🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:34:08 +0800, "Ceowulf" <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet>
wrote:

>Got a question about this great movie, couldn't find a satisfactory answer 
>on the net.
>
>
>Spoiler Space if you haven't watched it!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Why the hell did Wash die?! Did he want to leave any potential future series 
>(any news on that? Is there going to be a season two?), did Wheadon not like 
>him? Ah man, what a bitch of a thing to do!
>
>Ceo- 
>

I concur. Great movie. I assume Wash is the "I'm a leaf in the wind"
guy. I thought his death was unexpected and just the right thing for
the director to do since he was about to put the rest of the cast in
harm's way. Without that death you get a feeling that everything will
turn out ok for the main characters. I was on the edge of my seat
after his death because all bets were off and I didn't want to see
anymore of the characters die.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:34:08 +0800, "Ceowulf" <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet>
wrote:

>Why the hell did Wash die?! Did he want to leave any potential future series 
>(any news on that? Is there going to be a season two?), did Wheadon not like 
>him? Ah man, what a bitch of a thing to do!

I suspect that if the series had been resurrected, they would take
place before the movie's events. It's not just Wash that died, after
all, and I can't imagine Firefly without the other one that died...


-- 
Alex
atheist #2007

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Ceowulf <ceo@nospamii.atallnet> wrote:
> Got a question about this great movie, couldn't find a satisfactory answer 
> on the net.
> 
> 
> Spoiler Space if you haven't watched it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell did Wash die?! Did he want to leave any potential future series 
> (any news on that? Is there going to be a season two?), did Wheadon not like 
> him? Ah man, what a bitch of a thing to do!

Wash's death was absolutely brilliant. I mean, ofcourse I'll miss him,
and he was one of my favourite characters in the series, but because
of his death, anyone could die. Everyone could die. It made the end
much more tense and believable. Usually in movies, you know the heroes
will survive. Not this time.

Personally, I think Zoe would have been a better candidate for an
unexpected death. On one hand, it'd be much more dramatic because
she's not just Wash's wife, but also Mal's war buddy, and on the
other hand I feel she's less necessary than Wash; he added a unique
perspective: humor, humanity, he always knew how to put things in
perspective. Perhaps he was less of that world and more of ours.
But now he's dead, and the series, if it ever gets resurrected, won't
be the same without him.


mcv.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:34:08 +0800, "Ceowulf" <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet>
wrote:

>Got a question about this great movie, couldn't find a satisfactory answer 
>on the net.
>
>
>Spoiler Space if you haven't watched it!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Why the hell did Wash die?! Did he want to leave any potential future series 
>(any news on that? Is there going to be a season two?), did Wheadon not like 
>him? Ah man, what a bitch of a thing to do!
>
>Ceo- 
>
The commentary on the DVD states "Because I wanted the viewer to think
that anyone could die from that moment on - so when someone gets
cut/shot/hit, you think they could be the next to go"

The DVD commentary is well worth a listen.

-- 

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?  
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies !  Bunnies !  It must be BUNNIES !

Mark Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:34:08 +0800, "Ceowulf" <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet>
> wrote:
>
> >Got a question about this great movie, couldn't find a satisfactory answer
> >on the net.
> >
> >
> >Spoiler Space if you haven't watched it!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Why the hell did Wash die?! Did he want to leave any potential future series
> >(any news on that? Is there going to be a season two?), did Wheadon not like
> >him? Ah man, what a bitch of a thing to do!
> >
> >Ceo-
> >
> The commentary on the DVD states "Because I wanted the viewer to think
> that anyone could die from that moment on - so when someone gets
> cut/shot/hit, you think they could be the next to go"
>
> The DVD commentary is well worth a listen.
>

Second that.

Joss Whedon is a cruel man to his characters in every series, and in
the commentary, he says he wanted the audience to be really on edge.
Once Wash and Book are dead, he wants you to wonder if this is just
going to be a movie where all the characters get picked off one by one.

Quoth The Raven; mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> in
<4461dbb9$0$31646$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Ceowulf <ceo@nospamii.atallnet>
> wrote:
>> Got a question about this great movie, couldn't find a satisfactory
>> answer on the net.
>>
>>
>> Spoiler Space if you haven't watched it!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why the hell did Wash die?! Did he want to leave any potential
>> future series (any news on that? Is there going to be a season
>> two?), did Wheadon not like him? Ah man, what a bitch of a thing to
>> do!
>
> Wash's death was absolutely brilliant. I mean, ofcourse I'll miss him,
> and he was one of my favourite characters in the series, but because
> of his death, anyone could die. Everyone could die. It made the end
> much more tense and believable. Usually in movies, you know the heroes
> will survive. Not this time.
>
> Personally, I think Zoe would have been a better candidate for an
> unexpected death. On one hand, it'd be much more dramatic because
> she's not just Wash's wife, but also Mal's war buddy, and on the
> other hand I feel she's less necessary than Wash; he added a unique
> perspective: humor, humanity, he always knew how to put things in
> perspective. Perhaps he was less of that world and more of ours.
> But now he's dead, and the series, if it ever gets resurrected, won't
> be the same without him.
>
>
> mcv.

he would never have killed off Zoe as Zoe and Mal were Wheedon's favourite 
baddies in Buffy/Angel

-- 
Remove the _CURSEING to reply to me

You cannot reason a man out of that which he has not been reasoned into. 

On Wed, 10 May 2006 russell.glasser@gmail.com wrote:

> Joss Whedon is a cruel man to his characters in every series, and in
> the commentary, he says he wanted the audience to be really on edge.

Still he did it in a completely unrealistic way in my eyes which rather
brought me into the mood that from now on, everything might be as stupid
or illogical which really was a shame. I mean that cockpit window survived
a space fight and a crash landing and then could be that easily broken?

-- 
  Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de)              Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy"            Vorlonships

On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:44:31 +0200, Werner Spahl
<spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:

>or illogical which really was a shame. I mean that cockpit window survived
>a space fight and a crash landing and then could be that easily broken?

Oh, I don't know....cars get into accidents every day and windshields
survive a good portion of the time, but drop a steel girder directly
onto a windshield and it's easily broken.

Sure, what happened in the movie was improbable, but it wasn't
impossible. There's enough plausibility there that it could be used
for dramatic effect.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 gray.wizard@moria.mines wrote:

> drop a steel girder directly onto a windshield and it's easily broken.

But we are talking about a space ship here where the windshield should
survive direct fire and meteorite impacts at high velocities. Which of
course it easily did until the script said otherwise. How come the guys
were at the right place even before the Serenity too? Watch that crash
scene and then tell me they could have overtaken her or were waiting at
the place where she would stop. This looks completely illogical to me.

-- 
  Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de)              Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy"            Vorlonships

On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:02:35 +0200, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Werner Spahl
wrote: 

>On Thu, 11 May 2006 gray.wizard@moria.mines wrote:
>
>> drop a steel girder directly onto a windshield and it's easily broken.
>
>But we are talking about a space ship here where the windshield should
>survive direct fire and meteorite impacts at high velocities. Which of
>course it easily did until the script said otherwise. How come the guys
>were at the right place even before the Serenity too? Watch that crash
>scene and then tell me they could have overtaken her or were waiting at
>the place where she would stop. This looks completely illogical to me.

It was, but then again, who the hell would test "PAX" on an entire planet
before trying it out under more controlled circumstances? Wheedon's no physics
genius, he's an entertainer.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:02:35 +0200, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Werner Spahl
>wrote: 
>
>>On Thu, 11 May 2006 gray.wizard@moria.mines wrote:
>>
>>> drop a steel girder directly onto a windshield and it's easily broken.
>>
>>But we are talking about a space ship here where the windshield should
>>survive direct fire and meteorite impacts at high velocities. Which of
>>course it easily did until the script said otherwise. How come the guys
>>were at the right place even before the Serenity too? Watch that crash
>>scene and then tell me they could have overtaken her or were waiting at
>>the place where she would stop. This looks completely illogical to me.
>
>It was, but then again, who the hell would test "PAX" on an entire planet
>before trying it out under more controlled circumstances? Wheedon's no physics
>genius, he's an entertainer.

Controlled circumstances in a lab may not have duplicated the PAX
effects on that planet.
Do recall the bit of info in "The Train Job" that all the terraformed
planets and moons have some kind of gotcha as a result.

PAX + whatever was not right on Miranda = Lie_down_and_Diers/Reavers.

It's not like sort of "we tested in the lab and it's fine" turning out
not so fine later isn't happening now.

Remember when it was a GOOD idea to use asbestos in a home?
Remember when salesmen ATE DDT to show how harmless and safe it was?
Remember watches/phones with Radium in them so they were visible at
night?

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

"Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message 
news:2d97621pj4edvblmaapt5kicktrm53on4t@4ax.com...

> Remember when it was a GOOD idea to use asbestos in a home?


Still is.  Studies that showed asbestos was harmful were on asbestos miners, 
with really huge exposure rates.  No study has ever shown that exposure to 
basic asbestos insulation is harmful.



> Remember when salesmen ATE DDT to show how harmless and safe it was?


Yes, you can eat DDT with no harmful effects.  It isn't harmful to humans at 
all, and the supposed harm to other creatures is almost entirely bullshit. 
It doesn't harm the environment.




> Remember watches/phones with Radium in them so they were visible at
> night?


So?  People make the mistanke of think that because exposure X causes Y 
harm, exposure X/10,000 will cause Y/10,000 harm.  Actually that's almost 
never true.  Paranoia over microexposures is exactly that, paranoia.  If I 
drop a 10 kilo weight from ten meters onto the heads of 10,000 people it 
will cause 10,000 deaths.  But dropping a one gram weight from ten meters on 
10,000 people will not cause any deaths.  Effects almost *never* scale 
linearly, and the human body is too well designed to be broken by 
microexposures.  But we have paranoids and asorted others preaching 
irrational fear.






