A Confederacy of Asses
"Who the Hell Do You Think You Are?" Hate
Subject: Re: Your qualifications?
Without question, we live in a contentious society. Certainly, you seem to have made a career out of dissent and opprobrium, quite successfully, it would appear. Please don't construe that as an attack on your person or values, but view it merely as an observation. Now on to my purpose for writing you- in perusing your website, you mention having acquired an undergraduate degree while serving in the Army, but you neglected (opted?) not to specify the major. What was it? Was it a correspondence course or did you attend actual classes? Now let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say the degree was in some science-related field. I happen to know that health and science electives are often sparse in a law school curricula (sic, it's "curriculum"), so what additional graduate training have you received beyond the Army that would in any way qualify you to challenge people with doctorates and other advanced degrees? Your pontifications on just about every imaginable health and environmental topic begin to stretch the plausible. Do you want to be taken seriously, or do you just enjoy "taking the piss" out of people and mocking them?
As I mentioned earlier, this isn't about hating you- you just may be a nice guy who's found a lucrative niche. But what drives you beyond money and fame? Do you honestly believe you're protecting folks from charlatans in every instance? How do you step aside being one yourself [Curious locution.] with no evident credentials and a fiery pen? Why not ease up on the hate you seem to enjoy engendering (the gloating in the 'Hate' section of your website is not appropriate for a legal professional) [Ooh! Report me to the Bar Association!] and come from a less confrontational standpoint? There's a frustrating amount of misinformation being disseminated these days, especially from journalists conned and duped by special interest groups devoted to protecting their resources from attack and liability. It's probably already too late to keep you from crossing over to that dark side – you are a lawyer, after all, but there's always hope!
Dear Mr. Jonsson:
I could say that having been a full-time science and health writer for 16 years (as opposed to being in law school for three) counted as a qualification. I could say that having published five science/health books counted as a qualification. I could say that having an impeccable record for being right when the guys with the high positions and all those letters after their names were wrong counted as a qualification. I could say that using hyperlinks on my articles to show readers exactly where I got my information and let them decide if I used it properly counted as a qualification. I could say it's pretty darned obvious I am taken seriously, by friend and foe alike. But fact is, I couldn't care less what pathetic schmucks like you think and thus prefer "taking the piss" out of you and mocking you.
Thank you for your prompt invective, Mr. Fumento. I now consider myself mocked and de-pissed. Please answer my original questions when you find a chance, especially the one regarding your undergraduate major – I genuinely want to know.
Dear Mr. Jonsson:
To 99 percent of the population, I would have made my point. But you are in that vaunted one percent to whom no points can be made, so alas there is nothing left to do but mock and de-piss you again. Or as the French knight put it in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "Go away English Kanigits, or I shall taunt you some more!"
Alzheimer's Hate (Yeah, They'll Hate You for Anything)
[From a posting regarding an article on TechCentralStation.com.]
Subj: Please Don't Take Medical Advice from A Lawyer
Message: There are so many incorrect medical and health statements in here, it boggles the mind. Evaluating scientific research (knowing the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction, for instance) requires someone with scientific training. Much of the statements of fact in this piece have been disproven [sic] ages ago and, in fact, some of the advice here has been shown to be harmful. Please get your medical advice from a medical professional.
There are "so many" that you can't name even one. I went to law school for three years and have been a medical writer for 16. But my best credentials are my track record for being right while people like you just wail and gnash your teeth.
[Predictably she did not riposte.]
Yet More Erin Brockovich Hate
Erin Brockovich, Poor Little Rich Girl
That's [What is?] so funny cause [sic] you sound so jealous that a woman had [Alas, "has."] such power as Erin Brockovich. She worked very hard and she deserved her 2 mil bonus. And do you work for PG&E or something, or some other environmentally destructive greedy company to protect them? The fact is, if you knew anything about chemistry, if you inhale a compound or drink it, you can be affected the same way. And yes, sorry to say, Hexavalent Chromium [sic] is Carcinogenic [sic] anyway [sic] you slice it. Shame on you for posting on your website that drinking water contaminated with Chrom6 [sic] is not cancerous! It most certainly is! That is why PG&E wanted people in Hinkly [sic] to be tested medically because they KNEW that it causes cancer and they irresponsibly let Chromium Vl [sic] leak into the water. Wake up and smell the greed and corruption of major companies like PG&E who hide their chemical spills and cause the death and illness of so many people! SHAME ON YOU!
