"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:VHeOc.193294$JR4.151639@attbi_s54...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
> > -me
>
>
> The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't want to
> repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not working at the
> moment anywhere much less for an oil company in Canada, but I did apply
> for a job the other day that I'm very excited about. I was going to put
> the news in another post so thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and
> cheese shop that's opening in my New England small town. There isn't
> anything like this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter,
> making dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
> notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help customers use
> the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling fine cakes and
> pastries too though buying them from commercial bakeries, not baking on
> premises. I don't even know if I'm managing or working for an hourly
> wage, but I'm excited all the same.
>
>
> --Lia
>


Hey Julia,
I'm in NE as well. This sounds like a great shop! Where is it located? I'm
in SE CT, BTW.
Kathi

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:VHeOc.193294$JR4.151639@attbi_s54...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
> > -me
>
>
> The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't want to
> repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not working at the
> moment anywhere much less for an oil company in Canada, but I did apply
> for a job the other day that I'm very excited about. I was going to put
> the news in another post so thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and
> cheese shop that's opening in my New England small town. There isn't
> anything like this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter,
> making dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
> notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help customers use
> the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling fine cakes and
> pastries too though buying them from commercial bakeries, not baking on
> premises. I don't even know if I'm managing or working for an hourly
> wage, but I'm excited all the same.
>
>
> --Lia
>


Hey Julia,
I'm in NE as well. This sounds like a great shop! Where is it located? I'm
in SE CT, BTW.
Kathi

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:VHeOc.193294$JR4.151639@attbi_s54...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > Those who live with their eyes closed can not see in the light.
> > -me
>
>
> The answers to your questions are on the Snopes page. I didn't want to
> repeat or reword what they'd said so well. I'm not working at the
> moment anywhere much less for an oil company in Canada, but I did apply
> for a job the other day that I'm very excited about. I was going to put
> the news in another post so thanks for asking. It is at a new wine and
> cheese shop that's opening in my New England small town. There isn't
> anything like this for miles around. I'd be writing the newsletter,
> making dips, helping customers buy exactly the right wine, writing the
> notes that go on the wines, coming up with recipes to help customers use
> the wine and cheese, bookkeeping. We'll be selling fine cakes and
> pastries too though buying them from commercial bakeries, not baking on
> premises. I don't even know if I'm managing or working for an hourly
> wage, but I'm excited all the same.
>
>
> --Lia
>


Hey Julia,
I'm in NE as well. This sounds like a great shop! Where is it located? I'm
in SE CT, BTW.
Kathi

In article >,
says...
> Julia Altshuler wrote:
> > LifeisGood wrote:
> >
> >> I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or
> >> read
> >> journalism debunking methods or technology curently believed safe or
> >> healthy?
> >
> >
> > Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too. Why
> > believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be out
> > to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
> > wear an aluminum hat.
> >
> >
> > --Lia
> >
>
> Journalistic balance died with the 1968 Democratic Convention. It may
> have been in demise prior to then, but that was its outright death.
> Today, reporters are as much a part of the story, are the story, are the
> instigators of the story as much as is anyone else.

Journalism and the media have essentially become the fourth branch of
government as the mouthpiece of the politicians.

In article >,
says...
> Julia Altshuler wrote:
> > LifeisGood wrote:
> >
> >> I don't get it? Do you ever read the paper, listen to public radio or
> >> read
> >> journalism debunking methods or technology curently believed safe or
> >> healthy?
> >
> >
> > Journalists work for giant corporations and have reasons to lie too. Why
> > believe them? Why trust your neighbor? Everyone out there might be out
> > to hurt you and make you believe something that's not true. Best to
> > wear an aluminum hat.
> >
> >
> > --Lia
> >
>
> Journalistic balance died with the 1968 Democratic Convention. It may
> have been in demise prior to then, but that was its outright death.
> Today, reporters are as much a part of the story, are the story, are the
> instigators of the story as much as is anyone else.

Journalism and the media have essentially become the fourth branch of
government as the mouthpiece of the politicians.

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

>> Canola is rapeseed. End of that discussion.
>
> As if...
>
> Pastorio
>

Recently in Ireland there have been tests...Feeding Dairy Cows Canola based
feed...Seems it makes the butter more spreadable right out of the fridge.

--
Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food
and water.
--------
FIELDS, W. C.

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

>> Canola is rapeseed. End of that discussion.
>
> As if...
>
> Pastorio
>

Recently in Ireland there have been tests...Feeding Dairy Cows Canola based
feed...Seems it makes the butter more spreadable right out of the fridge.

--
Once during Prohibition I was forced to live for days on nothing but food
and water.
--------
FIELDS, W. C.

LifeisGood wrote:

> 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.


This isn't a problem with medical science. This is a problem with
science education. Science is taught in the United States as a series
of conclusions. Textbooks have sentences that begin "scientists have
discovered ..." or "experiments have shown ..." The emphasis is placed
on the end result, not the process. Even science fairs usually have the
students redoing an experiment that they've read about and writing up
researched results, not thinking about something they'd like to know and
thinking about how to test it for themselves.