>
> Xocyll
> -- 
> I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
> a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
> Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
> FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Fri, 12 May 2006 01:00:21 GMT, "Jim Vieira"
<WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote:

>I know women will get all in uproar over my above statement, but it's
>true. People don't just get knocked out from a single punch of kick.
>Watch some ultimate fighting for example, where guys are getting
>pummeled repeatedly and will not submit, let alone get knocked out
>cold.   Or boxing... People can take quite a bit of abuse before they
>go down.  Many punches (hard) to the head included.

So in a movie with insane space-faring cannibals, intergalactic
mind-control, intergalactic space travel, a near-omniscient villian,
and other things that River turned out to be a human fighting machine
was the only thing you had trouble believing?

And you even state that replacing something in the realm of the
physical (martial arts & extreme fighting) with something from the
realm of the supernatural (ESP, telekinesis, etc.) would make the
movie more believable for you?

Ummm...k.

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
> news:2d97621pj4edvblmaapt5kicktrm53on4t@4ax.com...
>
> > Remember when it was a GOOD idea to use asbestos in a home?
>
>
> Still is.  Studies that showed asbestos was harmful were on asbestos miners,
> with really huge exposure rates.  No study has ever shown that exposure to
> basic asbestos insulation is harmful.
>

Wrong!

When asbestos fibres become airborne, they will lodge in your lungs.
Your body has no way to expel them.  Very, very bad idea you have about
small exposure being harmless.  I know from being a home owner, I sand,
saw, and drill through stuff at will.  Particles of asbestos could
become airborne by such activities.  Smokers have to be very wary as
the two risk factors together are way worse than by themselves.

I'm glad you aren't in charge of standards and codes for construction.

On Fri, 12 May 2006 01:00:21 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Jim Vieira
wrote: 

><gray.wizard@moria.mines> wrote in message
>news:7ue662h8eh5m7kgsuim7fk448a5fslsocm@4ax.com...
>> It was also rather cool to see River turn out to be a Major
>> Bad-Ass(tm).
>
>Really? I thought that was rather simple and obvious.. I would rather
>have seen her end up being some kind of psychic warrior or something.
>That's the way the series seemed to be going and seemed far more interesting
>to me.  Psychic powers.. reading minds, telekenisis, etc.
>
>She's a frail little girl.  I don't care how many martial arts moves she
>knows, she's not going to be single handidly kicking ass on huge,
>brute men.  That's not to say that no woman can beat any man.. but
>it was said in the movie she's a 90 pound woman.  She simply is
>not going to have enough power to seriously hurt anyone big, strong
>and with stamina.
>
BINGO. It was ludicrous.

>I know women will get all in uproar over my above statement, but it's

Few sensible ones. Anyone with some basic physics knows that a 90 lb girl with
a dancer's build can't do a thing against a 300 lb gorrila without some kind of
surprise on her side.

>true. People don't just get knocked out from a single punch of kick.
>Watch some ultimate fighting for example, where guys are getting
>pummeled repeatedly and will not submit, let alone get knocked out
>cold.   Or boxing... People can take quite a bit of abuse before they
>go down.  Many punches (hard) to the head included.
>
>Her kicking everyones ass was completely laughable. Most especially
>on all the reavers. What a joke.
>
>But I know many will buy it and defend it because "fake" fighting has been
>the norm in the movie industry for decades.  Where people lay each other
>out with one solid punch and so forth.  That's not real at all.  Most people
>have alot more stamina and can take a serious beating before they give
>up.  Seriously, if anyone doubts this, you haven't seen enough REAL LIFE
>fights.  Like at hockey rinks where guys each have one hand holding the
>collar of the other guy, and are PUMMELING each other directly in the
>face and nose, like dozens of times, before one of them finally falls.
>
There is the "you say that again and I'll kill you" punch that sends your
opponent's nose bone into his brain, though. ;^)


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

On Fri, 12 May 2006 08:49:50 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
gray.wizard@moria.mines wrote: 

>On Fri, 12 May 2006 01:00:21 GMT, "Jim Vieira"
><WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote:
>
>>I know women will get all in uproar over my above statement, but it's
>>true. People don't just get knocked out from a single punch of kick.
>>Watch some ultimate fighting for example, where guys are getting
>>pummeled repeatedly and will not submit, let alone get knocked out
>>cold.   Or boxing... People can take quite a bit of abuse before they
>>go down.  Many punches (hard) to the head included.
>
>So in a movie with insane space-faring cannibals, intergalactic
>mind-control, intergalactic space travel, a near-omniscient villian,
>and other things that River turned out to be a human fighting machine
>was the only thing you had trouble believing?
>
>And you even state that replacing something in the realm of the
>physical (martial arts & extreme fighting) with something from the
>realm of the supernatural (ESP, telekinesis, etc.) would make the
>movie more believable for you?
>
>Ummm...k.

Um. I don't ever remember him saying that was the ONLY thing he found hard to
believe.

Besides, the cheapest thing in the movie by far was the incompetence of the
Alliance scientists in trying out PAX on an *entire planet* as an early test!
You'd think when the first five year trial yielded 98 dead people and 2
freaking psychotic reavers they would have gone back to the drawing board.

I just kept thinking of Dr. Strangelove and how the BAD guy in that movie
thought like Wheedon did. Meddlesome indeed.

It was fun, but it was not a *thinking* fun. The series was much better at
that. If you think about Serenity long enough, the whole thing falls to pieces.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

tilvios wrote:
> Shawn Wilson wrote:
>> "Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
>> news:2d97621pj4edvblmaapt5kicktrm53on4t@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Remember when it was a GOOD idea to use asbestos in a home?
>>
>>
>> Still is.  Studies that showed asbestos was harmful were on asbestos
>> miners, with really huge exposure rates.  No study has ever shown
>> that exposure to basic asbestos insulation is harmful.
>>
>
> Wrong!
>
> When asbestos fibres become airborne, they will lodge in your lungs.
> Your body has no way to expel them.  Very, very bad idea you have
> about small exposure being harmless.  I know from being a home owner,
> I sand, saw, and drill through stuff at will.  Particles of asbestos
> could become airborne by such activities.  Smokers have to be very
> wary as the two risk factors together are way worse than by
> themselves.
>
> I'm glad you aren't in charge of standards and codes for construction.

Yep, you're right on with what you say.  Smoking/asbestos exposure have a 
synergy which makes smokers many times more susceptible to any of the 
asbestos effects.

There is no known lower exposure threshold limit for asbestos, which means 
that *any* exposure, no matter how small, could be enough to induce that 
dreaded cancer mesothelioma, which as far as is known is caused *only* by 
asbestos exposure.

I've worked around and with asbestos for 30 years, was an asbestos inspector 
for the last 5 years, and have seen more of my old coworkers die of 
asbestosis/mesothelioma than I care to even remember, most of them older 
guys who believed that just because they couldn't tell the asbestos was 
hurting them *right then*, believed it wouldn't hurt them at all.  Sad thing 
is, many of them had exposures for the years when you couldn't even get 
basic respiratory protection from your employers.

Asbestos is nasty stuff, very very nasty.


-- 
chainbreaker 

"tilvios" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1147447529.133706.140650@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>> > Remember when it was a GOOD idea to use asbestos in a home?
>>
>>
>> Still is.  Studies that showed asbestos was harmful were on asbestos 
>> miners,
>> with really huge exposure rates.  No study has ever shown that exposure 
>> to
>> basic asbestos insulation is harmful.
>>
>
> Wrong!


Well, no, I'm not.




> When asbestos fibres become airborne, they will lodge in your lungs.
> Your body has no way to expel them.  Very, very bad idea you have about
> small exposure being harmless.  I know from being a home owner, I sand,
> saw, and drill through stuff at will.  Particles of asbestos could
> become airborne by such activities.  Smokers have to be very wary as
> the two risk factors together are way worse than by themselves.



And we get back to my point- no study has ever shown that such exposure is 
harmful.




> I'm glad you aren't in charge of standards and codes for construction.

Because otherwise inexpensive and highly effective solutions might be used 
instead of expensive and less effective ones? 

"chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:MO6dnb_DnqxJSvnZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...


> There is no known lower exposure threshold limit for asbestos, which means 
> that *any* exposure, no matter how small, could be enough to induce that 
> dreaded cancer mesothelioma, which as far as is known is caused *only* by 
> asbestos exposure.


Like I said, paranoia.  There's no evidence that low exposure is harmful.






> I've worked around and with asbestos for 30 years, was an asbestos 
> inspector for the last 5 years, and have seen more of my old coworkers die 
> of asbestosis/mesothelioma than I care to even remember, most of them 
> older guys who believed that just because they couldn't tell the asbestos 
> was hurting them *right then*, believed it wouldn't hurt them at all.  Sad 
> thing is, many of them had exposures for the years when you couldn't even 
> get basic respiratory protection from your employers.
>
> Asbestos is nasty stuff, very very nasty.


Sure, if you're exposed to huge amounts of it.  The effects of high exposure 
aren't at issue here, what we're talking about is the effects of low 
exposure.

