"LifeisGood" > wrote in message news:<vveOc.180202$%_6.80412@attbi_s01>...
> What you fail to address is "why" rapeseed oil was not marketable? And
> "what" rapeseed oil is used for?
>
> Why don't you try the test before you condemn the posting.
> Or, maybe you work for the CANadain OiL compAny (CANOLA), the inventors of
> this GMO'd version of rapeseed oil?
>

Um, no Dear. I worked as a molecular biologist genetically
engineering crops for over 15 years. Canola is the common name for
rapeseed which contains a specific composition (<2% erucic acid and
15umol glucosinolates). Rapeseed/Canola belongs to the genus Brassica
(which includes mustards, cabbage and broccoli) and is one of the
oldest cultivated plants known to man. While there are companies
which do genetically engineer rapeseed, those projects are mainly
directed toward industrial uses of modified oils, as canola is a
healthy oil, naturally.

-L.

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in=20
> :
>=20
>> I bet that's why "pets de nonne" is on all the boxes of little=20
>> pastries in Quebec. Yummy, huh...?
>=20
> Actually, that would be silly...if you were to put pets de nonnes
> on all the pastry boxes in Qu=E9bec you would be definitely be pegged
> as an anglo.
>=20
> Pets de nonnes are only one thing.

Apparently they're more than one thing. Besides the fact that they're=20
a fine, rascally joke, I used to buy them in a little patisserie and=20
they were made to sell. Quebec isn't the only French-speaking place on=20
earth.

But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the belligerence
for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything you've said. I didn't
disagree with anything you said. The principle I elaborated is a basic=20
element of marketing.

> They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
> don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
> yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
> nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?

And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.=20
Nothing to do with prudery.

Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling. I don't really know why
you want to fight about such an obvious subject. Language has
connotations that conjure associations. All languages do. People shy
away from the words and expressions that sponsor unpleasant images or
taboo images or historically hurtful images. People avoid the words
that remind them of pain and injury. People avoid words that trigger=20
embarrassment. It happens in every culture with every language.

>> C'mon, Michel. The word "rape" sounds just like the word "rape."
>> A good way not to sell stuff is to call it something offensive.
>=20
> On the contrary, it is not offensive, only you who sees in it an=20
> offensive sound because you ascribe a single meaning to a word with
> at least two meanings, each very different from the other.

Let's try this again. It doesn't matter how many other meanings the
word has, it always also has the image of a violent crime. Bitch is a
perfectly good word with a useful canine meaning, but not a lot of
people would buy bitch dish detergent. Cock means rooster, but a
package of cock mouthwash would probably only sell to a small=20
demographic. You can't seriously be saying that words don't have=20
impacts. You can't actually be saying that names are irrelevant. That=20
only stupid people would stop and think for a moment before eating=20
"Shit - the tasty chocolate bar."

> It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe" if
> you're from London, or parts of the sound of "cr=EApe"...I leave it
> to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
> removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
> Remind me to yawn when you report back.

I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't like.

Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
reasons that rape seed isn't salable.

Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
certainly know.

I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really=20
wasn't anything to fight about. I guess you needed the practice.

Pastorio

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in=20
> :
>=20
>> I bet that's why "pets de nonne" is on all the boxes of little=20
>> pastries in Quebec. Yummy, huh...?
>=20
> Actually, that would be silly...if you were to put pets de nonnes
> on all the pastry boxes in Qu=E9bec you would be definitely be pegged
> as an anglo.
>=20
> Pets de nonnes are only one thing.

Apparently they're more than one thing. Besides the fact that they're=20
a fine, rascally joke, I used to buy them in a little patisserie and=20
they were made to sell. Quebec isn't the only French-speaking place on=20
earth.

But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the belligerence
for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything you've said. I didn't
disagree with anything you said. The principle I elaborated is a basic=20
element of marketing.

> They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
> don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
> yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
> nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?

And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.=20
Nothing to do with prudery.

Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling. I don't really know why
you want to fight about such an obvious subject. Language has
connotations that conjure associations. All languages do. People shy
away from the words and expressions that sponsor unpleasant images or
taboo images or historically hurtful images. People avoid the words
that remind them of pain and injury. People avoid words that trigger=20
embarrassment. It happens in every culture with every language.

>> C'mon, Michel. The word "rape" sounds just like the word "rape."
>> A good way not to sell stuff is to call it something offensive.
>=20
> On the contrary, it is not offensive, only you who sees in it an=20
> offensive sound because you ascribe a single meaning to a word with
> at least two meanings, each very different from the other.

Let's try this again. It doesn't matter how many other meanings the
word has, it always also has the image of a violent crime. Bitch is a
perfectly good word with a useful canine meaning, but not a lot of
people would buy bitch dish detergent. Cock means rooster, but a
package of cock mouthwash would probably only sell to a small=20
demographic. You can't seriously be saying that words don't have=20
impacts. You can't actually be saying that names are irrelevant. That=20
only stupid people would stop and think for a moment before eating=20
"Shit - the tasty chocolate bar."

> It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe" if
> you're from London, or parts of the sound of "cr=EApe"...I leave it
> to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
> removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
> Remind me to yawn when you report back.

I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't like.

Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
reasons that rape seed isn't salable.

Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
certainly know.

I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really=20
wasn't anything to fight about. I guess you needed the practice.

Pastorio

>(hats off and a moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick, 1916-2004)

A grad student who worked with old man on neuroscience in La Jolla informed me
that he was actually a perfect asshole.

>(hats off and a moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick, 1916-2004)

A grad student who worked with old man on neuroscience in La Jolla informed me
that he was actually a perfect asshole.

Bob: I've been watching your amusing reply rants. Talk about insulting. Cool
down man and try to look outside the box.

http://www.whale.to/b/fats.html

Blindness, Mad Cow Disease and Canola Oil by John Thomas


Bob (this one) > wrote in message
...
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
> > It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
> > this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you
could
> > run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
> > results.
>
> Hey, shitskull. Here's a flash for you. This crap has come around a
> zillion times before. The only thing new about it is that you're just
> getting to it. Call the mothership. They have the full report for you.
>
> And for the first few times, people did go look at sources of
> information. Actual science rather than this "test" that proves
> nothing. Good chemistry and good nutritional data. Unlike what you offer.
>
> Here's a further flash. You're a skulking coward unwilling to stand
> behind your own words. It's not clear why you're promoting this old
> thing again. It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish. It's not
> clear who you are. It's not clear why someone with so little
> substantive information would venture into a venue like this where
> there are knowledgeable people.
>
> But I could offer a couple guesses and they'd be unflattering.
>
> > Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the light.
> >
> > Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of exercise and
> > oxidize some body tissue.
>
> The kindness and generosity of your motivation is, unfortunately, too
> obvious. Go away. We've all seen your uninformed, uninspired type
> before and they were amusing and good target practice for a while, but
> soon they become boring. Like you.
>
> Pastorio
>
>
>
> >
> > Ross Reid > wrote in message
> > news > >
> >>"LifeisGood" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
> >>
> >>Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.
> >>
> >>
> >>>To good food, and good health.
> >>
> >>I'll drink to that.
> >>
> >>
> >>>P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> >>>corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> >>>public?
> >>
> >>In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
> >>Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
> >>"The sky is falling".
> >>
> >>Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.
> >>
> >>Ross.
> >
> >
> >
>

Bob: I've been watching your amusing reply rants. Talk about insulting. Cool
down man and try to look outside the box.

http://www.whale.to/b/fats.html

Blindness, Mad Cow Disease and Canola Oil by John Thomas


Bob (this one) > wrote in message
...
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
> > It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
> > this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you
could
> > run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
> > results.
>
> Hey, shitskull. Here's a flash for you. This crap has come around a
> zillion times before. The only thing new about it is that you're just
> getting to it. Call the mothership. They have the full report for you.
>
> And for the first few times, people did go look at sources of
> information. Actual science rather than this "test" that proves
> nothing. Good chemistry and good nutritional data. Unlike what you offer.
>
> Here's a further flash. You're a skulking coward unwilling to stand
> behind your own words. It's not clear why you're promoting this old
> thing again. It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish. It's not
> clear who you are. It's not clear why someone with so little
> substantive information would venture into a venue like this where
> there are knowledgeable people.
>
> But I could offer a couple guesses and they'd be unflattering.
>
> > Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the light.
> >
> > Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of exercise and
> > oxidize some body tissue.
>
> The kindness and generosity of your motivation is, unfortunately, too
> obvious. Go away. We've all seen your uninformed, uninspired type
> before and they were amusing and good target practice for a while, but
> soon they become boring. Like you.
>
> Pastorio
>
>
>
> >
> > Ross Reid > wrote in message
> > news > >
> >>"LifeisGood" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
> >>
> >>Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.
> >>
> >>
> >>>To good food, and good health.
> >>
> >>I'll drink to that.
> >>
> >>
> >>>P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> >>>corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> >>>public?
> >>
> >>In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
> >>Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
> >>"The sky is falling".
> >>
> >>Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.
> >>
> >>Ross.
> >
> >
> >
>