I'm glad you have such a good sense of humor; perhaps it compensates for your more obvious shortcomings. The only greed and corruption involved in an Erin Brockovich case is ol' Erin herself. No, I don't work for PG&E; do you work in a padded cell? If I knew anything about chemistry I would know that you do not. You're telling me that if forced to do so, you would as soon inhale asbestos as drink it, as soon inhale plutonium as drink it? Both are harmless when ingested; but enough asbestos can be lethal when inhaled and the tiniest amount of inhaled plutonium can cause lung cancer. In article after article, I refer people to the EPA's own website declaring Cr6 to be carcinogenic when inhaled, but without evidence of carcinogenicity when ingested. In the latest I referred to a study specifically of tap water with high levels of Cr6. But you care nothing about any of that. You think you can get around the science with lots of repetition and exclamation marks. PG&E acted as it did in Hinkley out of fear of lawsuits, not because of scientific evidence. Obviously it had good reason to fear lawsuits, didn't it? You can go on worshipping your goddess all you want; there were people who stood by Hitler right until (and after) he put a bullet through his brain, too. But more and more people whose brains are still intact are catching on. She's going down, and it has nothing to do with the weight of those huge implants.
Subject: What a Jackoff
Your piece about Erin Brockovich should be used in Journalism 101 classes everywhere as an example of how to be a very bad writer. You proffer opinion as fact, you distort facts to fit your opinion, and have nothing to back up your opinion except......your opinion. Your choice to avoid reference to undisputed facts, such as those disclosed on the KCBS website, the AQMD website and countless other disinterested parties, reveals that you are little more than a third-rate gossip hustler with a chip on your shoulder. Work such as this is a disgrace to the industry.
Based upon a review of your other writings, I can offer two words of career advice – sewage maintenance, since you are clearly adept at shovelling [sic] shit. Your work certainly puts the fume in Fumento.
You are welcome to publish and use my name.
Bob Roselle, Los Angeles
Dear Bob Roselle of Los Angeles,
You accuse me of proffering opinion as fact, yet a careful survey of your email reveals a grand total of, let's see here now, zero (0) facts. You do, however, provide two obscenities, countless non-obscene epithets, and various other insults Mr. Bob Roselle.
We can start with your referring to "your piece about Erin Brockovich," which makes the rather unwarranted assumption that I have only written one. You claim to have made "a review" of my "other writings," yet you obviously didn't know I've actually written seven pieces on Evil Erin. All are on my website, Bob Roselle. Even your mention of California's South Coast Air Quality Management District still leaves the possibility of two different pieces. If you have any strong suits, Bob Roselle, which I doubt, specificity is not one of them. [Then again, maybe he has one of those strong suits with the really long sleeves that tie from behind.]
Regarding the AQMD, Mr. Roselle, would this be the same whose director told the Beverly Hills Courier in so many words that Brockovich was a liar when she said her private lab found extraordinarily high levels of pollutants in the air near Beverly Hills High. He told the newspaper, "We have found nothing to independently confirm the sampling reported by Masry [Erin's boss.]"
Ah, but you referred to their website, didn't you Bob Roselle? As it happens, I took up your challenge and did indeed find one notice to the Beverly Hills case at http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/2003/beverlyhillsoilwellspr.html. It involves a piece of equipment owned by one of the countless plaintiffs [The Masry-Brockovich model is: "Sue them all; let the judge sort them out.] in the case and AQMD says of it, "Based on our preliminary evaluation, we believe this piece of equipment complies with all air pollution regulations."
Yes, LA's KCBS did do a story designed to terrify parents and raise ratings, but I wasn't aware that local TV affiliates spoke the word of God, Mr. Bob Roselle. If that be the case, what say you about ABC's "Give Me a Break" segment making Erin Brockovich look just slightly worse than Dracula's daughter?
Based upon a review of your letter, Bob Roselle, in the future I would not grant people with well-known hate mail pages the permission to use your full name.
Dear Whoever It Is Who Wrote This Response Who Is Obviously Not Michael Fumento:
Even a cursory review of Mr. Fumento's writings indicate [sic] that he possesses knowledge of how to structure sentences, as opposed to whoever sent this drivel. You are likely some unpaid summer intern utilizing cut-and-paste from your library of boilerplate evasions. In any event, allow me to educate you.
An epithet is an abusive or insulting word or phrase, of which I find none (much less countless) in my email to you. Since you are a terrible writer, my recommendation of your finding employment more suitable to your skills was made in the spirit of hoping you find something that you do well. The fact that you have found gainful employment as a writer is mystifying, and is prima facie evidence of the precipitous slide the profession has undergone in the past two decades.