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "tilvios" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1147447529.133706.140650@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Remember when it was a GOOD idea to use asbestos in a home?
> >>
> >>
> >> Still is.  Studies that showed asbestos was harmful were on asbestos
> >> miners,
> >> with really huge exposure rates.  No study has ever shown that exposure
> >> to
> >> basic asbestos insulation is harmful.
> >>
> >
> > Wrong!
>
>
> Well, no, I'm not.
>
>
>
>
> > When asbestos fibres become airborne, they will lodge in your lungs.
> > Your body has no way to expel them.  Very, very bad idea you have about
> > small exposure being harmless.  I know from being a home owner, I sand,
> > saw, and drill through stuff at will.  Particles of asbestos could
> > become airborne by such activities.  Smokers have to be very wary as
> > the two risk factors together are way worse than by themselves.
>
>
>
> And we get back to my point- no study has ever shown that such exposure is
> harmful.
>

My guess is you are full of shit.  It's not my field of expertise, but
I'm an IT guy in an industrial company.  I've been required to have
annual asbestos training in the past, and the experts in the field say
there are no safe exposure limits to this stuff when the fibres are air
borne.  How can you refute this about a known carsinegen (sp?) that
your body can't expel?  It embeds in your tissues and is there until
you die.  If you want this stuff in your home, please do all home
repairs yourself so you don't expose any contractors to this stuff.




>
> > I'm glad you aren't in charge of standards and codes for construction.
>
> Because otherwise inexpensive and highly effective solutions might be used
> instead of expensive and less effective ones?

Whatever.  The material was banned for a reason.  Of course you know
better than everyone else I guess.

"tilvios" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1147463356.427191.294440@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> > When asbestos fibres become airborne, they will lodge in your lungs.
>> > Your body has no way to expel them.  Very, very bad idea you have about
>> > small exposure being harmless.  I know from being a home owner, I sand,
>> > saw, and drill through stuff at will.  Particles of asbestos could
>> > become airborne by such activities.  Smokers have to be very wary as
>> > the two risk factors together are way worse than by themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> And we get back to my point- no study has ever shown that such exposure 
>> is
>> harmful.
>>
>
> My guess is you are full of shit.  It's not my field of expertise, but
> I'm an IT guy in an industrial company.



Good for you.  I know how science is done and how to read between the lines.

When someone says that A is inbdirect proof of B, and B is bad, and they 
come up with all kinds of evidence for A, it occurs to me to wonder why they 
don't just prove B directly.





> I've been required to have
> annual asbestos training in the past, and the experts in the field say
> there are no safe exposure limits to this stuff when the fibres are air
> borne.  How can you refute this about a known carsinegen (sp?) that
> your body can't expel?


Refute what?  No one has ever done a study of low levels of exposure. 
Refute their mere assertion?  I do that by merely asserting my own position.

For a long time people also said there was no safe exposure limit for 
radiation, until a student made a mistake on an experiment and got entirely 
the wrong results.  What he did by accident was actually test that theory, 
which no one had ever done before.

He went on to be a real scientist and showed that low level of radiation not 
only aren't harmful, but are beneficial (he remembered what he had done as a 
student).  It's called radiation hormesis.

Scientists are not expert statisticians.  They'll do their study and get 
data points and plot a line, but their data points will be over (say) the 
range 10-20 and they'll *assume* that the relationship stays linear outside 
that range, especially down to zero.  There are reasons for this kind of 
data to show a line that passes through the origin, but that does *not* mean 
that the relationship is linear over the entire range, especially at the low 
end.  They think that small exposures would cause small effects that would 
be hard to see in the natural variation in the data, so they don't do the 
experiments at all.  Then some joker comes along and does do the experiment 
and gets not small negative effects, but significant positive effects. 
Ooops...

Mother Nature isn't incompetent, and the human body is desiged to deal with 
occasional exposure to bad things.  Just because chronic high level exposure 
is injurious doesn't mean that low level exposure causes any harm at all.

Case in point- Tylenol.  Tylenol is toxic.  If you take enough (about one 
bottle) it *will* kill your liver and you will die a very slow (a week or 
two), painful, inevitable death (it would take a liver transplant to save 
you, and attempted suicides don't get transplants).  But that doesn't mean 
that taking a little causes proportionately less damage to your liver. 
Staying within the recommended dose doesn't damage your liver at all.  (but 
if you have liver problems they will tell you to stay away from Tylenol) 
The means is saturation of the mechanism that flushes toxins.  So long as 
the amounts are within the range the body can handle there's no problem at 
all.  Outside that range the effects start building, and if you regressed a 
line it would pass through the origin.




>  It embeds in your tissues and is there until
> you die.  If you want this stuff in your home, please do all home
> repairs yourself so you don't expose any contractors to this stuff.


Yeah, right...

So tell me, are you going to stop taking Tylenol?





>> > I'm glad you aren't in charge of standards and codes for construction.
>>
>> Because otherwise inexpensive and highly effective solutions might be 
>> used
>> instead of expensive and less effective ones?
>
> Whatever.  The material was banned for a reason.


Yes, that reason was paranoia, not science.  DDT was banned because of 
paranoia too, an the tens of millions of dead since then have shown that 
paranoia kills, it is not the 'safe' path.

Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
> Mother Nature isn't incompetent, and the human body is desiged to deal with
> occasional exposure to bad things.  Just because chronic high level exposure
> is injurious doesn't mean that low level exposure causes any harm at all.

The difference is with asbestos your body can't eliminate it.  There is
also a proven link to a very deadly cancer.  The properties that made
it a wonderful material for fire-proofing and what make the almost
indestructible fibres permanent in your tissues.

That's enough science for me.  It's known to cause a deadly cancer, and
it can't be eliminated from the body.  No more study of levels and what
not is needed as far as I'm concerned.  It's deadly stuff and shouldn't
be used.


>
> Case in point- Tylenol.  Tylenol is toxic.  If you take enough (about one
> bottle) it *will* kill your liver and you will die a very slow (a week or
> two), painful, inevitable death (it would take a liver transplant to save
> you, and attempted suicides don't get transplants).  But that doesn't mean
> that taking a little causes proportionately less damage to your liver.
> Staying within the recommended dose doesn't damage your liver at all.  (but
> if you have liver problems they will tell you to stay away from Tylenol)
> The means is saturation of the mechanism that flushes toxins.  So long as
> the amounts are within the range the body can handle there's no problem at
> all.  Outside that range the effects start building, and if you regressed a
> line it would pass through the origin.

Tylenol is a transcient ingredeint.  Not even comparable to asbestos.

>
> >  It embeds in your tissues and is there until
> > you die.  If you want this stuff in your home, please do all home
> > repairs yourself so you don't expose any contractors to this stuff.
>
>
> Yeah, right...
>
> So tell me, are you going to stop taking Tylenol?

Nonsequitar.

> >>
> >> Because otherwise inexpensive and highly effective solutions might be
> >> used
> >> instead of expensive and less effective ones?
> >
> > Whatever.  The material was banned for a reason.
>
>
> Yes, that reason was paranoia, not science.  DDT was banned because of
> paranoia too, an the tens of millions of dead since then have shown that
> paranoia kills, it is not the 'safe' path.

No the reason is the link to deadly cancer and the permenancy of the
material once imbedded in tissues.

"tilvios" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1147470135.645277.55510@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>> Mother Nature isn't incompetent, and the human body is desiged to deal 
>> with
>> occasional exposure to bad things.  Just because chronic high level 
>> exposure
>> is injurious doesn't mean that low level exposure causes any harm at all.
>
> The difference is with asbestos your body can't eliminate it.  There is
> also a proven link to a very deadly cancer.  The properties that made
> it a wonderful material for fire-proofing and what make the almost
> indestructible fibres permanent in your tissues.


I have a piece of graphite that's been in my hand for about 30 years and is 
likely to stay there until I die.

Your body can deal with that.

Your body can deal with some exposure to asbestos.  It is only when exposure 
is high enough to swamp your body's coping mechanism that problems occur.

And in the real world, asbestos just sits there on the pipes or whatever.




> That's enough science for me.


Problem is that that isn't science, and people like you can't tell the 
difference.  Asbestos was widely used for a long time, if it was harmful in 
low exposures the data would be there.




>  It's known to cause a deadly cancer, and
> it can't be eliminated from the body.  No more study of levels and what
> not is needed as far as I'm concerned.  It's deadly stuff and shouldn't
> be used.


Irrational paranoia.




>> Case in point- Tylenol.  Tylenol is toxic.  If you take enough (about one
>> bottle) it *will* kill your liver and you will die a very slow (a week or
>> two), painful, inevitable death (it would take a liver transplant to save
>> you, and attempted suicides don't get transplants).  But that doesn't 
>> mean
>> that taking a little causes proportionately less damage to your liver.
>> Staying within the recommended dose doesn't damage your liver at all. 
>> (but
>> if you have liver problems they will tell you to stay away from Tylenol)
>> The means is saturation of the mechanism that flushes toxins.  So long as
>> the amounts are within the range the body can handle there's no problem 
>> at
>> all.  Outside that range the effects start building, and if you regressed 
>> a
>> line it would pass through the origin.
>
> Tylenol is a transcient ingredeint.  Not even comparable to asbestos.


Except that Tylenol actually kills people on a regular basis.  We don't (and 
never did) see asbestos deaths from low exposure.

You complain that asbestos is deadly stuff, so is Tylenol.  Why should 
asbestos be banned when Tylenol isn't?





>> >> Because otherwise inexpensive and highly effective solutions might be
>> >> used
>> >> instead of expensive and less effective ones?
>> >
>> > Whatever.  The material was banned for a reason.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that reason was paranoia, not science.  DDT was banned because of
>> paranoia too, an the tens of millions of dead since then have shown that
>> paranoia kills, it is not the 'safe' path.
>
> No the reason is the link to deadly cancer and the permenancy of the
> material once imbedded in tissues.



And so therefore *all* forms of asbestos should be banned for all uses?  Not 
all foms of asbestos are linked to cancer, and many uses of asbestos do not 
allow for it's release into the environment.

Many countries still use asbestos ona  large scale, and they aren't seeing 
the efffects you're predicting.