Bob: I've been watching your amusing reply rants. Talk about insulting. Cool
down man and try to look outside the box.

http://www.whale.to/b/fats.html

Blindness, Mad Cow Disease and Canola Oil by John Thomas


Bob (this one) > wrote in message
...
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
> > It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even consider that
> > this message contains the basis for a repeatable test. One that you
could
> > run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else) hindering your
> > results.
>
> Hey, shitskull. Here's a flash for you. This crap has come around a
> zillion times before. The only thing new about it is that you're just
> getting to it. Call the mothership. They have the full report for you.
>
> And for the first few times, people did go look at sources of
> information. Actual science rather than this "test" that proves
> nothing. Good chemistry and good nutritional data. Unlike what you offer.
>
> Here's a further flash. You're a skulking coward unwilling to stand
> behind your own words. It's not clear why you're promoting this old
> thing again. It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish. It's not
> clear who you are. It's not clear why someone with so little
> substantive information would venture into a venue like this where
> there are knowledgeable people.
>
> But I could offer a couple guesses and they'd be unflattering.
>
> > Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the light.
> >
> > Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of exercise and
> > oxidize some body tissue.
>
> The kindness and generosity of your motivation is, unfortunately, too
> obvious. Go away. We've all seen your uninformed, uninspired type
> before and they were amusing and good target practice for a while, but
> soon they become boring. Like you.
>
> Pastorio
>
>
>
> >
> > Ross Reid > wrote in message
> > news > >
> >>"LifeisGood" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
> >>
> >>Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old urban legend.
> >>
> >>
> >>>To good food, and good health.
> >>
> >>I'll drink to that.
> >>
> >>
> >>>P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> >>>corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> >>>public?
> >>
> >>In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook with an
> >>Internet connection can continue to disseminate various version of
> >>"The sky is falling".
> >>
> >>Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my salad.
> >>
> >>Ross.
> >
> >
> >
>

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

>> Pets de nonnes are only one thing.
>
> Apparently they're more than one thing. Besides the fact that
> they're a fine, rascally joke, I used to buy them in a little
> patisserie and they were made to sell. Quebec isn't the only
> French-speaking place on earth.

But in Québec they are only one thing. You were speaking of pets de
nonnes in Québec. Stay on track here, please.

> But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
> belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
> you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
> principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.

Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than
it actually was.

>> They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>> don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>> yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>> nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>
> And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
> where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.

Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)

> Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.

I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am
merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands
from certain groups because they don't like the *sound* of a word.
It would be like changing the name Christian to something else
because atheists got their knickers in a twist.

You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a
direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to
Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and
"Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to
trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could
trademark.

>> It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>> if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "crêpe"...I leave
>> it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>> removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>> Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>
> I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
> that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
> like.
>
> Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
> reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>
> Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
> speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
> certainly know.

Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name
within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross
languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape
does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...

> I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really
> wasn't anything to fight about. I guess you needed the practice.

How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.
I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)

And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and
Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those
names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,
in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.

--

Please note that this post contains no overt anti-USAian statements
of any sort, nor is it designed to excite the political passions of
the morally bankrupt right-wing supporters of the emerging fascist
states...unfortunately :-)

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

>> Pets de nonnes are only one thing.
>
> Apparently they're more than one thing. Besides the fact that
> they're a fine, rascally joke, I used to buy them in a little
> patisserie and they were made to sell. Quebec isn't the only
> French-speaking place on earth.

But in Québec they are only one thing. You were speaking of pets de
nonnes in Québec. Stay on track here, please.

> But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
> belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
> you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
> principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.

Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than
it actually was.

>> They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>> don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>> yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>> nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>
> And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
> where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.

Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)

> Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.

I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am
merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands
from certain groups because they don't like the *sound* of a word.
It would be like changing the name Christian to something else
because atheists got their knickers in a twist.

You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a
direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to
Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and
"Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to
trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could
trademark.

>> It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>> if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "crêpe"...I leave
>> it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>> removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>> Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>
> I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
> that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
> like.
>
> Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
> reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>
> Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
> speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
> certainly know.

Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name
within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross
languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape
does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...

> I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really
> wasn't anything to fight about. I guess you needed the practice.

How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.
I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)

And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and
Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those
names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,
in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.

--

Please note that this post contains no overt anti-USAian statements
of any sort, nor is it designed to excite the political passions of
the morally bankrupt right-wing supporters of the emerging fascist
states...unfortunately :-)

In article <8efOc.48666$8_6.26654@attbi_s04>,
"LifeisGood" > wrote:

> Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
> Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
> horticulturist. She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths
> about Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.
>
> Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time Canola Oil)
> as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they are find out today is
> so harmful to arterial health.
>
Try again. Hydrogenation was developed in the early 1900's. Crisco
shortening, made from hydrogenated oil, was introduced to the market in
1910.

The naturally occurring omega-3 fatty acids in canola oil make it more
susceptible to rancidity, not some mysterious evil chemical. The
presence of high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil and flaxseed
oil is why you find these supplements fortified with vitamin E or stored
in the refrigerator at health food stores.

Cindy, one of the scientists on rfc

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

In article <8efOc.48666$8_6.26654@attbi_s04>,
"LifeisGood" > wrote:

> Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
> Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
> horticulturist. She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths
> about Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.
>
> Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time Canola Oil)
> as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they are find out today is
> so harmful to arterial health.
>
Try again. Hydrogenation was developed in the early 1900's. Crisco
shortening, made from hydrogenated oil, was introduced to the market in
1910.

The naturally occurring omega-3 fatty acids in canola oil make it more
susceptible to rancidity, not some mysterious evil chemical. The
presence of high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil and flaxseed
oil is why you find these supplements fortified with vitamin E or stored
in the refrigerator at health food stores.

Cindy, one of the scientists on rfc

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

In article <8efOc.48666$8_6.26654@attbi_s04>,
"LifeisGood" > wrote:

> Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
> Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
> horticulturist. She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths
> about Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.
>
> Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time Canola Oil)
> as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they are find out today is
> so harmful to arterial health.
>
Try again. Hydrogenation was developed in the early 1900's. Crisco
shortening, made from hydrogenated oil, was introduced to the market in
1910.

The naturally occurring omega-3 fatty acids in canola oil make it more
susceptible to rancidity, not some mysterious evil chemical. The
presence of high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil and flaxseed
oil is why you find these supplements fortified with vitamin E or stored
in the refrigerator at health food stores.

Cindy, one of the scientists on rfc

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

"LifeisGood" > wrote in message
news:17eOc.182434$IQ4.162587@attbi_s02...
> Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
>
> Maybe you have read about this stuff, and maybe not, but try this test at
> home - Then be sure and share the results with your friends.
>
> For those of us purchasing "organic" for our families I want to share an
> experience that I just noticed with Canola oil. This is taken from my
> kitchen and any of one that would like to try this experiment can, and
will
> see the results for themselves.
>
> I cook with (and purchase products with) multiple oils. (Olive, Peanut,
> Sesame, (and previously Canola). Canola is now turning up in more and more
> products in the "health" food arena -stores like Whole Foods. I'm not sure
> what Trader Joe's thinks of this stuff as I actually use them as my source
> for things, like cookies for my kids, that do not contain Canola. And of
> course, outside of the US I am not sure what people think of this stuff
> (except of course Canada, they have a vested interest in its success).
>
> Anyway, take a select number of different vegetable oils and put a tiny
bit
> of each inside separate glass jars (just cover the bottom of the jar)
(and
> be sure that one is Canola). Be certain to make a bit of mess and get some
> of the oil on the outside of the jar. Cover the jar and put in the
cupboard.
> Check on it occasionally (every few days) by taking it out, opening the
lid,
> swishing it around, getting a bit more on the outside, closing the lid and
> returning. Don't get oil from one jar on another. (Don't refrigerate while
> trying this.)
>
> What will happen is the oils will oxidize. This is normal and each will
take
> on a bit of bad smell. This is rancidity and is ok. All of jars will be a
> bit slippery of course because "it's oil", this you would expect. BUT,
what
> you will notice about Canola oil is that it will thicken and harden as it
> oxidizes. This is bad news for a consumable food product.