If more time were spent on the process, students would learn how the
scientific method works. A natural phenomenon is observed; data is
collected; a theory is constructed that fits the available data, and
experiments are done to test the theory. As new data becomes available,
new theories are constructed. Old models are thrown out. New ones come
in. All this is good science.


If the method is taught at all, it is taught with single variables and
no statistics. Experiments are mentioned in terms of 100 men exhibiting
symptoms and testing positive for abc disease being given xyz medicine
while 100 men exhibiting the same symptoms and testing for the same abc
disease are given a placebo. Then the results are compared. Only the
single variable (the medicine) is tested. Little attention is paid to
teaching how population studies and testing with many variables are
done. It does get more complicated and more difficult, but that doesn't
make the results any less important or trustworthy. More variables
might include looking at diet, lifestyle, medicine, genetic heritage.


It is quite possible that canola oil, aspartame, and telephone answering
machines are really dangerous just like you say, but none of your
evidence points in that direction. Your statements only point towards
faulty logic, a belief in conspiracy theories and a degree of the Luddite.


In that last regard, I'm with you. I tend to be suspicious of new
technologies. On this usenet group, we've talked about how willing we
are to try new foods. I'm closer to the "you try it first" end of the
scale. The difference, I think, is that I don't look for scientific
excuses for my natural inclination to stick to the tried and true, nor
do I try to convince others that my tastes are the Right ones. For
example, I don't like artificial sweetners. They don't taste right to
me, and even if they did, they're so, for lack of a better term,
artificial that I wrinkle my nose at the idea. I do prefer sugar
precisely because it has been around for thousands of years. All
natural IS a selling point for me, but I'm quick to point out that I'm
aware of the contradictions since there are other things about the way I
live that aren't all natural at all. Good luck on your journey.


--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:

> 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.


This isn't a problem with medical science. This is a problem with
science education. Science is taught in the United States as a series
of conclusions. Textbooks have sentences that begin "scientists have
discovered ..." or "experiments have shown ..." The emphasis is placed
on the end result, not the process. Even science fairs usually have the
students redoing an experiment that they've read about and writing up
researched results, not thinking about something they'd like to know and
thinking about how to test it for themselves.


If more time were spent on the process, students would learn how the
scientific method works. A natural phenomenon is observed; data is
collected; a theory is constructed that fits the available data, and
experiments are done to test the theory. As new data becomes available,
new theories are constructed. Old models are thrown out. New ones come
in. All this is good science.


If the method is taught at all, it is taught with single variables and
no statistics. Experiments are mentioned in terms of 100 men exhibiting
symptoms and testing positive for abc disease being given xyz medicine
while 100 men exhibiting the same symptoms and testing for the same abc
disease are given a placebo. Then the results are compared. Only the
single variable (the medicine) is tested. Little attention is paid to
teaching how population studies and testing with many variables are
done. It does get more complicated and more difficult, but that doesn't
make the results any less important or trustworthy. More variables
might include looking at diet, lifestyle, medicine, genetic heritage.


It is quite possible that canola oil, aspartame, and telephone answering
machines are really dangerous just like you say, but none of your
evidence points in that direction. Your statements only point towards
faulty logic, a belief in conspiracy theories and a degree of the Luddite.


In that last regard, I'm with you. I tend to be suspicious of new
technologies. On this usenet group, we've talked about how willing we
are to try new foods. I'm closer to the "you try it first" end of the
scale. The difference, I think, is that I don't look for scientific
excuses for my natural inclination to stick to the tried and true, nor
do I try to convince others that my tastes are the Right ones. For
example, I don't like artificial sweetners. They don't taste right to
me, and even if they did, they're so, for lack of a better term,
artificial that I wrinkle my nose at the idea. I do prefer sugar
precisely because it has been around for thousands of years. All
natural IS a selling point for me, but I'm quick to point out that I'm
aware of the contradictions since there are other things about the way I
live that aren't all natural at all. Good luck on your journey.


--Lia

On 31 Jul 2004 15:11:46 GMT, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

> It was 1971 and there were a
> few good decisions and a lot of stupid decisions being made about
> what could and could not be said. There was no marketing ploy. You
> obviously have the wrong impression of how this came about but I
> suppose you can be forgiven for such a monumental faux-pas :-)
>
> However, the use of the name canola in the trademark application for
> Canadian oil, light acid, was because one could not trademark common
> names such as "rape", "rapeseed" and "Brassica napus". Another name
> had to be found. I believe that the transferrence of the term used
> to describe the oleaginous product (canola) to the plant which is the
> source of the product (Brassica napus, Brassica rapa, or "rape") is
> where the "censorship" occured.


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.


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

>>>There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
>>>advance to alter the name from rape to something else.
>>
>> Yes there were. Did you miss that part?
>
> I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US.
> Because it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in
> the bigger market.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in mine either. I don't give a rat's ass how
USAians feel about it.

>> Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old
>> English.
>
>> We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an
>> exotic fruit.
>
> No. We're talking about a word with profoundly unpleasant
> connotations.

No we're talking about an imagined similarity. It's all in their
minds.

> As your Canadian brethren demonstrated in apparently
> great detail. They didn't like how it felt to be saying it. They
> didn't want to eat stuff called that. Simple.