Like I said- paranoia.

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MO6dnb_DnqxJSvnZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
>
>> There is no known lower exposure threshold limit for asbestos, which
>> means that *any* exposure, no matter how small, could be enough to
>> induce that dreaded cancer mesothelioma, which as far as is known is
>> caused *only* by asbestos exposure.
>
>
> Like I said, paranoia.  There's no evidence that low exposure is
> harmful.

I'm sure you wouldn't have any problem snorting say, oh, maybe an eighth of 
a teaspon full of white asbestos fibers and reporting back to us in 10-15 
years, then, would you?  Oh hell, let's be generous--make it a sixteenth of 
a teaspoonful, or even a thirty-second or sixty-fourth, if you want.
>
>> I've worked around and with asbestos for 30 years, was an asbestos
>> inspector for the last 5 years, and have seen more of my old
>> coworkers die of asbestosis/mesothelioma than I care to even
>> remember, most of them older guys who believed that just because
>> they couldn't tell the asbestos was hurting them *right then*,
>> believed it wouldn't hurt them at all.  Sad thing is, many of them
>> had exposures for the years when you couldn't even get basic
>> respiratory protection from your employers. Asbestos is nasty stuff, very 
>> very nasty.
>
>
> Sure, if you're exposed to huge amounts of it.  The effects of high
> exposure aren't at issue here, what we're talking about is the
> effects of low exposure.

People with practically no known asbestos exposure have died from 
mesothelioma.  But believe what you want.

-- 
chainbreaker 

"chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:hbadndfWSY101fjZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...

>>> There is no known lower exposure threshold limit for asbestos, which
>>> means that *any* exposure, no matter how small, could be enough to
>>> induce that dreaded cancer mesothelioma, which as far as is known is
>>> caused *only* by asbestos exposure.
>>
>>
>> Like I said, paranoia.  There's no evidence that low exposure is
>> harmful.
>
> I'm sure you wouldn't have any problem snorting say, oh, maybe an eighth 
> of a teaspon full of white asbestos fibers and reporting back to us in 
> 10-15 years, then, would you?  Oh hell, let's be generous--make it a 
> sixteenth of a teaspoonful, or even a thirty-second or sixty-fourth, if 
> you want.


That's not how asbestos is used.




>> Sure, if you're exposed to huge amounts of it.  The effects of high
>> exposure aren't at issue here, what we're talking about is the
>> effects of low exposure.
>
> People with practically no known asbestos exposure have died from 
> mesothelioma.  But believe what you want.


People with huge long term asbestos exposure have never developed 
mesothelioma.  What's your point?

In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of 
mesothelioma.  You're just being paranoid. 

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> People with huge long term asbestos exposure have never developed
> mesothelioma.  What's your point?
>
> In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of
> mesothelioma.  You're just being paranoid.

How many people have you watched die with asbestosis/mesothelioma?  I can 
tick off at least 10 without even stopping to think hard about it, every one 
of them somebody I worked with at one time or another who basically said the 
same things you're saying until it hit them.  And no, it doesn't happen to 
everybody, but that's a roulette game I'm not willing to play any more, 
although it might very well happen to me, too--god knows I've had plenty of 
snootfuls of the stuff myself.  It's damned near unavoidable when you walk 
in any steam plant built before 1970.  But like I said, it's no skin off my 
butt if you sleep on it, wear it, wash with it, whatever--wear yourself out.

-- 
chainbreaker 

"chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:2a-dnavmstiNG_jZRVn-sg@comcast.com...

>> People with huge long term asbestos exposure have never developed
>> mesothelioma.  What's your point?
>>
>> In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of
>> mesothelioma.  You're just being paranoid.
>
> How many people have you watched die with asbestosis/mesothelioma?  I can 
> tick off at least 10 without even stopping to think hard about it, every 
> one of them somebody I worked with at one time or another who basically 
> said the same things you're saying until it hit them.


Ah, yes, when reason and argument fail, resort to logical fallacy (appeal to 
pity or somesucjh).

Let me repeat my point-

In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of 
mesothelioma.






  And no, it doesn't happen to
> everybody, but that's a roulette game I'm not willing to play any more,


No, instead you want to play a different one.

"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

><gray.wizard@moria.mines> wrote in message
>news:7ue662h8eh5m7kgsuim7fk448a5fslsocm@4ax.com...
>> It was also rather cool to see River turn out to be a Major
>> Bad-Ass(tm).
>
>Really? I thought that was rather simple and obvious.. I would rather
>have seen her end up being some kind of psychic warrior or something.
>That's the way the series seemed to be going and seemed far more interesting
>to me.  Psychic powers.. reading minds, telekenisis, etc.
>
>She's a frail little girl.  I don't care how many martial arts moves she
>knows, she's not going to be single handidly kicking ass on huge,
>brute men.  That's not to say that no woman can beat any man.. but
>it was said in the movie she's a 90 pound woman.  She simply is
>not going to have enough power to seriously hurt anyone big, strong
>and with stamina.
>
>I know women will get all in uproar over my above statement, but it's
>true. People don't just get knocked out from a single punch of kick.
>Watch some ultimate fighting for example, where guys are getting
>pummeled repeatedly and will not submit, let alone get knocked out
>cold.   Or boxing... People can take quite a bit of abuse before they
>go down.  Many punches (hard) to the head included.
>
>Her kicking everyones ass was completely laughable. Most especially
>on all the reavers. What a joke.
>
>But I know many will buy it and defend it because "fake" fighting has been
>the norm in the movie industry for decades.  Where people lay each other
>out with one solid punch and so forth.  That's not real at all.  Most people
>have alot more stamina and can take a serious beating before they give
>up.  Seriously, if anyone doubts this, you haven't seen enough REAL LIFE
>fights.  Like at hockey rinks where guys each have one hand holding the
>collar of the other guy, and are PUMMELING each other directly in the
>face and nose, like dozens of times, before one of them finally falls.

While I agree with most of what you've said, there is one thing you
aren't considering.
A Brawler isn't trying to kill/maim.

Small skilled Martial artist who is willing to kill vs Brawler who is
looking to hurt and i'll put my money on the Martial Artist.

Bruce Lee vs Mike Tyson, with Lee ready to kill Tyson - a lot of dancing
around for position and then one hit in the right place and it's Bye Bye
Mikey.

Sure punching him in the face isn't going to do much, but that same
punch applied to the throat will.
A kick to the face will hurt, a kick to the temple may kill.

The reavers are ultra aggressive brawlers, they aren't even trying for
quick kill shots.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> writes:

> <gray.wizard@moria.mines> wrote in message
> news:7ue662h8eh5m7kgsuim7fk448a5fslsocm@4ax.com...
>> It was also rather cool to see River turn out to be a Major
>> Bad-Ass(tm).
>
> Really? I thought that was rather simple and obvious.. I would rather
> have seen her end up being some kind of psychic warrior or something.
> That's the way the series seemed to be going and seemed far more interesting
> to me.  Psychic powers.. reading minds, telekenisis, etc.
>
> She's a frail little girl.  I don't care how many martial arts moves she
> knows, she's not going to be single handidly kicking ass on huge,
> brute men.  That's not to say that no woman can beat any man.. but
> it was said in the movie she's a 90 pound woman.  She simply is
> not going to have enough power to seriously hurt anyone big, strong
> and with stamina.
>
> I know women will get all in uproar over my above statement, but it's
> true. People don't just get knocked out from a single punch of kick.

Yes they do : all the time.

> Watch some ultimate fighting for example, where guys are getting
> pummeled repeatedly and will not submit, let alone get knocked out

Totally different punches : tend to be short and "grapple" type pokes in
that awful ultimate fighting.

> cold.   Or boxing... People can take quite a bit of abuse before they
> go down.  Many punches (hard) to the head included.

Hard punches to the jaw, to the temple and the top of the head
can and do knock people out cold. Watch a few boxing matches. But I do
agree with you that some spindly girl is not going to be doing that to a
big hulking guy.

ps I think ultimate fighting is fixed.

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xuc9g.14883$QP4.9069@fed1read12...
>
> "chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:hbadndfWSY101fjZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > People with practically no known asbestos exposure have died from
> > mesothelioma.  But believe what you want.
>
>
> People with huge long term asbestos exposure have never developed
> mesothelioma.  What's your point?

What it sounds like is that some people are more vulnerable to the effects
of asbestos exposure than others.  Now, if we put this in all houses -- like
they did in the past -- would you want to take the chance that some crack or
some damage might cause some exposure, and that you'd happen to be one of
the people who is vulnerable to asbestos exposure?  Over the entire lifespan
of a house (mine's over 50 years old)?

>
> In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of
> mesothelioma.  You're just being paranoid.

You chided other people for not being "scientific", but the fact that you
throw this out as if it means something kind of puts you in that spot.
First, what do you mean by "epidemic", as in what rate would of mesothelioma
would you call an epidemic?  Second, how IS it used (as you mentioned
earlier that it makes a difference)?  How much exposure have people had
where it is used?  How likely is it that things like age may increase the
risk of exposure?  How long has this been happening, so that we can measure
the long term effects of small exposures?  What are the effects on young
children who may have this exposure, as opposed to adults?  Etc, etc.

If there is no overriding reason to use asbestos and take this chance, why
take the chance?

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:Hso9g.18010$M31.243870@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> > People with practically no known asbestos exposure have died from
>> > mesothelioma.  But believe what you want.
>>
>>
>> People with huge long term asbestos exposure have never developed
>> mesothelioma.  What's your point?
>
> What it sounds like is that some people are more vulnerable to the effects
> of asbestos exposure than others.  Now, if we put this in all houses --  
> like
> they did in the past -- would you want to take the chance that some crack 
> or
> some damage might cause some exposure, and that you'd happen to be one of
> the people who is vulnerable to asbestos exposure?  Over the entire 
> lifespan
> of a house (mine's over 50 years old)?


