

I have no smear campaign against you -- just don't attack me, and I
won't attack you. How's that sound? I won't discuss your background on
other groups, and you don't need to call me names. It'll all work out.
I'm not a spammer or a scientologist, thanks.

Dave

Dave wrote:
>
> I have no smear campaign against you -- just don't attack me, and I
> won't attack you. How's that sound? I won't discuss your background on
> other groups, and you don't need to call me names. It'll all work out.
> I'm not a spammer or a scientologist, thanks.

You are a spammer. Every time you plug your commercial
blogspot web site in a non-commercial discussion
newsgroup, you spam. Stop doing that, and I'll stop
identifying you as a spammer.

I'll take you at your word that you're not the
same Dave Jensen who was taking courses at
Scientology headquarters in Clearwater, FL.

On Aug 3, 1:05*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > I have no smear campaign against you -- just don't attack me, and I
> > won't attack you. How's that sound? I won't discuss your background on
> > other groups, and you don't need to call me names. It'll all work out.
> > I'm not a spammer or a scientologist, thanks.
>
> You are a spammer. *Every time you plug your commercial
> blogspot web site in a non-commercial discussion
> newsgroup, you spam. *Stop doing that, and I'll stop
> identifying you as a spammer.
>
> I'll take you at your word that you're not the
> same Dave Jensen who was taking courses at
> Scientology headquarters in Clearwater, FL.

Oh, man, you are truly a sick puppy. Well, Mark, I'll take you for
your word that you aren't the Mark Thorson who worked for Dupont from
1986-1993, Merck from 1993 to 1997, Monsanto from 1997 to 2001, and
who is now a well known internet troll and troublemaker? You've had a
totally different persona on this newsgroup than others. Is it
upsetting to you that your "other Mark" is coming to roost here, as
well? Well then, stop attacking me.

When I read posts like the one above, where you basically take an
olive branch offered you and turn it around to poke my eye out, I am
confused by your interchangeable use of "spam" and "religion." In your
eyes, I'm a jerk because I am either a "spammer" or a "scientoligist."
Do you also harass Catholics Mark? How about Jewish people? Just where
does your internet policeman job end? Why do people have to live under
YOUR guidelines, anyway, whether it is in what they read, or in their
religion? I think you are carrying your grudges a bit too far. As I
said before, someone must care about you. I hope they pull the plug on
the hours you spend in research trying to nail me and other people you
don't like for religious or other reasons.

Anytime I've offered to stop the flames, you just start 'em up once
again. What a strange creature of the 'net you are sir.

Dave

Dave the blogpost SPAMMER wrote:
>
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> > > I have no smear campaign against you -- just don't attack me, and I
> > > won't attack you. How's that sound? I won't discuss your background on
> > > other groups, and you don't need to call me names. It'll all work out.
> > > I'm not a spammer or a scientologist, thanks.
> >
> Do you also harass Catholics Mark? How about Jewish people? Just where

You indeed are pulling every trick in the book
to smear me -- attack the critic, not the criticism.

And for what? For correctly identifying you
as a spammer. You just go ballistic whenever
people object to you posting commercial advertisements
to non-commercial discussion newsgroups.
Your behavior is truly loathesome, spammer.

Dave the blogpost SPAMMER wrote:
>
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> > > I have no smear campaign against you -- just don't attack me, and I
> > > won't attack you. How's that sound? I won't discuss your background on
> > > other groups, and you don't need to call me names. It'll all work out.
> > > I'm not a spammer or a scientologist, thanks.
> >
> Do you also harass Catholics Mark? How about Jewish people? Just where

You indeed are pulling every trick in the book
to smear me -- attack the critic, not the criticism.

And for what? For correctly identifying you
as a spammer. You just go ballistic whenever
people object to you posting commercial advertisements
to non-commercial discussion newsgroups.
Your behavior is truly loathesome, spammer.

On Aug 3, 2:48*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Dave the blogpost SPAMMER wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Dave wrote:
>
> > > > I have no smear campaign against you -- just don't attack me, and I
> > > > won't attack you. How's that sound? I won't discuss your background on
> > > > other groups, and you don't need to call me names. It'll all work out.
> > > > I'm not a spammer or a scientologist, thanks.
>
> > Do you also harass Catholics Mark? How about Jewish people? Just where
>
> You indeed are pulling every trick in the book
> to smear me -- attack the critic, not the criticism.
>
> And for what? *For correctly identifying you
> as a spammer. *You just go ballistic whenever
> people object to you posting commercial advertisements
> to non-commercial discussion newsgroups.
> Your behavior is truly loathesome, spammer.

Mark, spammers are people who fill newsgroups or your email inbox with
commercial messages or trash. They are people who fly from ISP to ISP,
always seeking new ground because they are invisible. You have no idea
who they are and they are as fleeting as shadows.

Based upon the amount of garbage "attack posts" that you spew into the
usenet, you are one of the larger spammers in the system. As an
example, you double posted your last remarks just for effect, so we
all get to see it twice. And, just like the worst of the spam artists,
you are totally invisible. Unlike me -- you know who I am, where I
live, and if you really, really wanted to do something about it Mark,
you'll come and get me. And that's why, some time back when your
attacks across various forums turned toward religion, my family and I
made a formal record with our local police department that you were
stalking us. Stay away from us Mr. Thorson. I am not one of your
dreaded scientologists, and I am not Jewish. My family does not fall
into the "usual" Thorson attack stereotypes

D.

Dave the SPAMMER wrote:
>
> Mark, spammers are people who fill newsgroups or your email inbox with
> commercial messages or trash. They are people who fly from ISP to ISP,
> always seeking new ground because they are invisible. You have no idea
> who they are and they are as fleeting as shadows.

No, anyone who posts commercial advertisements in
non-commercial discussion newsgroups is a spammer.

It could be an Herbalife spammer, an Amway spammer,
or someone posting links to their commerical blogspot
web site -- they are all spammers and equally bad.