Ah, you assume that. I don't believe there was any direct
association between marketing the product and the reaction to the
term "rape" for brassica napus. You think there is. I don't think
there is, or that there wasn't when the term canola was invented. It
wasn't invented to circumvent public opinion, as I've have argued.
You, on the other hand, merely assume it was and that the US had some
profound impact on this process whereas I believe you are deeply in
error on this point. The term colza was already in use and could
have been easily brought into play if that had been the case. It was
not.

> Note the distinctions between turnips and rape even though they're
> both B. napus. They have the same biological names but are
> obviously very different. It's patently silly to say, "Rutabaga is
> Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Rutabaga is rape."
> That's where your statement leads. Do fix the spelling.

Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too
much.

> See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now.
> Canola is generic.

I didn't say it wasn't but admit it, you had no idea it had actually
been trademarked at one time, whereas I did.

At any rate, this could go around and around. I have made whatever
points I felt were appropriate, and you are free to accept at face
value or stuff it. I don't care either way.

--

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
:

>>>There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
>>>advance to alter the name from rape to something else.
>>
>> Yes there were. Did you miss that part?
>
> I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US.
> Because it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in
> the bigger market.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in mine either. I don't give a rat's ass how
USAians feel about it.

>> Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old
>> English.
>
>> We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an
>> exotic fruit.
>
> No. We're talking about a word with profoundly unpleasant
> connotations.

No we're talking about an imagined similarity. It's all in their
minds.

> As your Canadian brethren demonstrated in apparently
> great detail. They didn't like how it felt to be saying it. They
> didn't want to eat stuff called that. Simple.

Ah, you assume that. I don't believe there was any direct
association between marketing the product and the reaction to the
term "rape" for brassica napus. You think there is. I don't think
there is, or that there wasn't when the term canola was invented. It
wasn't invented to circumvent public opinion, as I've have argued.
You, on the other hand, merely assume it was and that the US had some
profound impact on this process whereas I believe you are deeply in
error on this point. The term colza was already in use and could
have been easily brought into play if that had been the case. It was
not.

> Note the distinctions between turnips and rape even though they're
> both B. napus. They have the same biological names but are
> obviously very different. It's patently silly to say, "Rutabaga is
> Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Rutabaga is rape."
> That's where your statement leads. Do fix the spelling.

Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too
much.

> See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now.
> Canola is generic.

I didn't say it wasn't but admit it, you had no idea it had actually
been trademarked at one time, whereas I did.

At any rate, this could go around and around. I have made whatever
points I felt were appropriate, and you are free to accept at face
value or stuff it. I don't care either way.

--

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 :-)

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :
>
>>>>There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
>>>>advance to alter the name from rape to something else.
>>>
>>>Yes there were. Did you miss that part?
>>
>>I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US.
>>Because it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in
>>the bigger market.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear in mine either. I don't give a rat's ass how
> USAians feel about it.
>
>>>Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old
>>>English.
>>
>>>We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an
>>>exotic fruit.
>>
>>No. We're talking about a word with profoundly unpleasant
>>connotations.
>
> No we're talking about an imagined similarity. It's all in their
> minds.

Right. Imagined. Forget dictionaries and common usage. Of course it's
all in their minds. Just like all thoughts. Characterize it as you
will, English-speakers don't like the word. Impugn their intelligence
as you will. They don't like the word. Rape greens are almost always
called something else in English-speaking markets. You don't have to
like it. It's how it is. Why, exactly, you feel the need to speed from
zero to asshole as you've done is a bit puzzling.

Needless belligerence, Pointless anger. Malice. What a lovely package
you've forged.

>>As your Canadian brethren demonstrated in apparently
>>great detail. They didn't like how it felt to be saying it. They
>>didn't want to eat stuff called that. Simple.
>
> Ah, you assume that. I don't believe there was any direct
> association between marketing the product and the reaction to the
> term "rape" for brassica napus. You think there is. I don't think
> there is, or that there wasn't when the term canola was invented. It
> wasn't invented to circumvent public opinion, as I've have argued.

Yet you say there was pressure about it. Which is it? Can't have it
both ways. No pressure - pressure...

> You, on the other hand, merely assume it was and that the US had some
> profound impact on this process whereas I believe you are deeply in
> error on this point.

I didn't say the US had any impact at all. I was referring to
English-speakers. All English speakers. Any English-speakers.

> The term colza was already in use and could
> have been easily brought into play if that had been the case. It was
> not.

So it was all done so they could trademark a name that they willingly
gave away shortly thereafter. Nothing wrong with this picture, huh?

>>Note the distinctions between turnips and rape even though they're
>>both B. napus. They have the same biological names but are
>>obviously very different. It's patently silly to say, "Rutabaga is
>>Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Rutabaga is rape."
>>That's where your statement leads. Do fix the spelling.
>
> Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
> rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too
> much.

Michel, I really didn't think you were this slippery. I'm really
disappointed in your superficiality and evasions.

You trimmed the crux of that passage ever so smarmily to remove the
point of *your* citation that the council and the web site you offered
say there's a difference between rape and canola. It's one thing to
offer a quote in support. It's quite another to do this sort of shabby
dissembling.