Why? Oxidized oil of any kind should not be consumed. Why does it matter
what happens when something spoils. If one fruit turns brown and another
black, you don't say that the one that turned black is no good to eat when
fresh.
>
> Now if you like, feel free to do a bit of a search on Canola and see; Who
> makes it? What does Canola mean? Can it really be labeled "organic"? Could
> it contain poisonous properties? This is what I did after I noticed this
> transformation in my cupboard, boy was I surprised.

All open-ended questions leaving us to ASSUME it is bad. Why not simply put
forth your argument of what you feel is bad about canola oil.

>
> Then be sure to tell your grocer why you no longer purchase their products
> with Canola oil. Snack food bars, cookies, breads, grain-cereals, etc..
It's
> showing up in so many foods because of its low cost.
>
> It's not natural, it's not healthy and in the long run I don't think it
will
> prove good for your budget.

Based on what? You haven't addressed any of these conclusions.

>
> To good food, and good health.
>
> Frank
>
> P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> public?

As long as you can hide any information from us, I bet. By the way, why are
you posting annonymously if you really wnat to share truth? If you can't be
you and openly discuss a topic, you have no validity in my book.

WardNA wrote:
>>(hats off and a moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick, 1916-2004)
>
>
> A grad student who worked with old man on neuroscience in La Jolla informed me
> that he was actually a perfect asshole.


I'd heard something too about Crick being a jerk to work with, but his
contributions to science are still formidable. Besides, the man is dead
now. Let's let his personal deficiencies fall by the wayside and
remember him for his best qualities of which there are many.

--Lia

WardNA wrote:
>>(hats off and a moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick, 1916-2004)
>
>
> A grad student who worked with old man on neuroscience in La Jolla informed me
> that he was actually a perfect asshole.


I'd heard something too about Crick being a jerk to work with, but his
contributions to science are still formidable. Besides, the man is dead
now. Let's let his personal deficiencies fall by the wayside and
remember him for his best qualities of which there are many.

--Lia

Ok, you got me. You are all correct. What could I possible know?
What could this guy "Thomas Smith" http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html possible
know? (Thank you for this link)

I guess I do still have one burning question. Why is that some feel so
certain they understand every little detail about the puzzle of the human
body? In fact, so much so they are certain they can modify food, "the old
fashion way included", by breeding poisons into non-poisons?

For those civil enough to politely point out errors in my posting and
thinking, I thank you. To the rest, don't blow a fuse.

Best of luck (and health) to you all.

SCUBApix > wrote in message
...
>
> "LifeisGood" > wrote in message
> news:17eOc.182434$IQ4.162587@attbi_s02...
> > Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
> >
> > Maybe you have read about this stuff, and maybe not, but try this test
at
> > home - Then be sure and share the results with your friends.
> >
> > For those of us purchasing "organic" for our families I want to share an
> > experience that I just noticed with Canola oil. This is taken from my
> > kitchen and any of one that would like to try this experiment can, and
> will
> > see the results for themselves.
> >
> > I cook with (and purchase products with) multiple oils. (Olive, Peanut,
> > Sesame, (and previously Canola). Canola is now turning up in more and
more
> > products in the "health" food arena -stores like Whole Foods. I'm not
sure
> > what Trader Joe's thinks of this stuff as I actually use them as my
source
> > for things, like cookies for my kids, that do not contain Canola. And of
> > course, outside of the US I am not sure what people think of this stuff
> > (except of course Canada, they have a vested interest in its success).
> >
> > Anyway, take a select number of different vegetable oils and put a tiny
> bit
> > of each inside separate glass jars (just cover the bottom of the jar)
> (and
> > be sure that one is Canola). Be certain to make a bit of mess and get
some
> > of the oil on the outside of the jar. Cover the jar and put in the
> cupboard.
> > Check on it occasionally (every few days) by taking it out, opening the
> lid,
> > swishing it around, getting a bit more on the outside, closing the lid
and
> > returning. Don't get oil from one jar on another. (Don't refrigerate
while
> > trying this.)
> >
> > What will happen is the oils will oxidize. This is normal and each will
> take
> > on a bit of bad smell. This is rancidity and is ok. All of jars will be
a
> > bit slippery of course because "it's oil", this you would expect. BUT,
> what
> > you will notice about Canola oil is that it will thicken and harden as
it
> > oxidizes. This is bad news for a consumable food product.
>
> Why? Oxidized oil of any kind should not be consumed. Why does it matter
> what happens when something spoils. If one fruit turns brown and another
> black, you don't say that the one that turned black is no good to eat when
> fresh.
> >
> > Now if you like, feel free to do a bit of a search on Canola and see;
Who
> > makes it? What does Canola mean? Can it really be labeled "organic"?
Could
> > it contain poisonous properties? This is what I did after I noticed this
> > transformation in my cupboard, boy was I surprised.
>
> All open-ended questions leaving us to ASSUME it is bad. Why not simply
put
> forth your argument of what you feel is bad about canola oil.
>
> >
> > Then be sure to tell your grocer why you no longer purchase their
products
> > with Canola oil. Snack food bars, cookies, breads, grain-cereals, etc..
> It's
> > showing up in so many foods because of its low cost.
> >
> > It's not natural, it's not healthy and in the long run I don't think it
> will
> > prove good for your budget.
>
> Based on what? You haven't addressed any of these conclusions.
>
> >
> > To good food, and good health.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> > corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> > public?
>
> As long as you can hide any information from us, I bet. By the way, why
are
> you posting annonymously if you really wnat to share truth? If you can't
be
> you and openly discuss a topic, you have no validity in my book.
>
>

Ok, you got me. You are all correct. What could I possible know?
What could this guy "Thomas Smith" http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html possible
know? (Thank you for this link)

I guess I do still have one burning question. Why is that some feel so
certain they understand every little detail about the puzzle of the human
body? In fact, so much so they are certain they can modify food, "the old
fashion way included", by breeding poisons into non-poisons?

For those civil enough to politely point out errors in my posting and
thinking, I thank you. To the rest, don't blow a fuse.

Best of luck (and health) to you all.

SCUBApix > wrote in message
...
>
> "LifeisGood" > wrote in message
> news:17eOc.182434$IQ4.162587@attbi_s02...
> > Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
> >
> > Maybe you have read about this stuff, and maybe not, but try this test
at
> > home - Then be sure and share the results with your friends.
> >
> > For those of us purchasing "organic" for our families I want to share an
> > experience that I just noticed with Canola oil. This is taken from my
> > kitchen and any of one that would like to try this experiment can, and
> will
> > see the results for themselves.
> >
> > I cook with (and purchase products with) multiple oils. (Olive, Peanut,
> > Sesame, (and previously Canola). Canola is now turning up in more and
more
> > products in the "health" food arena -stores like Whole Foods. I'm not
sure
> > what Trader Joe's thinks of this stuff as I actually use them as my
source
> > for things, like cookies for my kids, that do not contain Canola. And of
> > course, outside of the US I am not sure what people think of this stuff
> > (except of course Canada, they have a vested interest in its success).
> >
> > Anyway, take a select number of different vegetable oils and put a tiny
> bit
> > of each inside separate glass jars (just cover the bottom of the jar)
> (and
> > be sure that one is Canola). Be certain to make a bit of mess and get
some
> > of the oil on the outside of the jar. Cover the jar and put in the
> cupboard.
> > Check on it occasionally (every few days) by taking it out, opening the
> lid,
> > swishing it around, getting a bit more on the outside, closing the lid
and
> > returning. Don't get oil from one jar on another. (Don't refrigerate
while
> > trying this.)
> >
> > What will happen is the oils will oxidize. This is normal and each will
> take
> > on a bit of bad smell. This is rancidity and is ok. All of jars will be
a
> > bit slippery of course because "it's oil", this you would expect. BUT,
> what
> > you will notice about Canola oil is that it will thicken and harden as
it
> > oxidizes. This is bad news for a consumable food product.
>
> Why? Oxidized oil of any kind should not be consumed. Why does it matter
> what happens when something spoils. If one fruit turns brown and another
> black, you don't say that the one that turned black is no good to eat when
> fresh.
> >
> > Now if you like, feel free to do a bit of a search on Canola and see;
Who
> > makes it? What does Canola mean? Can it really be labeled "organic"?
Could
> > it contain poisonous properties? This is what I did after I noticed this
> > transformation in my cupboard, boy was I surprised.
>
> All open-ended questions leaving us to ASSUME it is bad. Why not simply
put
> forth your argument of what you feel is bad about canola oil.
>
> >
> > Then be sure to tell your grocer why you no longer purchase their
products
> > with Canola oil. Snack food bars, cookies, breads, grain-cereals, etc..
> It's
> > showing up in so many foods because of its low cost.
> >
> > It's not natural, it's not healthy and in the long run I don't think it
> will
> > prove good for your budget.
>
> Based on what? You haven't addressed any of these conclusions.
>
> >
> > To good food, and good health.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> > corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> > public?
>
> As long as you can hide any information from us, I bet. By the way, why
are
> you posting annonymously if you really wnat to share truth? If you can't
be
> you and openly discuss a topic, you have no validity in my book.
>
>