Right, paranoia...





>> In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of
>> mesothelioma.  You're just being paranoid.
>
> You chided other people for not being "scientific", but the fact that you
> throw this out as if it means something kind of puts you in that spot.
> First, what do you mean by "epidemic", as in what rate would of 
> mesothelioma
> would you call an epidemic?


They don't think it's worth banning.





>  Second, how IS it used (as you mentioned
> earlier that it makes a difference)?  How much exposure have people had
> where it is used?  How likely is it that things like age may increase the
> risk of exposure?  How long has this been happening, so that we can 
> measure
> the long term effects of small exposures?  What are the effects on young
> children who may have this exposure, as opposed to adults?  Etc, etc.


Where are the piles of dead people you claim using asbestos would cause?



> If there is no overriding reason to use asbestos and take this chance, why
> take the chance?


If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict people's 
choice in the matter? 

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:2_s9g.14941$QP4.8157@fed1read12...
>
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
> news:Hso9g.18010$M31.243870@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>> > People with practically no known asbestos exposure have died from
>>> > mesothelioma.  But believe what you want.
>>>
>>> People with huge long term asbestos exposure have never developed
>>> mesothelioma.  What's your point?
>>
>> What it sounds like is that some people are more vulnerable to the 
>> effects
>> of asbestos exposure than others.  Now, if we put this in all houses --  
>> like
>> they did in the past -- would you want to take the chance that some crack 
>> or
>> some damage might cause some exposure, and that you'd happen to be one of
>> the people who is vulnerable to asbestos exposure?  Over the entire 
>> lifespan
>> of a house (mine's over 50 years old)?
>
> Right, paranoia...
>
>>> In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of
>>> mesothelioma.  You're just being paranoid.
>>
>> You chided other people for not being "scientific", but the fact that you
>> throw this out as if it means something kind of puts you in that spot.
>> First, what do you mean by "epidemic", as in what rate would of 
>> mesothelioma
>> would you call an epidemic?
>
> They don't think it's worth banning.
>
>>  Second, how IS it used (as you mentioned
>> earlier that it makes a difference)?  How much exposure have people had
>> where it is used?  How likely is it that things like age may increase the
>> risk of exposure?  How long has this been happening, so that we can 
>> measure
>> the long term effects of small exposures?  What are the effects on young
>> children who may have this exposure, as opposed to adults?  Etc, etc.
>
> Where are the piles of dead people you claim using asbestos would cause?
>
>> If there is no overriding reason to use asbestos and take this chance, 
>> why
>> take the chance?
>
> If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict 
> people's choice in the matter?

No over-riding reason 'to' use it either Shawn, unlike the DDT argument. 
Parts of COSHH make sense... if there is a substance that has the same 
outcome but is less hazardous then use it... I have no problem with that 
provided there is a business (reasonably practicable) and health benefit. 
Asbestos can (and has) caused cancer.  Yes it is normally those that have 
some longer term exposure but there is no reason nowadays to put folk at 
potential risk if it can be avoided.  PVA for example is a much larger fibre 
that is non-respirable and causes no tissue reaction.  Other alternatives 
such as PTFE are also being well-recieved in industry.  Obviously the 
chrysotile replacement needs matching to the industry whereas asbestos was a 
sort of catch-all but replacements are available.... why take the risk?

Understand (and share) your apparemnt loathing of misinformation but not 
sure where you're coming from on this one.  Are you Canadian?

Anyway... competely off topic so I'm moving on.....

On Sat, 13 May 2006 06:53:20 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Xocyll wrote:

>"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
>><gray.wizard@moria.mines> wrote in message
>>news:7ue662h8eh5m7kgsuim7fk448a5fslsocm@4ax.com...
>>> It was also rather cool to see River turn out to be a Major
>>> Bad-Ass(tm).
>>
>>Really? I thought that was rather simple and obvious.. I would rather
>>have seen her end up being some kind of psychic warrior or something.
>>That's the way the series seemed to be going and seemed far more interesting
>>to me.  Psychic powers.. reading minds, telekenisis, etc.
>>
>>She's a frail little girl.  I don't care how many martial arts moves she
>>knows, she's not going to be single handidly kicking ass on huge,
>>brute men.  That's not to say that no woman can beat any man.. but
>>it was said in the movie she's a 90 pound woman.  She simply is
>>not going to have enough power to seriously hurt anyone big, strong
>>and with stamina.
>>
>>I know women will get all in uproar over my above statement, but it's
>>true. People don't just get knocked out from a single punch of kick.
>>Watch some ultimate fighting for example, where guys are getting
>>pummeled repeatedly and will not submit, let alone get knocked out
>>cold.   Or boxing... People can take quite a bit of abuse before they
>>go down.  Many punches (hard) to the head included.
>>
>>Her kicking everyones ass was completely laughable. Most especially
>>on all the reavers. What a joke.
>>
>>But I know many will buy it and defend it because "fake" fighting has been
>>the norm in the movie industry for decades.  Where people lay each other
>>out with one solid punch and so forth.  That's not real at all.  Most people
>>have alot more stamina and can take a serious beating before they give
>>up.  Seriously, if anyone doubts this, you haven't seen enough REAL LIFE
>>fights.  Like at hockey rinks where guys each have one hand holding the
>>collar of the other guy, and are PUMMELING each other directly in the
>>face and nose, like dozens of times, before one of them finally falls.
>
>While I agree with most of what you've said, there is one thing you
>aren't considering.
>A Brawler isn't trying to kill/maim.
>
>Small skilled Martial artist who is willing to kill vs Brawler who is
>looking to hurt and i'll put my money on the Martial Artist.
>
>Bruce Lee vs Mike Tyson, with Lee ready to kill Tyson - a lot of dancing
>around for position and then one hit in the right place and it's Bye Bye
>Mikey.
>
>Sure punching him in the face isn't going to do much, but that same
>punch applied to the throat will.
>A kick to the face will hurt, a kick to the temple may kill.
>
>The reavers are ultra aggressive brawlers, they aren't even trying for
>quick kill shots.
>
"Man... Lee was so fast, he could pull your heart out and show it to you before
you died!"

~Dennis Miller, who later commented about how much fun that must be at a party.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

"Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message 
news:1147564745.19048.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...

>>> If there is no overriding reason to use asbestos and take this chance, 
>>> why
>>> take the chance?
>>
>> If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict 
>> people's choice in the matter?
>
> No over-riding reason 'to' use it either Shawn, unlike the DDT argument.



Actually the argument is exactly the same- it's a better product in its 
application than the alternatives.




> Parts of COSHH make sense... if there is a substance that has the same 
> outcome but is less hazardous then use it... I have no problem with that 
> provided there is a business (reasonably practicable) and health benefit.


And yet no one has shown this mythical health benefit.  You can't show dead 
people from the countries that use it, nor can you show them from this 
country before it was banned.  Given its widespread use, if it was a problem 
there would be a large number of casualties.  There aren't and it isn't.




> Asbestos can (and has) caused cancer.


Tylenol causes death.  But you don't seem eager to ban it.




>  Yes it is normally those that have some longer term exposure but there is 
> no reason nowadays to put folk at potential risk if it can be avoided.


Paranoid thinking.



> Understand (and share) your apparemnt loathing of misinformation but not 
> sure where you're coming from on this one.  Are you Canadian?


Nope, USAn.

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:Hkv9g.14949$QP4.9675@fed1read12...
>
> "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message 
> news:1147564745.19048.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...
>
>>>> If there is no overriding reason to use asbestos and take this chance, 
>>>> why
>>>> take the chance?
>>>
>>> If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict 
>>> people's choice in the matter?
>>
>> No over-riding reason 'to' use it either Shawn, unlike the DDT argument.
>
> Actually the argument is exactly the same- it's a better product in its 
> application than the alternatives.

Unlike DDT I haven't seen any proof of this whatsoever.

>> Parts of COSHH make sense... if there is a substance that has the same 
>> outcome but is less hazardous then use it... I have no problem with that 
>> provided there is a business (reasonably practicable) and health benefit.
>
> And yet no one has shown this mythical health benefit.  You can't show 
> dead people from the countries that use it, nor can you show them from 
> this country before it was banned.  Given its widespread use, if it was a 
> problem there would be a large number of casualties.  There aren't and it 
> isn't.

You're an intelligent guy so you probably know that such deaths were not 
tracked by your own government until 1999.  Once they started tracking it 
properly the rates they thought they had actually doubled overnight. 
Figures just for the US 1979 to 2001 are now thought to be around 230,000 
people.  Why do these dead people not count in your theory?  What do you 
term a large number of casulaties?

>> Asbestos can (and has) caused cancer.
>
> Tylenol causes death.  But you don't seem eager to ban it.

So does smoking and I'm not looking to ban that either.  Eat too many 
burgers you're going to die.  Drink too much alcohol you're going to die. 
Etc, etc etc.  You dont seem to see the difference between a personal choice 
(tylonol, smoking, eating too many burgers, drinking too much) and no choice 
at all (asbestos put in your workplace or home 40 years or more ago which 
may be damaged, flaking, putting fibres into the air and about which you 
personally can do nothing)

>>  Yes it is normally those that have some longer term exposure but there 
>> is no reason nowadays to put folk at potential risk if it can be avoided.

> Paranoid thinking.

No, common sense

>> Understand (and share) your apparemnt loathing of misinformation but not 
>> sure where you're coming from on this one.  Are you Canadian?
>
> Nope, USAn.