>See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now.
>>Canola is generic.
>
> I didn't say it wasn't

You said it was trademarked. YOu offered a quote that documented it.
But nothing about it's being surrendered a little later. You tried to
make it stand by not offering the whole story.

No mention of past. I said it isn't a trademark. Present tense.

> but admit it, you had no idea it had actually
> been trademarked at one time, whereas I did.

I had no idea that it was trademarked in the past. And if it had been
a good idea to do so, they would have continued it. They willingly
gave it up. I knew it wasn't a current trademark. So what?

The subject isn't about trademarks, it's about the identity of a
product derived from plants called canola and marketed as canola. You
say it isn't what the canola council says it is. Who to believe... a
conundrum. Right.

> At any rate, this could go around and around. I have made whatever
> points I felt were appropriate, and you are free to accept at face
> value or stuff it. I don't care either way.

We're done. Nice style you've developed. Pity.

Pastorio

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
news:P3UOc.203504$JR4.96391@attbi_s54...
> LifeisGood wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> This isn't a problem with medical science. This is a problem with
> science education. Science is taught in the United States as a series
> of conclusions. Textbooks have sentences that begin "scientists have
> discovered ..." or "experiments have shown ..." The emphasis is placed
> on the end result, not the process. Even science fairs usually have the
> students redoing an experiment that they've read about and writing up
> researched results, not thinking about something they'd like to know and
> thinking about how to test it for themselves.

Ah, now you're on the track.
>
>
> If more time were spent on the process, students would learn how the
> scientific method works. A natural phenomenon is observed; data is
> collected; a theory is constructed that fits the available data, and
> experiments are done to test the theory. As new data becomes available,
> new theories are constructed. Old models are thrown out. New ones come
> in. All this is good science.

Exactly....
>
>
> If the method is taught at all, it is taught with single variables and
> no statistics. Experiments are mentioned in terms of 100 men exhibiting
> symptoms and testing positive for abc disease being given xyz medicine
> while 100 men exhibiting the same symptoms and testing for the same abc
> disease are given a placebo. Then the results are compared. Only the
> single variable (the medicine) is tested. Little attention is paid to
> teaching how population studies and testing with many variables are
> done. It does get more complicated and more difficult, but that doesn't
> make the results any less important or trustworthy. More variables
> might include looking at diet, lifestyle, medicine, genetic heritage.
>
This is is where science and business diverage. Business looks specifically
for results to support their efforts. True scientits look for true results.
>
> It is quite possible that canola oil, aspartame, and telephone answering
> machines are really dangerous just like you say, but none of your
> evidence points in that direction. Your statements only point towards
> faulty logic, a belief in conspiracy theories and a degree of the Luddite.
>
Ah, sorry here. I gave you hard proof regarding aspartame. My suspicions
only started as theories. But the supporting evidence that was posted in the
MIT Tech Journel was exactly that - Supporting specific evidence.

>
> In that last regard, I'm with you. I tend to be suspicious of new
> technologies. On this usenet group, we've talked about how willing we
> are to try new foods. I'm closer to the "you try it first" end of the
> scale. The difference, I think, is that I don't look for scientific
> excuses for my natural inclination to stick to the tried and true, nor
> do I try to convince others that my tastes are the Right ones. For
> example, I don't like artificial sweetners. They don't taste right to
> me, and even if they did, they're so, for lack of a better term,
> artificial that I wrinkle my nose at the idea. I do prefer sugar
> precisely because it has been around for thousands of years. All
> natural IS a selling point for me, but I'm quick to point out that I'm
> aware of the contradictions since there are other things about the way I
> live that aren't all natural at all. Good luck on your journey.
>
This is good. I also wish you the best.....
>
> --Lia
>

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>

>> Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
>> rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too much.
>
>
> Michel, I really didn't think you were this slippery. I'm really
> disappointed in your superficiality and evasions.
>


I don't think they coulda marketed it very well as Turnip Oil® either.

(I really liked the "Bitch" dishwashing liquid and "Cock" mouthwash
examples, not that I'd buy the products)

Best regards,
Bob

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in
:

You obviously need some sort of guidance, so here goes, and for the
very last time. I don't care what more drivel you post, you won't
get another peep out of me on this topic.

>>>I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US.
>>>Because it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in
>>>the bigger market.
>>
>> Perhaps I wasn't clear in mine either. I don't give a rat's ass
>> how USAians feel about it.

[...]

>> No we're talking about an imagined similarity. It's all in their
>> minds.
>
> Right. Imagined. Forget dictionaries and common usage. Of course
> it's all in their minds.

Oh, so you agree? :->

> Needless belligerence, Pointless anger. Malice. What a lovely
> package you've forged.

Actually, you're the belligerent one, but I doubt you can see that.
We've been down this road before, Bob.

>> Ah, you assume that. I don't believe there was any direct
>> association between marketing the product and the reaction to the
>> term "rape" for brassica napus. You think there is. I don't
>> think there is, or that there wasn't when the term canola was
>> invented. It wasn't invented to circumvent public opinion, as
>> I've have argued.
>
> Yet you say there was pressure about it. Which is it? Can't have
> it both ways. No pressure - pressure...