Ok, you got me. You are all correct. What could I possible know?
What could this guy "Thomas Smith" http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html possible
know? (Thank you for this link)

I guess I do still have one burning question. Why is that some feel so
certain they understand every little detail about the puzzle of the human
body? In fact, so much so they are certain they can modify food, "the old
fashion way included", by breeding poisons into non-poisons?

For those civil enough to politely point out errors in my posting and
thinking, I thank you. To the rest, don't blow a fuse.

Best of luck (and health) to you all.

SCUBApix > wrote in message
...
>
> "LifeisGood" > wrote in message
> news:17eOc.182434$IQ4.162587@attbi_s02...
> > Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal) consumption?
> >
> > Maybe you have read about this stuff, and maybe not, but try this test
at
> > home - Then be sure and share the results with your friends.
> >
> > For those of us purchasing "organic" for our families I want to share an
> > experience that I just noticed with Canola oil. This is taken from my
> > kitchen and any of one that would like to try this experiment can, and
> will
> > see the results for themselves.
> >
> > I cook with (and purchase products with) multiple oils. (Olive, Peanut,
> > Sesame, (and previously Canola). Canola is now turning up in more and
more
> > products in the "health" food arena -stores like Whole Foods. I'm not
sure
> > what Trader Joe's thinks of this stuff as I actually use them as my
source
> > for things, like cookies for my kids, that do not contain Canola. And of
> > course, outside of the US I am not sure what people think of this stuff
> > (except of course Canada, they have a vested interest in its success).
> >
> > Anyway, take a select number of different vegetable oils and put a tiny
> bit
> > of each inside separate glass jars (just cover the bottom of the jar)
> (and
> > be sure that one is Canola). Be certain to make a bit of mess and get
some
> > of the oil on the outside of the jar. Cover the jar and put in the
> cupboard.
> > Check on it occasionally (every few days) by taking it out, opening the
> lid,
> > swishing it around, getting a bit more on the outside, closing the lid
and
> > returning. Don't get oil from one jar on another. (Don't refrigerate
while
> > trying this.)
> >
> > What will happen is the oils will oxidize. This is normal and each will
> take
> > on a bit of bad smell. This is rancidity and is ok. All of jars will be
a
> > bit slippery of course because "it's oil", this you would expect. BUT,
> what
> > you will notice about Canola oil is that it will thicken and harden as
it
> > oxidizes. This is bad news for a consumable food product.
>
> Why? Oxidized oil of any kind should not be consumed. Why does it matter
> what happens when something spoils. If one fruit turns brown and another
> black, you don't say that the one that turned black is no good to eat when
> fresh.
> >
> > Now if you like, feel free to do a bit of a search on Canola and see;
Who
> > makes it? What does Canola mean? Can it really be labeled "organic"?
Could
> > it contain poisonous properties? This is what I did after I noticed this
> > transformation in my cupboard, boy was I surprised.
>
> All open-ended questions leaving us to ASSUME it is bad. Why not simply
put
> forth your argument of what you feel is bad about canola oil.
>
> >
> > Then be sure to tell your grocer why you no longer purchase their
products
> > with Canola oil. Snack food bars, cookies, breads, grain-cereals, etc..
> It's
> > showing up in so many foods because of its low cost.
> >
> > It's not natural, it's not healthy and in the long run I don't think it
> will
> > prove good for your budget.
>
> Based on what? You haven't addressed any of these conclusions.
>
> >
> > To good food, and good health.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how long do
> > corporations think they hide this type of information from the general
> > public?
>
> As long as you can hide any information from us, I bet. By the way, why
are
> you posting annonymously if you really wnat to share truth? If you can't
be
> you and openly discuss a topic, you have no validity in my book.
>
>

JustaPasserBy wrote:

> Bob: I've been watching your amusing reply rants. Talk about
> insulting.

Sweets for the sweet, doncha know...

You are utterly uncritical in your acceptance of "information." You're
blind. And you're not curious about factuality.

> Cool down man and try to look outside the box.

There is no box, Sparky. Only the fevered imaginings of wacko
crusaders whose idea of science is to make those volcanoes we see in
gradeschool science fairs.

> http://www.whale.to/b/fats.html
>
> Blindness, Mad Cow Disease and Canola Oil by John Thomas

Right. I actually did go there to see what this crank had to say. He
can't even spell the technical terms he's trying to use. His knowledge
of biological functions is even worse than your knowledge of the
chemistry of oils. A mishmash of half-truths, untruths and rather
stupid conclusions. Otherwise, shallow and weak.

Deep stuff. Like your average manure pit on a pig farm.

Pastorio


>
>
> Bob (this one) > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> LifeisGood wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even
>>> consider that this message contains the basis for a repeatable
>>> test. One that you
>
> could
>
>>> run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else)
>>> hindering your results.
>>
>> Hey, shitskull. Here's a flash for you. This crap has come around
>> a zillion times before. The only thing new about it is that
>> you're just getting to it. Call the mothership. They have the
>> full report for you.
>>
>> And for the first few times, people did go look at sources of
>> information. Actual science rather than this "test" that proves
>> nothing. Good chemistry and good nutritional data. Unlike what
>> you offer.
>>
>> Here's a further flash. You're a skulking coward unwilling to
>> stand behind your own words. It's not clear why you're promoting
>> this old thing again. It's not clear what you're trying to
>> accomplish. It's not clear who you are. It's not clear why
>> someone with so little substantive information would venture into
>> a venue like this where there are knowledgeable people.
>>
>> But I could offer a couple guesses and they'd be unflattering.
>>
>>
>>> Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the
>>> light.
>>>
>>> Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of
>>> exercise and oxidize some body tissue.
>>
>> The kindness and generosity of your motivation is, unfortunately,
>> too obvious. Go away. We've all seen your uninformed, uninspired
>> type before and they were amusing and good target practice for a
>> while, but soon they become boring. Like you.
>>
>> Pastorio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ross Reid > wrote in message
>>> news >>>
>>>
>>>> "LifeisGood" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal)
>>>>> consumption?
>>>>
>>>> Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old
>>>> urban legend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To good food, and good health.
>>>>
>>>> I'll drink to that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how
>>>>> long do corporations think they hide this type of
>>>>> information from the general public?
>>>>
>>>> In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook
>>>> with an Internet connection can continue to disseminate
>>>> various version of "The sky is falling".
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my
>>>> salad.
>>>>
>>>> Ross.

JustaPasserBy wrote:

> Bob: I've been watching your amusing reply rants. Talk about
> insulting.

Sweets for the sweet, doncha know...

You are utterly uncritical in your acceptance of "information." You're
blind. And you're not curious about factuality.

> Cool down man and try to look outside the box.

There is no box, Sparky. Only the fevered imaginings of wacko
crusaders whose idea of science is to make those volcanoes we see in
gradeschool science fairs.