Ok, I remember Canada going to court with France when they had a complete 
ban, (Canada being one of the bigger producers of asbestos and biggest of 
chrysotile).  You may remember the WTO upholding France's decision after 
consulting a number of experts who all concluded chrysotile caused cancer

"Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message 
news:1147600610.6890.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...

>>>> If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict 
>>>> people's choice in the matter?
>>>
>>> No over-riding reason 'to' use it either Shawn, unlike the DDT argument.
>>
>> Actually the argument is exactly the same- it's a better product in its 
>> application than the alternatives.
>
> Unlike DDT I haven't seen any proof of this whatsoever.


Then you didn't look.  People choose to use asbestos.  They aren't doing so 
because it's inferior.



>> And yet no one has shown this mythical health benefit.  You can't show 
>> dead people from the countries that use it, nor can you show them from 
>> this country before it was banned.  Given its widespread use, if it was a 
>> problem there would be a large number of casualties.  There aren't and it 
>> isn't.
>
> You're an intelligent guy so you probably know that such deaths were not 
> tracked by your own government until 1999.  Once they started tracking it 
> properly the rates they thought they had actually doubled overnight. 
> Figures just for the US 1979 to 2001 are now thought to be around 230,000 
> people.  Why do these dead people not count in your theory?  What do you 
> term a large number of casulaties?


Show me casualties in a country where the claim isn't associated with large 
lawsuit rewards.




>>> Asbestos can (and has) caused cancer.
>>
>> Tylenol causes death.  But you don't seem eager to ban it.
>
> So does smoking and I'm not looking to ban that either.  Eat too many 
> burgers you're going to die.  Drink too much alcohol you're going to die. 
> Etc, etc etc.  You dont seem to see the difference between a personal 
> choice (tylonol, smoking, eating too many burgers, drinking too much) and 
> no choice at all (asbestos put in your workplace or home 40 years or more 
> ago which may be damaged, flaking, putting fibres into the air and about 
> which you personally can do nothing)


You don't have a choice about what home you buy?

Try dealing with reality now...





>>>  Yes it is normally those that have some longer term exposure but there 
>>> is no reason nowadays to put folk at potential risk if it can be 
>>> avoided.
>
>> Paranoid thinking.
>
> No, common sense


Nope, paranoia.  If you want to avoid all "potential risks" then you need to 
stop consuming everything, including air.  Of course driving and even going 
outside would have to be eliminated, because those present a potential risk.




>>> Understand (and share) your apparemnt loathing of misinformation but not 
>>> sure where you're coming from on this one.  Are you Canadian?
>>
>> Nope, USAn.
>
> Ok, I remember Canada going to court with France when they had a complete 
> ban, (Canada being one of the bigger producers of asbestos and biggest of 
> chrysotile).  You may remember the WTO upholding France's decision after 
> consulting a number of experts who all concluded chrysotile caused cancer


As a rule international organizations are corrupt and full of shit and can 
never be trusted.  If asbestos is a problem why is there no pile of dead in 
Canada?   In fact Canada has a greater life expectancy than the US does.

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:eyE9g.14990$QP4.12189@fed1read12...
>

Your arguments are completely cyclical, burden of proof is against you and 
while I'd be willing to listen you are not providing any alternative proof 
to support you.  Thanks for the conversation but I'm done with it.

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2_s9g.14941$QP4.8157@fed1read12...
>
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:Hso9g.18010$M31.243870@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> >> > People with practically no known asbestos exposure have died from
> >> > mesothelioma.  But believe what you want.
> >>
> >>
> >> People with huge long term asbestos exposure have never developed
> >> mesothelioma.  What's your point?
> >
> > What it sounds like is that some people are more vulnerable to the
effects
> > of asbestos exposure than others.  Now, if we put this in all houses -- 
> > like
> > they did in the past -- would you want to take the chance that some
crack
> > or
> > some damage might cause some exposure, and that you'd happen to be one
of
> > the people who is vulnerable to asbestos exposure?  Over the entire
> > lifespan
> > of a house (mine's over 50 years old)?
>
>
> Right, paranoia...

Paranoia?  You accepted that some people are more vulnerable to asbestos
exposure than others.  If you were one of those people, and didn't know it,
would you want to take the extra chance of exposure?

>
>
>
>
>
> >> In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of
> >> mesothelioma.  You're just being paranoid.
> >
> > You chided other people for not being "scientific", but the fact that
you
> > throw this out as if it means something kind of puts you in that spot.
> > First, what do you mean by "epidemic", as in what rate would of
> > mesothelioma
> > would you call an epidemic?
>
>
> They don't think it's worth banning.

Wow, THAT'S a scientific measure ...

>
>
>
>
>
> >  Second, how IS it used (as you mentioned
> > earlier that it makes a difference)?  How much exposure have people had
> > where it is used?  How likely is it that things like age may increase
the
> > risk of exposure?  How long has this been happening, so that we can
> > measure
> > the long term effects of small exposures?  What are the effects on young
> > children who may have this exposure, as opposed to adults?  Etc, etc.
>
>
> Where are the piles of dead people you claim using asbestos would cause?

Now you are either just being irrational or trolling.  I never claimed that
there would be any such piles, as you can read above.

>
>
>
> > If there is no overriding reason to use asbestos and take this chance,
why
> > take the chance?
>
>
> If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict
people's
> choice in the matter?

Because it doesn't just affect THEM ... it affects anyone who may buy that
house or even visit it in the future.

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> writes:

> "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message 
> news:1147600610.6890.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...
>
>>>>> If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict 
>>>>> people's choice in the matter?
>>>>
>>>> No over-riding reason 'to' use it either Shawn, unlike the DDT argument.
>>>
>>> Actually the argument is exactly the same- it's a better product in its 
>>> application than the alternatives.
>>
>> Unlike DDT I haven't seen any proof of this whatsoever.
>
>
> Then you didn't look.  People choose to use asbestos.  They aren't doing so 
> because it's inferior.

People used to use arsenic to cure headaches too. How stupid are you?
Drug dealers choose to peddle drugs - does that make it right?

>
>
>
>>> And yet no one has shown this mythical health benefit.  You can't show 
>>> dead people from the countries that use it, nor can you show them from 
>>> this country before it was banned.  Given its widespread use, if it was a 
>>> problem there would be a large number of casualties.  There aren't and it 
>>> isn't.
>>
>> You're an intelligent guy so you probably know that such deaths were not 
>> tracked by your own government until 1999.  Once they started tracking it 
>> properly the rates they thought they had actually doubled overnight. 
>> Figures just for the US 1979 to 2001 are now thought to be around 230,000 
>> people.  Why do these dead people not count in your theory?  What do you 
>> term a large number of casulaties?
>
>
> Show me casualties in a country where the claim isn't associated with large 
> lawsuit rewards.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Asbestos can (and has) caused cancer.
>>>
>>> Tylenol causes death.  But you don't seem eager to ban it.
>>
>> So does smoking and I'm not looking to ban that either.  Eat too many 
>> burgers you're going to die.  Drink too much alcohol you're going to die. 
>> Etc, etc etc.  You dont seem to see the difference between a personal 
>> choice (tylonol, smoking, eating too many burgers, drinking too much) and 
>> no choice at all (asbestos put in your workplace or home 40 years or more 
>> ago which may be damaged, flaking, putting fibres into the air and about 
>> which you personally can do nothing)
>
>
> You don't have a choice about what home you buy?
>
> Try dealing with reality now...

Oh. That stupid. Most people dont know what meterials are in their wall
cavities funny enough.
>
> As a rule international organizations are corrupt and full of shit and can 
> never be trusted.  If asbestos is a problem why is there no pile of dead in 
> Canada?   In fact Canada has a greater life expectancy than the US
> does.


Err, because, unlike elephants, they dont all congregate into some
asbestos graveyard?

With your logic I could say : if guns are such a problem why arent there
pile of dead bodies in Somerset, England? Doesn't hold much water does it?

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eyE9g.14990$QP4.12189@fed1read12...
>
> "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
> news:1147600610.6890.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...
>
> >>>> If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict
> >>>> people's choice in the matter?
> >>>
> >>> No over-riding reason 'to' use it either Shawn, unlike the DDT
argument.
> >>
> >> Actually the argument is exactly the same- it's a better product in its
> >> application than the alternatives.
> >
> > Unlike DDT I haven't seen any proof of this whatsoever.
>
>
> Then you didn't look.  People choose to use asbestos.  They aren't doing
so
> because it's inferior.

The problem is that in any business environment "cheaper" can mean
"superior".

>
>
>
> >> And yet no one has shown this mythical health benefit.  You can't show
> >> dead people from the countries that use it, nor can you show them from
> >> this country before it was banned.  Given its widespread use, if it was
a
> >> problem there would be a large number of casualties.  There aren't and
it
> >> isn't.
> >
> > You're an intelligent guy so you probably know that such deaths were not
> > tracked by your own government until 1999.  Once they started tracking
it
> > properly the rates they thought they had actually doubled overnight.
> > Figures just for the US 1979 to 2001 are now thought to be around
230,000
> > people.  Why do these dead people not count in your theory?  What do you
> > term a large number of casulaties?
>
>
> Show me casualties in a country where the claim isn't associated with
large
> lawsuit rewards.

Thus, show it in a country where no responsibiltiy is assigned to its use or
misuse.  Nice ploy, that.

>
>
>
>
> >>> Asbestos can (and has) caused cancer.
> >>
> >> Tylenol causes death.  But you don't seem eager to ban it.
> >
> > So does smoking and I'm not looking to ban that either.  Eat too many
> > burgers you're going to die.  Drink too much alcohol you're going to
die.
> > Etc, etc etc.  You dont seem to see the difference between a personal
> > choice (tylonol, smoking, eating too many burgers, drinking too much)
and
> > no choice at all (asbestos put in your workplace or home 40 years or
more
> > ago which may be damaged, flaking, putting fibres into the air and about
> > which you personally can do nothing)
>
>
> You don't have a choice about what home you buy?
>
> Try dealing with reality now...