Ok, here it is. The debate occurred in 1971. The term canola was
trademarked in 1978. Can you do the math? For 7 years, what became
known as canola was still called rape. There was no reaction such as
immediately renaming it canola. Those who were offended had probably
forgotten about it by then. As I said, the name canola was not
created to replace the term rape, it was created so that it could be
trademarked. Can you not understand this?

>> You, on the other hand, merely assume it was and that the US had
>> some profound impact on this process whereas I believe you are
>> deeply in error on this point.
>
> I didn't say the US had any impact at all. I was referring to
> English-speakers. All English speakers. Any English-speakers.

Actually, you didn't, true, but you implied that the US had an impact
on the name change conundrum all the while claiming that it was not
an issue there. Now who's cornfyoozed?

>> The term colza was already in use and could
>> have been easily brought into play if that had been the case. It
>> was not.
>
> So it was all done so they could trademark a name that they
> willingly gave away shortly thereafter. Nothing wrong with this
> picture, huh?

I was not party to the discussion, neither were you. The name change
was not done so they could trademark a name, the name was trademarked
in a separate movement (and I believe independent movement) from the
debate. You're still the one who thinks there's a connection.

>> Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
>> rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too
>> much.
>
> Michel, I really didn't think you were this slippery. I'm really
> disappointed in your superficiality and evasions.

Learn to live with disappointment.

>>See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now.
>>>Canola is generic.
>>
>> I didn't say it wasn't
>
> You said it was trademarked.

And it was. You seemed to be unaware that it had been (as you
admitted a bit further below). Just thought I'd clarify that for you
is all. So what's your point? Nah...forget it, I'm not interested.

--

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
:

You obviously need some sort of guidance, so here goes, and for the
very last time. I don't care what more drivel you post, you won't
get another peep out of me on this topic.

>>>I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US.
>>>Because it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in
>>>the bigger market.
>>
>> Perhaps I wasn't clear in mine either. I don't give a rat's ass
>> how USAians feel about it.

[...]

>> No we're talking about an imagined similarity. It's all in their
>> minds.
>
> Right. Imagined. Forget dictionaries and common usage. Of course
> it's all in their minds.

Oh, so you agree? :->

> Needless belligerence, Pointless anger. Malice. What a lovely
> package you've forged.

Actually, you're the belligerent one, but I doubt you can see that.
We've been down this road before, Bob.

>> Ah, you assume that. I don't believe there was any direct
>> association between marketing the product and the reaction to the
>> term "rape" for brassica napus. You think there is. I don't
>> think there is, or that there wasn't when the term canola was
>> invented. It wasn't invented to circumvent public opinion, as
>> I've have argued.
>
> Yet you say there was pressure about it. Which is it? Can't have
> it both ways. No pressure - pressure...

Ok, here it is. The debate occurred in 1971. The term canola was
trademarked in 1978. Can you do the math? For 7 years, what became
known as canola was still called rape. There was no reaction such as
immediately renaming it canola. Those who were offended had probably
forgotten about it by then. As I said, the name canola was not
created to replace the term rape, it was created so that it could be
trademarked. Can you not understand this?

>> You, on the other hand, merely assume it was and that the US had
>> some profound impact on this process whereas I believe you are
>> deeply in error on this point.
>
> I didn't say the US had any impact at all. I was referring to
> English-speakers. All English speakers. Any English-speakers.

Actually, you didn't, true, but you implied that the US had an impact
on the name change conundrum all the while claiming that it was not
an issue there. Now who's cornfyoozed?

>> The term colza was already in use and could
>> have been easily brought into play if that had been the case. It
>> was not.
>
> So it was all done so they could trademark a name that they
> willingly gave away shortly thereafter. Nothing wrong with this
> picture, huh?

I was not party to the discussion, neither were you. The name change
was not done so they could trademark a name, the name was trademarked
in a separate movement (and I believe independent movement) from the
debate. You're still the one who thinks there's a connection.

>> Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
>> rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too
>> much.
>
> Michel, I really didn't think you were this slippery. I'm really
> disappointed in your superficiality and evasions.

Learn to live with disappointment.

>>See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now.
>>>Canola is generic.
>>
>> I didn't say it wasn't
>
> You said it was trademarked.

And it was. You seemed to be unaware that it had been (as you
admitted a bit further below). Just thought I'd clarify that for you
is all. So what's your point? Nah...forget it, I'm not interested.

--

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 :-)

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in
> :
>
> You obviously need some sort of guidance, so here goes, and for the
> very last time. I don't care what more drivel you post, you won't
> get another peep out of me on this topic.

How often you say that...

>>>>I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US.
>>>>Because it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in
>>>>the bigger market.
>>>
>>>Perhaps I wasn't clear in mine either. I don't give a rat's ass
>>>how USAians feel about it.
>
> [...]
>
>>>No we're talking about an imagined similarity. It's all in their
>>>minds.
>>
>>Right. Imagined. Forget dictionaries and common usage. Of course
>>it's all in their minds.
>
> Oh, so you agree? :->

Too cute, Michel. As I already said, *all* thoughts are in their
minds. Just like yours.