I am prepared to argue opinions at your convenience, however I am unwilling [Unwilling? A Freudian slip?] to argue about facts, and the undisputed facts are as follows:
1. Beverly Hills High School has been operating a subterranean oil production facility beneath its track/football field for the past 40-odd years;
This is all public record stuff, Michael. If you expect Erin or her firm to disclose information in their possession regarding ongoing litigation, you are as naive as the City of BH in its lame attempt to circumvent civil procedure by means of its legislative subpoena. Even lamer is the position advanced by the "dream team" of eight defense firms who proffer that the high incidence of cancer and hodkins [Misspelled again, but at least differently.] disease suffered by BHHS students is due to the fact that rich kids wash their hands too often and do not play in the dirt like poor kids, therefore they have efficient immune systems. I want very much to be in the courtroom to hear this theory articulated to a jury, at which time I anticipate the hysterical laughter will be unrestrained.
Your reference to the KCBS website story indicates that you did not refer to the documents contained therein that clearly depict the malfeasance of the district as well as that AQMD [sic] officials. These documents speak for themselves. What Jon [sic] Stossel opines to fill his own time-slot is irrelevant, since he and his news organization have already been cited for falsification of sources, staging "news" and other journalistic sins. Do you hold his opinion as a fact?
Scariest of all is that you have written seven pieces on Erin. Why are you obsessed with her and the work that she does in helping the "little guys" against major polluters? Is it because you are paid by companies that are environmental criminals? It it [sic] because she is bright and commited [sic] and makes more money than you and wouldn't give you the time of day? With all the real events and things happening in our state as well as our republic, she is who [sic] you choose to focus your personal attacks on? It would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.
You need not reply through one of your minions. I am much smarter and more well [sic] informed than you could ever hope to be, so it isn't even a fair fight. Congratulations on your success however it came to occur, we both know it has nothing to do with skilled writing.
Game, set, match,
Bob Roselle, City of Angels
Dear Whomever It Is Who Claims To Be Bob Roselle But Can't Be Because Nobody Is Stupid Enough To Want To See His Name Publicly Associated With Such Stupid Comments:
Far from educating me, I feel my IQ dropping and gray matter disintegrating as I read your remarks. And with both you and Brockovich in LA, "City of Angels" it ain't. I'm sure you feel that terms like "third-rate gossip hustler" are complimentary and presumably if aimed at one of your stature they would be. But when aimed at most people they do constitute an epithet. Indeed, your entire first two paragraphs of this second attempt at a letter are nothing but insults. That speaks volumes about your ability to carry an argument.
Regarding your individual points:
1. Other than a few people in Outer Mongolia, everybody knows this. So what? Even Bad-ass Brockovich doesn't claim the well isn't there by mutual consent.
John Stossel presented a segment based on facts, many of them dug up by yours truly. It is you who is utterly oblivious to the difference between opinion and known data. As to the "clear malfeasance" on the part of scientific experts who happen to have come to a conclusion with which you disagree, I'm waiting for a court decision thank you. When that decision comes in, your hot little honey will have lost. Again.
Regarding an assertion that less early exposure to germs early in life can lead to more illnesses or more serious illness later in life, it happens there is scientific validity to this. There is evidence that children who constantly catch infections in daycare centers build "hardened" immune systems, and it's hypothesized that one reason asthma rates appear to be increasing despite yearly reductions in air pollution is actually because of those reductions. That is, people are not getting exposed to airborne contaminants as early as they use to. That said, why use such an argument when there's absolutely no evidence that BHHS alum are any sicker than anybody else?
Scariest of all is that notwithstanding your obvious inability to so much as spell the word "dog," you've now written two long would-be defenses of a woman who has plenty of bucks to defend herself. She spent more money to remove mold from her house than most people spend on their houses. Then she refused to pay the contractors, in a typical Brocko-esque move. I presume that like most Erin Brockovich defenders, you saw the movie and became enthralled. You actually think you're defending Julia Roberts. Julia Roberts is also an indefensible airhead, but my Brockovich pieces do not concern her. That I have found seven outlets to publish my Brockovich articles indicates that apparently somebody else out there is as "obsessed" with getting the truth out as I am. But with all the real events and things happening in "our" state (Sorry; your presumption that I live in California is incorrect.) as well as our republic, she is whom you rush to defend, as if she were a damsel in distress? (Or are you also working to get Charles Manson out of jail, but it just happens I haven't written on that topic?) Do you think you're going to get a date with her and a chance to stare down that remarkable cleavage over a cup of java? It would be laughable if it were not so pathetic. Sorry, but despite a movie that did for her what Bonnie and Clyde did for a couple of vicious murderers, the real Erin Brockovich thinks of "the little people" as nothing but stepping stones on her path to fame and fortune. And you're just about as little as they come.