> http://www.whale.to/b/fats.html
>
> Blindness, Mad Cow Disease and Canola Oil by John Thomas

Right. I actually did go there to see what this crank had to say. He
can't even spell the technical terms he's trying to use. His knowledge
of biological functions is even worse than your knowledge of the
chemistry of oils. A mishmash of half-truths, untruths and rather
stupid conclusions. Otherwise, shallow and weak.

Deep stuff. Like your average manure pit on a pig farm.

Pastorio


>
>
> Bob (this one) > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> LifeisGood wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It always amazes me that those quick to respond don't even
>>> consider that this message contains the basis for a repeatable
>>> test. One that you
>
> could
>
>>> run, in your home with no chance of me (or anyone else)
>>> hindering your results.
>>
>> Hey, shitskull. Here's a flash for you. This crap has come around
>> a zillion times before. The only thing new about it is that
>> you're just getting to it. Call the mothership. They have the
>> full report for you.
>>
>> And for the first few times, people did go look at sources of
>> information. Actual science rather than this "test" that proves
>> nothing. Good chemistry and good nutritional data. Unlike what
>> you offer.
>>
>> Here's a further flash. You're a skulking coward unwilling to
>> stand behind your own words. It's not clear why you're promoting
>> this old thing again. It's not clear what you're trying to
>> accomplish. It's not clear who you are. It's not clear why
>> someone with so little substantive information would venture into
>> a venue like this where there are knowledgeable people.
>>
>> But I could offer a couple guesses and they'd be unflattering.
>>
>>
>>> Those that live with their eye closed can not see even in the
>>> light.
>>>
>>> Ahh.. just have a double shot of that oil. Then do a bit of
>>> exercise and oxidize some body tissue.
>>
>> The kindness and generosity of your motivation is, unfortunately,
>> too obvious. Go away. We've all seen your uninformed, uninspired
>> type before and they were amusing and good target practice for a
>> while, but soon they become boring. Like you.
>>
>> Pastorio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ross Reid > wrote in message
>>> news >>>
>>>
>>>> "LifeisGood" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Canola oil - Is it really fit for human (or animal)
>>>>> consumption?
>>>>
>>>> Snip another doom-sayer's frenzied propagation of an old
>>>> urban legend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To good food, and good health.
>>>>
>>>> I'll drink to that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> P.S. = In today's day and age of communication; exactly how
>>>>> long do corporations think they hide this type of
>>>>> information from the general public?
>>>>
>>>> In this day and age of electronic communication, every kook
>>>> with an Internet connection can continue to disseminate
>>>> various version of "The sky is falling".
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me while I go put some canola based dressing on my
>>>> salad.
>>>>
>>>> Ross.

JustaPasserBy wrote:

> Ok, you got me. You are all correct. What could I possible know?
> What could this guy "Thomas Smith" http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html possible
> know? (Thank you for this link)

Besides being a credulous fool, you are a top-poster. That shouldn't
surprise me, I guess.

Just because you find crap on the web doesn't make it any more credible.
Do I need to produce a list of sites debunking this myth?

> I guess I do still have one burning question. Why is that some feel so
> certain they understand every little detail about the puzzle of the human
> body? In fact, so much so they are certain they can modify food, "the old
> fashion way included", by breeding poisons into non-poisons?

You know, cooking food modifies it too. You are now into handwaving
territory. "Who knows!!!!!!" So what, produce credible evidence that it
does.

> For those civil enough to politely point out errors in my posting and
> thinking, I thank you. To the rest, don't blow a fuse.

Stop believing every scare story that hits your email. Start learning to
be a discerning, skeptical, rational person.



Brian Rodenborn

JustaPasserBy wrote:

> Ok, you got me. You are all correct. What could I possible know?
> What could this guy "Thomas Smith" http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html possible
> know? (Thank you for this link)

Besides being a credulous fool, you are a top-poster. That shouldn't
surprise me, I guess.

Just because you find crap on the web doesn't make it any more credible.
Do I need to produce a list of sites debunking this myth?

> I guess I do still have one burning question. Why is that some feel so
> certain they understand every little detail about the puzzle of the human
> body? In fact, so much so they are certain they can modify food, "the old
> fashion way included", by breeding poisons into non-poisons?

You know, cooking food modifies it too. You are now into handwaving
territory. "Who knows!!!!!!" So what, produce credible evidence that it
does.

> For those civil enough to politely point out errors in my posting and
> thinking, I thank you. To the rest, don't blow a fuse.

Stop believing every scare story that hits your email. Start learning to
be a discerning, skeptical, rational person.



Brian Rodenborn

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :=20
>=20
>>But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
>>belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
>>you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
>>principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.
>
> Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than=20
> it actually was.
> =20
>=20
>>>They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>>>don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>>>yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>>>nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>>
>>And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
>>where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.=20
>=20
> Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)

Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a=20
well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty=20
adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called=20
"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter=20
of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.

>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.=20
>=20
> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am=20
> merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands=20
> from certain groups=20

There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in=20
advance to alter the name from rape to something else. And this isn't=20
the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers in=20
English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to avoid=20
the whole question of connotations.

Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like calling=20
it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations. People erroneously=20
assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name. Seafood=20
suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the difference for=20
decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred million people, the=20
relentless explanations get old. Change the name and it's done.

People like Chilean Sea Bass but not Patagonian toothfish. Connotations.

> because they don't like the *sound* of a word. =20
> It would be like changing the name Christian to something else=20
> because atheists got their knickers in a twist.=20

This is exactly what it *isn't* about. No one got in a twist.

> You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a=20
> direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to=20
> Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and=20
> "Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to=20
> trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could=20
> trademark.

It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.=20
Here's a quote from: <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html>
Q: Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil=20
from sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil=20
rapeseed oil?

A: No. Canola oil comes from canola seed. Canola is the name given to=20
a very healthy oil that was developed from rapeseed. But it is not=20
rapeseed oil and has vastly different fatty acid and other properties=20
than rapeseed oil. Canola was developed using traditional plant=20
breeding methods to remove undesirable qualities in rapeseed. In terms=20
of their properties, canola oil is as different from rapeseed oil as=20
olive oil is as different from corn oil.
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>

They could have spelled it "Wrape" and trademarked it. It was the=20
sound and its associations they were trying to get away from.

BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital=20
letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word so=20
they could register a name: <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>

>>>It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>>>if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "cr=EApe"...I leave
>>>it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>>>removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>>>Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>>
>>I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
>>that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
>>like.=20
>>
>>Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
>>reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>>
>>Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
>>speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
>>certainly know.
>=20
> Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name=20
> within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross=20
> languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape=20
> does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...

Nah. It has everything to do with associations.

The secondary meaning of "rape" - a plant - is so far away from what=20
the average person would think that it's essentially not in=20
consideration. For the vast preponderance of English speakers, there's=20
only one meaning for the word. Rape greens and rape seeds are=20
virtually unknown as such in the US, and even when they are, the word=20
gets a cautious pronunciation for all the obvious reasons.

Why does this page exist?=20
<http://www.dazbert.co.uk/sites/rudef...od/pocariswea=
t.htm>

>>I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really=20
>>wasn't anything to fight about.=20
>=20
> How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.=20

Right. Your child is vulgar and disgusting, mine expresses himself fully.=


> I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)

Eat some rape greens. You'll fart in all directions.

Pastorio (maybe drink some Pocari Sweat from Japan. Next big thing, I=20
tell ya...)


> And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and=20
> Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those=20
> names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,=20
> in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :=20
>=20
>>But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
>>belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
>>you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
>>principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.
>
> Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than=20
> it actually was.
> =20
>=20
>>>They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>>>don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>>>yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>>>nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>>
>>And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
>>where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.=20
>=20
> Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)

Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a=20
well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty=20
adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called=20
"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter=20
of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.

>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.=20
>=20
> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am=20
> merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands=20
> from certain groups=20

There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in=20
advance to alter the name from rape to something else. And this isn't=20
the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers in=20
English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to avoid=20
the whole question of connotations.

Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like calling=20
it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations. People erroneously=20
assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name. Seafood=20
suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the difference for=20
decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred million people, the=20
relentless explanations get old. Change the name and it's done.

People like Chilean Sea Bass but not Patagonian toothfish. Connotations.