>>Needless belligerence, Pointless anger. Malice. What a lovely
>>package you've forged.
>
> Actually, you're the belligerent one, but I doubt you can see that.
> We've been down this road before, Bob.

Sorry. You've been down the road and you've initiated it again. I
didn't get into this thread to fight with you. For whatever your
reasons, you felt the need to do your typical smarmy stuff. I truly
don't get you and your need to be combative when no combat is in the
offing.

>>>Ah, you assume that. I don't believe there was any direct
>>>association between marketing the product and the reaction to the
>>>term "rape" for brassica napus. You think there is. I don't
>>>think there is, or that there wasn't when the term canola was
>>>invented. It wasn't invented to circumvent public opinion, as
>>>I've have argued.
>>
>>Yet you say there was pressure about it. Which is it? Can't have
>>it both ways. No pressure - pressure...
>
> Ok, here it is. The debate occurred in 1971. The term canola was
> trademarked in 1978. Can you do the math? For 7 years, what became
> known as canola was still called rape. There was no reaction such as
> immediately renaming it canola. Those who were offended had probably
> forgotten about it by then.

Right. That's about the same time that "shit" was forgotten, IIRC.
Words do that, you know. Happens all the time. As of this writing, 72%
of people have forgotten what "uvula" means.

> As I said, the name canola was not
> created to replace the term rape, it was created so that it could be
> trademarked. Can you not understand this?

But you said there was pressure form groups, and with your fanatical
anti-American posture, it means that it happened in Canada, likely
among English speakers, since there's no stigma attached to the word
in French. So there wasn't pressure? Part-time pressure, I bet. Just
days that ended in "-day."

You didn't say the "rape" protest started and then petered out <damn,
I'm funny>. You talked scornfully about protest groups.

>>>You, on the other hand, merely assume it was and that the US had
>>>some profound impact on this process whereas I believe you are
>>>deeply in error on this point.
>>
>>I didn't say the US had any impact at all. I was referring to
>>English-speakers. All English speakers. Any English-speakers.
>
> Actually, you didn't, true, but you implied that the US had an impact
> on the name change conundrum

Read what you wrote. Actually I didn't imply any such thing. I *did*
say that using the name "rape" in English-speaking markets would limit
sales because of the extremely strong negative connotations of the
word. You tried to make that into an insult about Americans when it's
a recognized situation in virtually all cultures.

> all the while claiming that it was not
> an issue there. Now who's cornfyoozed?

Well, you. And you're still trying to make it into something it isn't.

>>>The term colza was already in use and could
>>>have been easily brought into play if that had been the case. It
>>>was not.
>>
>>So it was all done so they could trademark a name that they
>>willingly gave away shortly thereafter. Nothing wrong with this
>>picture, huh?
>
> I was not party to the discussion, neither were you. The name change
> was not done so they could trademark a name, the name was trademarked
> in a separate movement (and I believe independent movement) from the
> debate.

So some people changed the name for no good reason? Or could it have
been that there was a new plant called "canola?" I mean, that's what
the canola council says, you know. Oh, wait. You posted that.

Then it was trademarked. But you said it was changed so it could be
trademarked. I think you need to sit down with a nice cup of tea and
compose your thoughts so you contradict yourself less. Just words from
a deeply concerned friend.

> You're still the one who thinks there's a connection.

You're the one who tried to connect them with your citations that you
didn't fully read. Remember them?

>>>Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
>>>rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too
>>>much.
>>
>>Michel, I really didn't think you were this slippery. I'm really
>>disappointed in your superficiality and evasions.
>
> Learn to live with disappointment.

Spoken like a true, um, er... [expletive deleted]

>>>See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now.
>>>
>>>>Canola is generic.
>>>
>>>I didn't say it wasn't
>>
>>You said it was trademarked.
>
> And it was.

It *used to* be. You didn't seem to know that.

> You seemed to be unaware that it had been (as you
> admitted a bit further below).

I was unaware of what happened in 1978.

I am fully aware of its condition in 2004. You implied that it was
still under trademark. Naughty, naughty; when you don't offer full
disclosure, some people might question your honesty.

Just thought I'd clarify that for you
> is all.

Your beneficence is only outdone by your weaselyness.

> So what's your point? Nah...forget it, I'm not interested.

Oh, sure you are; some are about you. Several points. That canola
isn't trademarked. That there's a plant called canola. That the oil is
properly called canola, not rapeseed oil. That you're rather shabby at
this discourse process. That you let your frantic hatred distort your
perspective.

That's enough for now.

Pastorio

LifeisGood wrote:


> Another example: Chickpox. This is a not life threating event, and once
> exposed (and constracted) it is "extreemly" rare that one ever gets it
> again. In fact, many believe that it is a step toward building a healthy
> amune system.
> Well, it seems that medical science sees a profit potential here. Inro: The
> Chicken Pox vaccine.


Nooo! Not medical science. Medical science does not see a profit here.
Perhaps, *PERHAPS* a pharmeceutical company does, but medical science
does not. Please don't villify medical science. Thank medical
scientists for the figures on vaccine effectiveness and vaccine side
effects. Medical science is your friend. It is NOT all about profits.
It is about saving lives and public policy.