If all houses are built with it, and if you can't get the land to build a
house a reasonable distance from where you work, what choice DO you have?

> > Ok, I remember Canada going to court with France when they had a
complete
> > ban, (Canada being one of the bigger producers of asbestos and biggest
of
> > chrysotile).  You may remember the WTO upholding France's decision after
> > consulting a number of experts who all concluded chrysotile caused
cancer
>
>
> As a rule international organizations are corrupt and full of shit and can
> never be trusted.  If asbestos is a problem why is there no pile of dead
in
> Canada?   In fact Canada has a greater life expectancy than the US does.

Canadian home builders generally do not use asbestos in their homes anymore.

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87k68ohejl.fsf@news.europe.ch...

>>>> Actually the argument is exactly the same- it's a better product in its
>>>> application than the alternatives.
>>>
>>> Unlike DDT I haven't seen any proof of this whatsoever.
>>
>>
>> Then you didn't look.  People choose to use asbestos.  They aren't doing 
>> so
>> because it's inferior.
>
> People used to use arsenic to cure headaches too. How stupid are you?
> Drug dealers choose to peddle drugs - does that make it right?




Right isnt't the issue here the question is quality of the product, and the 
fact that people *do* use asbestos means that it is a superior product for 
their uses.




>>> So does smoking and I'm not looking to ban that either.  Eat too many
>>> burgers you're going to die.  Drink too much alcohol you're going to 
>>> die.
>>> Etc, etc etc.  You dont seem to see the difference between a personal
>>> choice (tylonol, smoking, eating too many burgers, drinking too much) 
>>> and
>>> no choice at all (asbestos put in your workplace or home 40 years or 
>>> more
>>> ago which may be damaged, flaking, putting fibres into the air and about
>>> which you personally can do nothing)
>>
>>
>> You don't have a choice about what home you buy?
>>
>> Try dealing with reality now...
>
> Oh. That stupid. Most people dont know what meterials are in their wall
> cavities funny enough.


Easy enough to find out, and home inspection is a standard part of buying a 
house.




>> As a rule international organizations are corrupt and full of shit and 
>> can
>> never be trusted.  If asbestos is a problem why is there no pile of dead 
>> in
>> Canada?   In fact Canada has a greater life expectancy than the US
>> does.
>
>
> Err, because, unlike elephants, they dont all congregate into some
> asbestos graveyard?


Or, in the real world, because incidental exposure isn't a health risk.




> With your logic I could say : if guns are such a problem why arent there
> pile of dead bodies in Somerset, England? Doesn't hold much water does it?



Actually it does, There's no pile of bodies because guns are not a problem.

And *you* have decided to limit the consideration to one small city rather 
than an entire nation.

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:goK9g.127$z97.14930@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> Then you didn't look.  People choose to use asbestos.  They aren't doing
> so
>> because it's inferior.
>
> The problem is that in any business environment "cheaper" can mean
> "superior".



It does mean superior.  If you think otherwise I congratulate you on your 
unlimited wealth.






>> Show me casualties in a country where the claim isn't associated with
> large
>> lawsuit rewards.
>
> Thus, show it in a country where no responsibiltiy is assigned to its use 
> or
> misuse.  Nice ploy, that.


Better than using claims in a country where there is an incentive to be less 
than totally honest.







>> You don't have a choice about what home you buy?
>>
>> Try dealing with reality now...
>
> If all houses are built with it, and if you can't get the land to build a
> house a reasonable distance from where you work, what choice DO you have?


It t's everywhere, and it's supposedly so dangerous, why isn't there a huge 
pile of dead bodies?  By the arguments presented here no one would ever die 
of anything else.

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:YIF9g.28$z97.3133@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> > What it sounds like is that some people are more vulnerable to the
> effects
>> > of asbestos exposure than others.  Now, if we put this in all houses -- 
>> > like
>> > they did in the past -- would you want to take the chance that some
> crack
>> > or
>> > some damage might cause some exposure, and that you'd happen to be one
> of
>> > the people who is vulnerable to asbestos exposure?  Over the entire
>> > lifespan
>> > of a house (mine's over 50 years old)?
>>
>>
>> Right, paranoia...
>
> Paranoia?  You accepted that some people are more vulnerable to asbestos
> exposure than others.  If you were one of those people, and didn't know 
> it,
> would you want to take the extra chance of exposure?


*Everyone* is vulnerable to being hit by a car, are you going to ban cars?





>> > You chided other people for not being "scientific", but the fact that
> you
>> > throw this out as if it means something kind of puts you in that spot.
>> > First, what do you mean by "epidemic", as in what rate would of
>> > mesothelioma
>> > would you call an epidemic?
>>
>>
>> They don't think it's worth banning.
>
> Wow, THAT'S a scientific measure ...


Yes, it is.





>> >  Second, how IS it used (as you mentioned
>> > earlier that it makes a difference)?  How much exposure have people had
>> > where it is used?  How likely is it that things like age may increase
> the
>> > risk of exposure?  How long has this been happening, so that we can
>> > measure
>> > the long term effects of small exposures?  What are the effects on 
>> > young
>> > children who may have this exposure, as opposed to adults?  Etc, etc.
>>
>>
>> Where are the piles of dead people you claim using asbestos would cause?
>
> Now you are either just being irrational or trolling.  I never claimed 
> that
> there would be any such piles, as you can read above.


Ah, so it would only kill a few people..

Cars kill a lot of people, by your argument cars should be banned before 
asbestos because they present a greater risk.





>> > If there is no overriding reason to use asbestos and take this chance,
> why
>> > take the chance?
>>
>>
>> If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict
> people's
>> choice in the matter?
>
> Because it doesn't just affect THEM ... it affects anyone who may buy that
> house or even visit it in the future.


Yes, and when you drive a car you may kill someone else...






>
> 

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message
news:YvM9g.15003$QP4.9377@fed1read12...
>
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:YIF9g.28$z97.3133@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> >> > What it sounds like is that some people are more vulnerable to the
> > effects
> >> > of asbestos exposure than others.  Now, if we put this in all
houses -- 
> >> > like
> >> > they did in the past -- would you want to take the chance that some
> > crack
> >> > or
> >> > some damage might cause some exposure, and that you'd happen to be
one
> > of
> >> > the people who is vulnerable to asbestos exposure?  Over the entire
> >> > lifespan
> >> > of a house (mine's over 50 years old)?
> >>
> >>
> >> Right, paranoia...
> >
> > Paranoia?  You accepted that some people are more vulnerable to asbestos
> > exposure than others.  If you were one of those people, and didn't know
> > it,
> > would you want to take the extra chance of exposure?
>
>
> *Everyone* is vulnerable to being hit by a car, are you going to ban cars?

As you say below, it is generally only human error -- or a defective car -- 
that causes people to get hit by cars.  Asbestos exposure that may affect
some people more than others does NOT occur by human error alone.  We do not
ban human stupidity.

Plus, there's the whole "benefit/risk" thing, and so far you have given no
reason for anyone to think that using asbestos is that much better than
anything else.  As I said, they don't put it in Canadian homes anymore.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> > You chided other people for not being "scientific", but the fact that
> > you
> >> > throw this out as if it means something kind of puts you in that
spot.
> >> > First, what do you mean by "epidemic", as in what rate would of
> >> > mesothelioma
> >> > would you call an epidemic?
> >>
> >>
> >> They don't think it's worth banning.
> >
> > Wow, THAT'S a scientific measure ...
>
>
> Yes, it is.

Smoking is proven to kill people, yet I don't know of any government that
has banned it.  You should be able to see now how that is not a scientific
measure.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> >  Second, how IS it used (as you mentioned
> >> > earlier that it makes a difference)?  How much exposure have people
had
> >> > where it is used?  How likely is it that things like age may increase
> > the
> >> > risk of exposure?  How long has this been happening, so that we can
> >> > measure
> >> > the long term effects of small exposures?  What are the effects on
> >> > young
> >> > children who may have this exposure, as opposed to adults?  Etc, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Where are the piles of dead people you claim using asbestos would
cause?
> >
> > Now you are either just being irrational or trolling.  I never claimed
> > that
> > there would be any such piles, as you can read above.
>
>
> Ah, so it would only kill a few people..

Those who were more at risk for it, yes.

>
> Cars kill a lot of people, by your argument cars should be banned before
> asbestos because they present a greater risk.

Dealt with above.

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6sM9g.15002$QP4.4864@fed1read12...
>
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:goK9g.127$z97.14930@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> >> Then you didn't look.  People choose to use asbestos.  They aren't
doing
> > so
> >> because it's inferior.
> >
> > The problem is that in any business environment "cheaper" can mean
> > "superior".
>
>
>
> It does mean superior.  If you think otherwise I congratulate you on your
> unlimited wealth.

Are you advocating the idea that we should use a substance known to cause
more deaths than another slightly more expensive substance simply because
the first one is cheaper?  Which in the housing market would mean that the
builder gets to make more profit?

> >> Show me casualties in a country where the claim isn't associated with
> > large
> >> lawsuit rewards.
> >
> > Thus, show it in a country where no responsibiltiy is assigned to its
use
> > or
> > misuse.  Nice ploy, that.
>
>
> Better than using claims in a country where there is an incentive to be
less
> than totally honest.

But if the lawsuits pass, wouldn't both sides be able to present their own
"less than totally honest" statements, and the judges determine that the
weight of evidence is on the side against the companies?