> because they don't like the *sound* of a word. =20
> It would be like changing the name Christian to something else=20
> because atheists got their knickers in a twist.=20

This is exactly what it *isn't* about. No one got in a twist.

> You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a=20
> direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to=20
> Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and=20
> "Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to=20
> trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could=20
> trademark.

It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.=20
Here's a quote from: <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html>
Q: Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil=20
from sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil=20
rapeseed oil?

A: No. Canola oil comes from canola seed. Canola is the name given to=20
a very healthy oil that was developed from rapeseed. But it is not=20
rapeseed oil and has vastly different fatty acid and other properties=20
than rapeseed oil. Canola was developed using traditional plant=20
breeding methods to remove undesirable qualities in rapeseed. In terms=20
of their properties, canola oil is as different from rapeseed oil as=20
olive oil is as different from corn oil.
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>

They could have spelled it "Wrape" and trademarked it. It was the=20
sound and its associations they were trying to get away from.

BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital=20
letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word so=20
they could register a name: <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>

>>>It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>>>if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "cr=EApe"...I leave
>>>it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>>>removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>>>Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>>
>>I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
>>that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
>>like.=20
>>
>>Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
>>reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>>
>>Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
>>speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
>>certainly know.
>=20
> Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name=20
> within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross=20
> languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape=20
> does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...

Nah. It has everything to do with associations.

The secondary meaning of "rape" - a plant - is so far away from what=20
the average person would think that it's essentially not in=20
consideration. For the vast preponderance of English speakers, there's=20
only one meaning for the word. Rape greens and rape seeds are=20
virtually unknown as such in the US, and even when they are, the word=20
gets a cautious pronunciation for all the obvious reasons.

Why does this page exist?=20
<http://www.dazbert.co.uk/sites/rudef...od/pocariswea=
t.htm>

>>I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really=20
>>wasn't anything to fight about.=20
>=20
> How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.=20

Right. Your child is vulgar and disgusting, mine expresses himself fully.=


> I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)

Eat some rape greens. You'll fart in all directions.

Pastorio (maybe drink some Pocari Sweat from Japan. Next big thing, I=20
tell ya...)


> And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and=20
> Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those=20
> names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,=20
> in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :=20
>=20
>>But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
>>belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
>>you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
>>principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.
>
> Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than=20
> it actually was.
> =20
>=20
>>>They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>>>don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>>>yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>>>nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>>
>>And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
>>where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.=20
>=20
> Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)

Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a=20
well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty=20
adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called=20
"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter=20
of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.

>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.=20
>=20
> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am=20
> merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands=20
> from certain groups=20

There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in=20
advance to alter the name from rape to something else. And this isn't=20
the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers in=20
English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to avoid=20
the whole question of connotations.

Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like calling=20
it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations. People erroneously=20
assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name. Seafood=20
suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the difference for=20
decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred million people, the=20
relentless explanations get old. Change the name and it's done.

People like Chilean Sea Bass but not Patagonian toothfish. Connotations.

> because they don't like the *sound* of a word. =20
> It would be like changing the name Christian to something else=20
> because atheists got their knickers in a twist.=20

This is exactly what it *isn't* about. No one got in a twist.

> You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a=20
> direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to=20
> Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and=20
> "Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to=20
> trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could=20
> trademark.

It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.=20
Here's a quote from: <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html>
Q: Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil=20
from sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil=20
rapeseed oil?

A: No. Canola oil comes from canola seed. Canola is the name given to=20
a very healthy oil that was developed from rapeseed. But it is not=20
rapeseed oil and has vastly different fatty acid and other properties=20
than rapeseed oil. Canola was developed using traditional plant=20
breeding methods to remove undesirable qualities in rapeseed. In terms=20
of their properties, canola oil is as different from rapeseed oil as=20
olive oil is as different from corn oil.
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>

They could have spelled it "Wrape" and trademarked it. It was the=20
sound and its associations they were trying to get away from.

BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital=20
letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word so=20
they could register a name: <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>

>>>It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>>>if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "cr=EApe"...I leave
>>>it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>>>removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>>>Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>>
>>I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
>>that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
>>like.=20
>>
>>Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
>>reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>>
>>Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
>>speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
>>certainly know.
>=20
> Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name=20
> within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross=20
> languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape=20
> does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...

Nah. It has everything to do with associations.

The secondary meaning of "rape" - a plant - is so far away from what=20
the average person would think that it's essentially not in=20
consideration. For the vast preponderance of English speakers, there's=20
only one meaning for the word. Rape greens and rape seeds are=20
virtually unknown as such in the US, and even when they are, the word=20
gets a cautious pronunciation for all the obvious reasons.

Why does this page exist?=20
<http://www.dazbert.co.uk/sites/rudef...od/pocariswea=
t.htm>

>>I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really=20
>>wasn't anything to fight about.=20
>=20
> How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.=20

Right. Your child is vulgar and disgusting, mine expresses himself fully.=


> I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)

Eat some rape greens. You'll fart in all directions.

Pastorio (maybe drink some Pocari Sweat from Japan. Next big thing, I=20
tell ya...)


> And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and=20
> Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those=20
> names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,=20
> in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.

Remark on your Q&A:

First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
Especially when motivated by money.

Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone? (Last I saw
there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%) Now, keep in mind they were sell
this stuff as safe when these numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?

And last:
Olive Oil = Non-toxic.
Corn Oil = Non-toxic

Rape seed oil = toxic
Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare and state - (In the opinion of
commercial science [and the inventors] = Non-toxic)

But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
different.


Bob (this one) > wrote in message
...
Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :
>
>>But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
>>belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
>>you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
>>principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.
>
> Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than
> it actually was.
>
>
>>>They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>>>don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>>>yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>>>nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>>
>>And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
>>where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.
>
> Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)

Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.

>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.
>
> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am
> merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands
> from certain groups

There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
advance to alter the name from rape to something else. And this isn't
the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers in
English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to avoid
the whole question of connotations.

Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like calling
it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations. People erroneously
assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name. Seafood
suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the difference for
decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred million people, the
relentless explanations get old. Change the name and it's done.

People like Chilean Sea Bass but not Patagonian toothfish. Connotations.

> because they don't like the *sound* of a word.
> It would be like changing the name Christian to something else
> because atheists got their knickers in a twist.

This is exactly what it *isn't* about. No one got in a twist.

> You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a
> direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to
> Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and
> "Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to
> trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could
> trademark.

It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.
Here's a quote from: <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html>
Q: Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil
from sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil
rapeseed oil?

A: No. Canola oil comes from canola seed. Canola is the name given to
a very healthy oil that was developed from rapeseed. But it is not
rapeseed oil and has vastly different fatty acid and other properties
than rapeseed oil. Canola was developed using traditional plant
breeding methods to remove undesirable qualities in rapeseed. In terms
of their properties, canola oil is as different from rapeseed oil as
olive oil is as different from corn oil.
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>

They could have spelled it "Wrape" and trademarked it. It was the
sound and its associations they were trying to get away from.

BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital
letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word so
they could register a name: <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>

>>>It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>>>if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "crêpe"...I leave
>>>it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>>>removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>>>Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>>
>>I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
>>that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
>>like.
>>
>>Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
>>reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>>
>>Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
>>speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
>>certainly know.
>
> Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name
> within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross
> languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape
> does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...

Nah. It has everything to do with associations.

The secondary meaning of "rape" - a plant - is so far away from what
the average person would think that it's essentially not in
consideration. For the vast preponderance of English speakers, there's
only one meaning for the word. Rape greens and rape seeds are
virtually unknown as such in the US, and even when they are, the word
gets a cautious pronunciation for all the obvious reasons.

Why does this page exist?
<http://www.dazbert.co.uk/sites/rudef...ocarisweat.htm
>

>>I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really
>>wasn't anything to fight about.
>
> How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.

Right. Your child is vulgar and disgusting, mine expresses himself fully.

> I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)

Eat some rape greens. You'll fart in all directions.

Pastorio (maybe drink some Pocari Sweat from Japan. Next big thing, I
tell ya...)


> And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and
> Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those
> names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,
> in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.

Remark on your Q&A:

First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
Especially when motivated by money.

Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone? (Last I saw
there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%) Now, keep in mind they were sell
this stuff as safe when these numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?