--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:


> Another example: Chickpox. This is a not life threating event, and once
> exposed (and constracted) it is "extreemly" rare that one ever gets it
> again. In fact, many believe that it is a step toward building a healthy
> amune system.
> Well, it seems that medical science sees a profit potential here. Inro: The
> Chicken Pox vaccine.


Nooo! Not medical science. Medical science does not see a profit here.
Perhaps, *PERHAPS* a pharmeceutical company does, but medical science
does not. Please don't villify medical science. Thank medical
scientists for the figures on vaccine effectiveness and vaccine side
effects. Medical science is your friend. It is NOT all about profits.
It is about saving lives and public policy.

--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:
> Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
> news:P3UOc.203504$JR4.96391@attbi_s54...

>>This isn't a problem with medical science. This is a problem with
>>science education. Science is taught in the United States as a series
>>of conclusions. Textbooks have sentences that begin "scientists have
>>discovered ..." or "experiments have shown ..." The emphasis is placed
>>on the end result, not the process. Even science fairs usually have the
>>students redoing an experiment that they've read about and writing up
>>researched results, not thinking about something they'd like to know and
>>thinking about how to test it for themselves.
>
>
> Ah, now you're on the track.

And you're not. Your conclusion regarding harm in canola oil was never
based on hard evidence, only on an observable phenomenon (canola oil
hardens as it goes rancid) and an absurd interpretation of it, never
looking at canola oil with an open mind.

--Lia

LifeisGood wrote:
> Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
> news:P3UOc.203504$JR4.96391@attbi_s54...

>>This isn't a problem with medical science. This is a problem with
>>science education. Science is taught in the United States as a series
>>of conclusions. Textbooks have sentences that begin "scientists have
>>discovered ..." or "experiments have shown ..." The emphasis is placed
>>on the end result, not the process. Even science fairs usually have the
>>students redoing an experiment that they've read about and writing up
>>researched results, not thinking about something they'd like to know and
>>thinking about how to test it for themselves.
>
>
> Ah, now you're on the track.

And you're not. Your conclusion regarding harm in canola oil was never
based on hard evidence, only on an observable phenomenon (canola oil
hardens as it goes rancid) and an absurd interpretation of it, never
looking at canola oil with an open mind.

--Lia

>This isn't a problem with medical science. This is a problem with
>science education. Science is taught in the United States as a series
>of conclusions. Textbooks have sentences that begin "scientists have
>discovered ..." or "experiments have shown ..." The emphasis is placed
>on the end result, not the process. Even science fairs usually have the
>students redoing an experiment that they've read about and writing up
>researched results, not thinking about something they'd like to know and
>thinking about how to test it for themselves.

Where you getting this stuff? Science curriculums today are so much about
process and method that it's a wonder anybody gets acquainted with the periodic
table anymore. I suppose you'll see a few high school science projects that
are followed from formats in books, but they don't get high grades, and they
certainly don't win prizes.

Curriculums today are so based on skepticism and "challenge authority" that 40%
of my kids' highschool went for Ralph Nader in a straw vote in the 2000
Presidential election. (The remaining 65% went for Gore.)

Neil

>This isn't a problem with medical science. This is a problem with
>science education. Science is taught in the United States as a series
>of conclusions. Textbooks have sentences that begin "scientists have
>discovered ..." or "experiments have shown ..." The emphasis is placed
>on the end result, not the process. Even science fairs usually have the
>students redoing an experiment that they've read about and writing up
>researched results, not thinking about something they'd like to know and
>thinking about how to test it for themselves.

Where you getting this stuff? Science curriculums today are so much about
process and method that it's a wonder anybody gets acquainted with the periodic
table anymore. I suppose you'll see a few high school science projects that
are followed from formats in books, but they don't get high grades, and they
certainly don't win prizes.

Curriculums today are so based on skepticism and "challenge authority" that 40%
of my kids' highschool went for Ralph Nader in a straw vote in the 2000
Presidential election. (The remaining 65% went for Gore.)

Neil

(WardNA) wrote in
:

> Curriculums today are so based on skepticism and "challenge
> authority" that 40% of my kids' highschool went for Ralph Nader in
> a straw vote in the 2000 Presidential election. (The remaining
> 65% went for Gore.)

40$ plus 65%...hmmm...but hey, that 105% of your students at least
voted for the least objectionable candidates :-)

--

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 :-)

(WardNA) wrote in
:

> Curriculums today are so based on skepticism and "challenge
> authority" that 40% of my kids' highschool went for Ralph Nader in
> a straw vote in the 2000 Presidential election. (The remaining
> 65% went for Gore.)

40$ plus 65%...hmmm...but hey, that 105% of your students at least
voted for the least objectionable candidates :-)

--

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 :-)

>40$ plus 65%...hmmm...but hey, that 105% of your students at least
>voted for the least objectionable candidates :-)

You're catching on! Not very quickly, but you are catching on. Now, don't
pull away rapidly or you'll rip your pants bottom.