> >> You don't have a choice about what home you buy?
> >>
> >> Try dealing with reality now...
> >
> > If all houses are built with it, and if you can't get the land to build
a
> > house a reasonable distance from where you work, what choice DO you
have?
>
>
> It t's everywhere, and it's supposedly so dangerous, why isn't there a
huge
> pile of dead bodies?  By the arguments presented here no one would ever
die
> of anything else.

This has nothing to do with what was discussed above ... which was how much
choice you had to live in an asbestos-free home.  This is more limited than
you asserted.  Add in the fact that some people are more vulnerable to asbes
tos exposure and you may be dooming some people to death if you use it.

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:TIN9g.397$z97.19087@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> > The problem is that in any business environment "cheaper" can mean
>> > "superior".
>>
>>
>>
>> It does mean superior.  If you think otherwise I congratulate you on your
>> unlimited wealth.
>
> Are you advocating the idea that we should use a substance known to cause
> more deaths than another slightly more expensive substance simply because
> the first one is cheaper?


Yes.



>  Which in the housing market would mean that the
> builder gets to make more profit?


Well, no.  Actually houses get cheaper.  All industries in an economy have 
the same expected profit.  If they didn't investment would leave low profit 
industries and enter high profit ones until they did.  So house builders as 
a class can't have higher expected profits, competition will bid them down 
to the average for the economy.



>> Better than using claims in a country where there is an incentive to be
> less
>> than totally honest.
>
> But if the lawsuits pass, wouldn't both sides be able to present their own
> "less than totally honest" statements, and the judges determine that the
> weight of evidence is on the side against the companies?



<snicker....

Right...




>> > If all houses are built with it, and if you can't get the land to build
> a
>> > house a reasonable distance from where you work, what choice DO you
> have?
>>
>>
>> It t's everywhere, and it's supposedly so dangerous, why isn't there a
> huge
>> pile of dead bodies?  By the arguments presented here no one would ever
> die
>> of anything else.
>
> This has nothing to do with what was discussed above



It has *everything* to do with this discussion.  You *cannot* honestly 
simultaneously argue that it presents an unreasonably high risk, AND that 
there are not a lot of casualties from it after it was so widely used for so 
long.

Either it is dangerous and there are a lot of dead bodies, or there are not 
a lot of dead bodies so it is not dangerous.

Pick ONE.



 ... which was how much
> choice you had to live in an asbestos-free home.  This is more limited 
> than
> you asserted.


You have absolute choice.  No one is going to force you to buy a home at 
gunpoint.

On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:49:02 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>"Man... Lee was so fast, he could pull your heart out and show it to you before
>you died!"
>
>~Dennis Miller, who later commented about how much fun that must be at a party.

Someone must have pulled Miller's talent out and showed it to him
before his career died.

Some maintain this happened the day before he appeared on television
for the first time.

On Mon, 15 May 2006 10:38:13 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
gray.wizard@moria.mines wrote: 

>On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:49:02 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>"Man... Lee was so fast, he could pull your heart out and show it to you before
>>you died!"
>>
>>~Dennis Miller, who later commented about how much fun that must be at a party.
>
>Someone must have pulled Miller's talent out and showed it to him
>before his career died.
>
>Some maintain this happened the day before he appeared on television
>for the first time.

He was one of the funniest fake newscasters ever.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message
news:yHY9g.17992$QP4.1283@fed1read12...
>
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:TIN9g.397$z97.19087@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> >> > The problem is that in any business environment "cheaper" can mean
> >> > "superior".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It does mean superior.  If you think otherwise I congratulate you on
your
> >> unlimited wealth.
> >
> > Are you advocating the idea that we should use a substance known to
cause
> > more deaths than another slightly more expensive substance simply
because
> > the first one is cheaper?
>
>
> Yes.

This kind of loses you the high ground in the DDT debate, since you admitted
above that you'd advocate using asbestos even though it kills more people
than another material simply because it's cheaper.

>
>
>
> >  Which in the housing market would mean that the
> > builder gets to make more profit?
>
>
> Well, no.  Actually houses get cheaper.  All industries in an economy have
> the same expected profit.  If they didn't investment would leave low
profit
> industries and enter high profit ones until they did.  So house builders
as
> a class can't have higher expected profits, competition will bid them down
> to the average for the economy.

Um, you are talking about "publically traded companies", which are the only
ones that actually officially take "investment".  Private companies -- as
many home builders are -- get to keep the profit for themselves.

Besides, this isn't true.  During the high tech boom Internet companies that
made no profits had hugely high share prices, whereas the telecom company I
worked for lost share price when we made millions of dollars of profits but
that weren't as high as people would like.

>
>
>
> >> Better than using claims in a country where there is an incentive to be
> > less
> >> than totally honest.
> >
> > But if the lawsuits pass, wouldn't both sides be able to present their
own
> > "less than totally honest" statements, and the judges determine that the
> > weight of evidence is on the side against the companies?
>
>
>
> <snicker....
>
> Right...

Who do you expect to have better lawyers: corporations, or poor saps who
happen to live in the houses they built?

>
>
>
>
> >> > If all houses are built with it, and if you can't get the land to
build
> > a
> >> > house a reasonable distance from where you work, what choice DO you
> > have?
> >>
> >>
> >> It t's everywhere, and it's supposedly so dangerous, why isn't there a
> > huge
> >> pile of dead bodies?  By the arguments presented here no one would ever
> > die
> >> of anything else.
> >
> > This has nothing to do with what was discussed above
>
>
>
> It has *everything* to do with this discussion.  You *cannot* honestly
> simultaneously argue that it presents an unreasonably high risk, AND that
> there are not a lot of casualties from it after it was so widely used for
so
> long.

But the claim here is about how easy it is for people VULNERABLE TO ASBESTOS
to find a house that doesn't use it if all houses use it.  So as I said,
this has nothing to do with that.  One death would count as equally as a
million FOR THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.


>  ... which was how much
> > choice you had to live in an asbestos-free home.  This is more limited
> > than
> > you asserted.
>
>
> You have absolute choice.  No one is going to force you to buy a home at
> gunpoint.

Unless you build your house, you do not get to control whether asbestos is
used in it or not.  As I said above, good luck in the Western world finding
land close enough to where you work if you work in anything "citified".

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:T%Zbg.46$ho5.6247@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> >> It does mean superior.  If you think otherwise I congratulate you on
> your
>> >> unlimited wealth.
>> >
>> > Are you advocating the idea that we should use a substance known to
> cause
>> > more deaths than another slightly more expensive substance simply
> because
>> > the first one is cheaper?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
> This kind of loses you the high ground in the DDT debate, since you 
> admitted
> above that you'd advocate using asbestos even though it kills more people
> than another material simply because it's cheaper.


Do you drive a cheaper, unsafer car rather than an expensive safer one?

Would you be better off if your cheaper car were banned and you were 
required to buy the more expensive one or do without?




>> Well, no.  Actually houses get cheaper.  All industries in an economy 
>> have
>> the same expected profit.  If they didn't investment would leave low
> profit
>> industries and enter high profit ones until they did.  So house builders
> as
>> a class can't have higher expected profits, competition will bid them 
>> down
>> to the average for the economy.
>
> Um, you are talking about "publically traded companies", which are the 
> only
> ones that actually officially take "investment".  Private companies -- as
> many home builders are -- get to keep the profit for themselves.


And how do they keep other people from noticing that building is a lucrative 
industry and decided to enter it rather than the exciting field of making 8 
track tapes?  ?

Economics isn't hard if you aren't fucking stupid...



> Besides, this isn't true.


Of course it's true.  It is approximatrely impossible for it not to be true. 
People look for the greatest return.  The only long lasting situation is 
where all industries have the same expected profits.




>  During the high tech boom Internet companies that
> made no profits had hugely high share prices, whereas the telecom company 
> I
> worked for lost share price when we made millions of dollars of profits 
> but
> that weren't as high as people would like.


Which is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.




>> >> Better than using claims in a country where there is an incentive to 
>> >> be
>> > less
>> >> than totally honest.
>> >
>> > But if the lawsuits pass, wouldn't both sides be able to present their
> own
>> > "less than totally honest" statements, and the judges determine that 
>> > the
>> > weight of evidence is on the side against the companies?
>>
>>
>>
>> <snicker....
>>
>> Right...
>
> Who do you expect to have better lawyers: corporations, or poor saps who
> happen to live in the houses they built?


Like I said, you can't trust courts...




>> >> > If all houses are built with it, and if you can't get the land to
> build
>> > a
>> >> > house a reasonable distance from where you work, what choice DO you
>> > have?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It t's everywhere, and it's supposedly so dangerous, why isn't there a
>> > huge
>> >> pile of dead bodies?  By the arguments presented here no one would 
>> >> ever
>> > die
>> >> of anything else.
>> >
>> > This has nothing to do with what was discussed above
>>
>>
>>
>> It has *everything* to do with this discussion.  You *cannot* honestly
>> simultaneously argue that it presents an unreasonably high risk, AND that
>> there are not a lot of casualties from it after it was so widely used for
> so
>> long.
>
> But the claim here is about how easy it is for people VULNERABLE TO 
> ASBESTOS
> to find a house that doesn't use it if all houses use it.  So as I said,
> this has nothing to do with that.  One death would count as equally as a
> million FOR THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.


There was never a time when all houses used it, so you're arguing a fantasy.




>>  ... which was how much
>> > choice you had to live in an asbestos-free home.  This is more limited
>> > than
>> > you asserted.
>>
>>
>> You have absolute choice.  No one is going to force you to buy a home at
>> gunpoint.
>
> Unless you build your house, you do not get to control whether asbestos is
> used in it or not.



Of course you do- you just don't buy it if you don't want it.  No one is 
going to force you at gunpoint.