And last:
Olive Oil = Non-toxic.
Corn Oil = Non-toxic

Rape seed oil = toxic
Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare and state - (In the opinion of
commercial science [and the inventors] = Non-toxic)

But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
different.


Bob (this one) > wrote in message
...
Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :
>
>>But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
>>belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
>>you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
>>principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.
>
> Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than
> it actually was.
>
>
>>>They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>>>don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>>>yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>>>nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>>
>>And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
>>where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.
>
> Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)

Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a
well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty
adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called
"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter
of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.

>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.
>
> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am
> merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands
> from certain groups

There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
advance to alter the name from rape to something else. And this isn't
the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers in
English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to avoid
the whole question of connotations.

Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like calling
it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations. People erroneously
assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name. Seafood
suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the difference for
decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred million people, the
relentless explanations get old. Change the name and it's done.

People like Chilean Sea Bass but not Patagonian toothfish. Connotations.

> because they don't like the *sound* of a word.
> It would be like changing the name Christian to something else
> because atheists got their knickers in a twist.

This is exactly what it *isn't* about. No one got in a twist.

> You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a
> direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to
> Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and
> "Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to
> trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could
> trademark.

It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.
Here's a quote from: <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html>
Q: Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil
from sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil
rapeseed oil?

A: No. Canola oil comes from canola seed. Canola is the name given to
a very healthy oil that was developed from rapeseed. But it is not
rapeseed oil and has vastly different fatty acid and other properties
than rapeseed oil. Canola was developed using traditional plant
breeding methods to remove undesirable qualities in rapeseed. In terms
of their properties, canola oil is as different from rapeseed oil as
olive oil is as different from corn oil.
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>

They could have spelled it "Wrape" and trademarked it. It was the
sound and its associations they were trying to get away from.

BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital
letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word so
they could register a name: <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>

>>>It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>>>if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "crêpe"...I leave
>>>it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>>>removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>>>Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>>
>>I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
>>that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
>>like.
>>
>>Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
>>reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>>
>>Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
>>speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
>>certainly know.
>
> Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name
> within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross
> languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape
> does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...

Nah. It has everything to do with associations.

The secondary meaning of "rape" - a plant - is so far away from what
the average person would think that it's essentially not in
consideration. For the vast preponderance of English speakers, there's
only one meaning for the word. Rape greens and rape seeds are
virtually unknown as such in the US, and even when they are, the word
gets a cautious pronunciation for all the obvious reasons.

Why does this page exist?
<http://www.dazbert.co.uk/sites/rudef...ocarisweat.htm
>

>>I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really
>>wasn't anything to fight about.
>
> How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.

Right. Your child is vulgar and disgusting, mine expresses himself fully.

> I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)

Eat some rape greens. You'll fart in all directions.

Pastorio (maybe drink some Pocari Sweat from Japan. Next big thing, I
tell ya...)


> And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and
> Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those
> names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,
> in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.

LifeisGood wrote:

> Remark on your Q&A:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the
> "truth". Especially when motivated by money.

Agreed that using them as the only source would be suspect. But
there's so much out there that debunks the twaddle you
offered from that crank, that it would occupy a thousand lines of the
same proofs restated from reliable, third-party sources.

But you use only one source for your misguided errancy. Perhaps you
didn't notice that. As you didn't notice his woeful lack of scientific
knowledge that you obviously share.

> Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone?

Does it have to be 100%? Is salt 100% safe with no "undesirable
qualities?" Is anything 100% safe? Do you know or are you just trying
to smear with inferences? If you know, say so. If you don't explain
why it's a problem.

> (Last I saw there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%)

Not what you saw at all. This was the numbers for erucic acid.

> Now, keep in mind they were sell this stuff as safe when these
> numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?

HOw dense can you be? If these numbers are lower, wouldn't that mean
that they've reduced the "undesirable qualities?"

But, featherweight that you are, they didn't sell this *same* stuff.
The canola hybrids are different than the rapeseeds they started with.
And your preposterous efforts to use innuendo instead of facts merely
paints you as the quack you're demonstrating yourself to be.

> And last: Olive Oil = Non-toxic. Corn Oil = Non-toxic Rape seed oil
> = toxic Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare

You should be fair.

> and state - (In the opinion of commercial science [and the
> inventors] = Non-toxic)

"Commercial science"...? How silly. You have no idea what the
processes are for acceptance by government agencies as a food are. You
have no idea what the liabilities are.

> But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
> different.

To contrast with your ravings. You aren't correct in anything substantial.

HOw come you post anonymously? Why are you unwilling to stand behind
these words? Are you one of the wackos who wrote this desperately
uninformed nonsense? Are you offering your own words to prove your
own words? Why different anonymous names?

Are you ever going to offer something besides slurs, innuendo and crap
science?

Pastorio

LifeisGood wrote:

> Remark on your Q&A:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the
> "truth". Especially when motivated by money.

Agreed that using them as the only source would be suspect. But
there's so much out there that debunks the twaddle you
offered from that crank, that it would occupy a thousand lines of the
same proofs restated from reliable, third-party sources.

But you use only one source for your misguided errancy. Perhaps you
didn't notice that. As you didn't notice his woeful lack of scientific
knowledge that you obviously share.

> Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone?

Does it have to be 100%? Is salt 100% safe with no "undesirable
qualities?" Is anything 100% safe? Do you know or are you just trying
to smear with inferences? If you know, say so. If you don't explain
why it's a problem.

> (Last I saw there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%)

Not what you saw at all. This was the numbers for erucic acid.

> Now, keep in mind they were sell this stuff as safe when these
> numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?

HOw dense can you be? If these numbers are lower, wouldn't that mean
that they've reduced the "undesirable qualities?"

But, featherweight that you are, they didn't sell this *same* stuff.
The canola hybrids are different than the rapeseeds they started with.
And your preposterous efforts to use innuendo instead of facts merely
paints you as the quack you're demonstrating yourself to be.

> And last: Olive Oil = Non-toxic. Corn Oil = Non-toxic Rape seed oil
> = toxic Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare

You should be fair.

> and state - (In the opinion of commercial science [and the
> inventors] = Non-toxic)

"Commercial science"...? How silly. You have no idea what the
processes are for acceptance by government agencies as a food are. You
have no idea what the liabilities are.

> But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
> different.

To contrast with your ravings. You aren't correct in anything substantial.

HOw come you post anonymously? Why are you unwilling to stand behind
these words? Are you one of the wackos who wrote this desperately
uninformed nonsense? Are you offering your own words to prove your
own words? Why different anonymous names?

Are you ever going to offer something besides slurs, innuendo and crap
science?

Pastorio

Default User > wrote in message
...

> Stop believing every scare story that hits your email. Start learning to
> be a discerning, skeptical, rational person.

I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or read
juornalism debuncing methods or technology curently believed safe or
healthy? Are they ever correct? Do you ever take stock and believe in a new
direction? Example: Are you still in belief that hydrogenated fat is
healthly?

The problem with medical science is that there are so many factors at work
in the body it is easy to hide from (or bury) the long term effects.

Default User > wrote in message
...

> Stop believing every scare story that hits your email. Start learning to
> be a discerning, skeptical, rational person.

I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or read
juornalism debuncing methods or technology curently believed safe or
healthy? Are they ever correct? Do you ever take stock and believe in a new
direction? Example: Are you still in belief that hydrogenated fat is
healthly?

The problem with medical science is that there are so many factors at work
in the body it is easy to hide from (or bury) the long term effects.

Default User > wrote in message
...

> Stop believing every scare story that hits your email. Start learning to
> be a discerning, skeptical, rational person.

I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or read
juornalism debuncing methods or technology curently believed safe or
healthy? Are they ever correct? Do you ever take stock and believe in a new
direction? Example: Are you still in belief that hydrogenated fat is
healthly?

The problem with medical science is that there are so many factors at work
in the body it is easy to hide from (or bury) the long term effects.