Michel Boucher always ends his posts with this funny attempt to justify
himself:

"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

Michel Boucher always ends his posts with this funny attempt to justify
himself:

"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

WardNA wrote:

> Curriculums today are so based on skepticism and "challenge authority" that 40%
> of my kids' highschool went for Ralph Nader in a straw vote in the 2000
> Presidential election. (The remaining 65% went for Gore.)
>
> Neil


40% for Nader and 65% for Gore... How many for Bush?

Best regards,
Bob

--
"Vote early, and vote often"

>40% for Nader and 65% for Gore... How many for Bush?

You do the math.

Neil

>40% for Nader and 65% for Gore... How many for Bush?

You do the math.

Neil

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
newsdZOc.190209$a24.111895@attbi_s03...
> LifeisGood wrote:

> Nooo! Not medical science. Medical science does not see a profit here.
> Perhaps, *PERHAPS* a pharmeceutical company does, but medical science
> does not. Please don't villify medical science. Thank medical
> scientists for the figures on vaccine effectiveness and vaccine side
> effects. Medical science is your friend. It is NOT all about profits.
> It is about saving lives and public policy.
>
> --Lia
You are correct. I did mis-speak. However, here is my dilema. I don't
understand why the majority of medical practitioners are so quick to fall
into line when pharmicutical companies see (and capture these opertunities).
Not all doctors, I should add, but the majority.

>

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
newsdZOc.190209$a24.111895@attbi_s03...
> LifeisGood wrote:

> Nooo! Not medical science. Medical science does not see a profit here.
> Perhaps, *PERHAPS* a pharmeceutical company does, but medical science
> does not. Please don't villify medical science. Thank medical
> scientists for the figures on vaccine effectiveness and vaccine side
> effects. Medical science is your friend. It is NOT all about profits.
> It is about saving lives and public policy.
>
> --Lia
You are correct. I did mis-speak. However, here is my dilema. I don't
understand why the majority of medical practitioners are so quick to fall
into line when pharmicutical companies see (and capture these opertunities).
Not all doctors, I should add, but the majority.

>

onono (Nancree) wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher always ends his posts with this funny attempt to
> justify himself:
>
> "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

Or just to make fun or an otherwise fairly dull situation :-)

I prefer the latter explanation seeing as it is true.

--

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 :-)

onono (Nancree) wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher always ends his posts with this funny attempt to
> justify himself:
>
> "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

Or just to make fun or an otherwise fairly dull situation :-)

I prefer the latter explanation seeing as it is true.

--

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 :-)

Michel Boucher wrote:

> onono (Nancree) wrote in
> :
>
>>Michel Boucher always ends his posts with this funny attempt to
>>justify himself:
>>
>>"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
>
> Or just to make fun or an otherwise fairly dull situation :-)
>
> I prefer the latter explanation seeing as it is true.

"attempt to justify himself" On the money.

Pastorio

Michel Boucher wrote:

> onono (Nancree) wrote in
> :
>
>>Michel Boucher always ends his posts with this funny attempt to
>>justify himself:
>>
>>"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
>
> Or just to make fun or an otherwise fairly dull situation :-)
>
> I prefer the latter explanation seeing as it is true.

"attempt to justify himself" On the money.

Pastorio

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
newshZOc.195354$IQ4.83463@attbi_s02...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> > Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
> > news:P3UOc.203504$JR4.96391@attbi_s54...
>
> And you're not. Your conclusion regarding harm in canola oil was never
> based on hard evidence, only on an observable phenomenon (canola oil
> hardens as it goes rancid) and an absurd interpretation of it, never
> looking at canola oil with an open mind.

Clearly you opinion. If one never questions anything then progress is never
achieved.

Here is an example of one forwarding looking individual (using her own
common sense).

http://yarchive.net/med/canola_oil.html (The response to her question is
from a doctor)

Personally, given all that our bodies have to deal with, I'd rather not give
them one more battle fight. Therefore, simply accepting that one says it's
safe is not good enough for me. (and appartently not good enough for this
poster either.)

P.S.= I seems a bit odd to me that a cold pressed oil should polymerize.
From what I have read about polymerization, it seems to take a process such
as heat (or some type of) catylist.

I guess I'll give it another 20 years for the field trials to come in.



>
> --Lia
>

Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
newshZOc.195354$IQ4.83463@attbi_s02...
> LifeisGood wrote:
> > Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
> > news:P3UOc.203504$JR4.96391@attbi_s54...
>
> And you're not. Your conclusion regarding harm in canola oil was never
> based on hard evidence, only on an observable phenomenon (canola oil
> hardens as it goes rancid) and an absurd interpretation of it, never
> looking at canola oil with an open mind.

Clearly you opinion. If one never questions anything then progress is never
achieved.

Here is an example of one forwarding looking individual (using her own
common sense).

http://yarchive.net/med/canola_oil.html (The response to her question is
from a doctor)

Personally, given all that our bodies have to deal with, I'd rather not give
them one more battle fight. Therefore, simply accepting that one says it's
safe is not good enough for me. (and appartently not good enough for this
poster either.)

P.S.= I seems a bit odd to me that a cold pressed oil should polymerize.
From what I have read about polymerization, it seems to take a process such
as heat (or some type of) catylist.

I guess I'll give it another 20 years for the field trials to come in.



>
> --Lia
>