LifeisGood wrote:
> Remark on your Q&A:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
> Especially when motivated by money.
>
> Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone? (Last I saw
> there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%) Now, keep in mind they were sell
> this stuff as safe when these numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?
>
> And last:
> Olive Oil = Non-toxic.
> Corn Oil = Non-toxic
>
> Rape seed oil = toxic
> Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare and state - (In the opinion of
> commercial science [and the inventors] = Non-toxic)
>
> But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
> different.
>
>

Here's an extrordinary article I just found on canola oil. I'm about
half-way through reading it. I've not double-checked its references,
but so far it passes my bullshit test:

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/

Best regards,
Bob

LifeisGood wrote:
> Remark on your Q&A:
>
> First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
> Especially when motivated by money.
>
> Second: Are all "100%" of those undesirable qualities gone? (Last I saw
> there were quotes going around of .5 to 1%) Now, keep in mind they were sell
> this stuff as safe when these numbers were higher. But this is ok, right?
>
> And last:
> Olive Oil = Non-toxic.
> Corn Oil = Non-toxic
>
> Rape seed oil = toxic
> Canola oil = ??? But I should be fare and state - (In the opinion of
> commercial science [and the inventors] = Non-toxic)
>
> But, I should point out, you are correct in one thing, they are all
> different.
>
>

Here's an extrordinary article I just found on canola oil. I'm about
half-way through reading it. I've not double-checked its references,
but so far it passes my bullshit test:

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/

Best regards,
Bob

"LifeisGood" > wrote in message
news:8efOc.48666$8_6.26654@attbi_s04...
> Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
> Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
> horticulturist. She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths
> about Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.
>
> Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time Canola Oil)
> as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they are find out today
is
> so harmful to arterial health.
>
> All I am saying, is this is not half truth or legend. I experienced this
> phenomena and so can you.


When was your heat attack and why are you still alive?

Then again if you are posting from beyond let us know!

Dimitri

"LifeisGood" > wrote in message
news:8efOc.48666$8_6.26654@attbi_s04...
> Well, I did read the snopes article. For the love of Pete : Barbara
> Mikkelson of snopes is just a writer. She is not a chemist or a
> horticulturist. She simple reads others posting (like: "Truth and Myths
> about Canola (Canola Council of Canada)") and parrots what she reads.
>
> Example: In the late 60s and early 70's (right around the time Canola Oil)
> as invented so too was the hydrogenation process they are find out today
is
> so harmful to arterial health.
>
> All I am saying, is this is not half truth or legend. I experienced this
> phenomena and so can you.


When was your heat attack and why are you still alive?

Then again if you are posting from beyond let us know!

Dimitri

It doesn't look like anyone here will convince the original poster of
anything any more than she'll convince us, but I, for one, wanted to
thank everyone who wrote out a mini-chemistry lesson for me. I know it
is frustrating trying to educate someone who won't be educated so take
comfort in having educated me.


I'm still interested in why one person (me for example) will believe one
source without understanding everything about it while another person
(the original poster) will believe another. Take the business about the
oils polymerizing. I've had only highschool chemistry and couldn't
explain that on an exam, but it does make sense with what little
chemistry I've had. The little web research I did supported the
explanation. I've had more biology with an emphasis on human evolution
(cultural anthropology) so the concepts of hybrids, artificial selection
and genetic modification are more familiar to me, but I still couldn't
explain any of those in more than laymen's terms. Yet I believe them all.


The original poster would probably say the same thing about what she
believes. She too has found web sites that support her beliefs about
the horrors of canola oil with the conspiracy theories behind them. I
see http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/canola.htm and see so much in
it that makes no sense, so many absurd conclusions based on questionable
premises that I dismiss it easily. But the original poster sees good
sense there. Why the difference? (I'm not satisfied with one of us is
smart and the other dumb. That's circular.)


I've been trying to construct a list of people's underlying assumptions
about the world that account for the difference. I tend to believe that
given a choice between stupidity and malice in accounting for human
behavior, go with stupidity. So I don't see conspiracy theories (profit
motivated giant corporations covered up toxic properties of genetically
modified biological product) because I don't think most people are smart
enough to pull something like that off. I tend to take joy in the way
the language changes and new words are invented (but not new spellings
or new grammatical constructs) so I find something fun in the creation
of the new word "canola," not something sinister.


I love word etymologies so I like learning that the mustard that's
related to cabbage and rapeseed isn't the mustard in mustard gas. The
connection is only that someone thought they smelled alike. Someone
else operates on the assumption that there's something magical and
therefore true about connected words, that there's something scientific
about metaphorical explanations.


Look at the business about how a product with industrial uses can't be
good to eat. I look at that and shrug. For heaven sakes, water is a
useful solvent for all sorts of cleaning products. I use it to wash all
manner of dirt and dust off my body daily. And yet I drink it and think
it is good for me! And it is a main ingredient in body waste products
like ****, shit and sweat. Yet someone else would look at that and,
using the logic that concludes that canola is horrible, start thinking
that water must be horrible. Why the difference in the way 2 people
look at the same set of data?


I love the way scientific vocabulary (repeatable test) gets used to give
credence to an idea while scientific methods are freely dismissed. (The
main method being dismissed is the one about not starting with the
conclusion and looking for evidence that supports it instead of starting
with the data and looking for a theory that explains it.)


--Lia

It doesn't look like anyone here will convince the original poster of
anything any more than she'll convince us, but I, for one, wanted to
thank everyone who wrote out a mini-chemistry lesson for me. I know it
is frustrating trying to educate someone who won't be educated so take
comfort in having educated me.


I'm still interested in why one person (me for example) will believe one
source without understanding everything about it while another person
(the original poster) will believe another. Take the business about the
oils polymerizing. I've had only highschool chemistry and couldn't
explain that on an exam, but it does make sense with what little
chemistry I've had. The little web research I did supported the
explanation. I've had more biology with an emphasis on human evolution
(cultural anthropology) so the concepts of hybrids, artificial selection
and genetic modification are more familiar to me, but I still couldn't
explain any of those in more than laymen's terms. Yet I believe them all.


The original poster would probably say the same thing about what she
believes. She too has found web sites that support her beliefs about
the horrors of canola oil with the conspiracy theories behind them. I
see http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/canola.htm and see so much in
it that makes no sense, so many absurd conclusions based on questionable
premises that I dismiss it easily. But the original poster sees good
sense there. Why the difference? (I'm not satisfied with one of us is
smart and the other dumb. That's circular.)


I've been trying to construct a list of people's underlying assumptions
about the world that account for the difference. I tend to believe that
given a choice between stupidity and malice in accounting for human
behavior, go with stupidity. So I don't see conspiracy theories (profit
motivated giant corporations covered up toxic properties of genetically
modified biological product) because I don't think most people are smart
enough to pull something like that off. I tend to take joy in the way
the language changes and new words are invented (but not new spellings
or new grammatical constructs) so I find something fun in the creation
of the new word "canola," not something sinister.


I love word etymologies so I like learning that the mustard that's
related to cabbage and rapeseed isn't the mustard in mustard gas. The
connection is only that someone thought they smelled alike. Someone
else operates on the assumption that there's something magical and
therefore true about connected words, that there's something scientific
about metaphorical explanations.


Look at the business about how a product with industrial uses can't be
good to eat. I look at that and shrug. For heaven sakes, water is a
useful solvent for all sorts of cleaning products. I use it to wash all
manner of dirt and dust off my body daily. And yet I drink it and think
it is good for me! And it is a main ingredient in body waste products
like ****, shit and sweat. Yet someone else would look at that and,
using the logic that concludes that canola is horrible, start thinking
that water must be horrible. Why the difference in the way 2 people
look at the same set of data?


I love the way scientific vocabulary (repeatable test) gets used to give
credence to an idea while scientific methods are freely dismissed. (The
main method being dismissed is the one about not starting with the
conclusion and looking for evidence that supports it instead of starting
with the data and looking for a theory that explains it.)


--Lia

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:39:42 GMT, "LifeisGood" >
wrote:

>Remark on your Q&A:
>
>First: It is a bit naive to use the inventors as the source of the "truth".
>Especially when motivated by money.
>
It is a given that they have a vested interest and so one should look
at the data. However, that interest also includes making a safe
product. So far in this exchange I have seen precisely no evidence
that it is not safe and a great deal of evidence of ignorance of basic
chemistry and experimental methods. I will leave the choice in
rancid oils to connoiseurs thereof. I prefer mine fresh.

[...]
>
>Rape seed oil = toxic

You really ought to get this little nugget out to the Europeans and
Asians who have been eating it for centuries. And, by the way, you
ought to spend a little time around the extraction of olive oil
sometime.