Loser by a knockout – and a loser in general,
To borrow a neologism from the kids today, LMAO!!!!!
What you lack in substance you more than compensate for in length. Sorry, I do not suffer fools well, nor do I argue with those like you of so little intelligence. Your agenda is clear, it is your thinking that is muddled. By all means, just keep insisting you are correct, eventually some people may be persuaded.
And any time you would care to meet in person to discuss how "low" I am (and hey, that's a good one, you must have sat up all night coming up with that zinger), just say when and where. Perhaps we could discuss the biomechanics of shoving one of my Purple Hearts up your ass.
Not really caring if I ever hear from you again, I remain forever
Your intellectual superior,
Dear Bob Roselle My Intellectual Superior,
If you don't suffer fools well, is that a promise that you'll send for Jack Kevorkian as soon as he's free? On the other hand, if you're going to remain forever I think a lot of other people are going to send for Dr. Death. I'm terribly sorry I shattered your fantasies about your dream woman but perhaps now you'll find someone more worthy. Too bad Countess Elizabeth Bathory, who bathed in young women's' blood in hopes of staying young, isn't still with us. Finally, I had no idea you could receive a Purple Heart for falling out of your La Z-Boy chair while watching GI Jane on TV.
Jessica Lynch Is Too a Hero!" Hate
Rangers Are Pussies; Real Heroes Don't Have to Shoot Weapons to Prove It
Hey, Fumento, cut the lady a little slack! Far as I know there weren't any wars going on when you became such a hard core trooper. And the "hell" of ranger school... Gimme a friggin' break.
Alan [omitted], Ph. D., Team Leader
(One purple heart less than Kerry but seven more months in harm's way.)
Dear Mr. [omitted]:
Hmm . . . "the little lady"? I thought she was a rough and tough GI, as in the title of her book I'm a Soldier, Too. Presumed translation of your letter: A soldier who doesn't clean her weapon or is too scared to fire it and thereby fails in her mission when other soldiers are killed around her deserves a Bronze Star, a million-dollar book contract, a movie about her, and a lucrative tour on the speech circuit. Meanwhile, soldiers who do their duty by actually firing at the enemy deserve six feet of earth in Arlington Cemetery. I don't see that it's relevant whether there was a war going on when I was in the service. If so would it make Lynch more or less of a hero? And finally I never attended Ranger School, but even Airborne School wasn't fun. That just might explain why most soldiers don't volunteer for it. I also attended the "mini-Ranger" Recondo School, which is hellish enough and yet nothing compared to Ranger School. Rangers are heroes, whether they see combat or not. Go back to conserving your digits, beware of where you stick them, and give Rangers and all the real heroes a break.
I'm saying that since you presumably never found your own ass on the line like 18 yr-old Pvt [sic] Lynch found hers, you shouldn't whack yourself off over knowing how to keep your weapon clean in the peacetime army, as brutal as recondo [sic] school may have seemed. How many of your classmates there were KIA's?
I don't know what unit you served in, but all soldiers are supposed to be prepared for war even in peace; certainly they should be prepared for war during war. I joined the Army to serve my country; she joined to get money for college. But your "little lady" knew the risks just the same. Ultimately all she ever did was put others at risk, those in her unit and those who retrieved her from the hospital. That doesn't merit a Bronze Star in my book. And I love this "as it may have seemed" stuff. It didn't seem tough, joker, it was. Plenty of guys who went to Vietnam had a 12-month-long field day. I knew some of them and they admitted it. Nothing but smoking pot and whoring in Saigon. But if you went to Recondo school, it WAS brutal. I haven't the least idea how many of my classmates have been or will be KIA. In the event, how bizarre to rate a soldier on the basis of how many people in his class died – albeit no more bizarre than claiming hero status because you let the enemy hit you. You're supposed to hit them – or didn't they teach you that in Basic?
Agent Orange Hate
Lunatics of the World Unite!
Subj: Agent Orange (Can Michael come out to play?)
Mr. Fumento, I believe the following explains your erroneous position about agent [sic] orange [sic] ........the part relevant to you has been printed in red. Do you care to reply? William (MRR)
[Attached was a 2,700-word rant called "The Third Sector as a Protective Layer for Capitalism," by Joan Roelofs. A few excerpts:]
Those who wish to promote change should look closely at what sustains the present system. One reason capitalism doesn't collapse despite its many weaknesses and valiant opposition movements is because of the "nonprofit sector." Yet philanthropic capital, its investment and its distribution, are generally neglected by the critics of capitalism. Most studies of the subject are generously funded by the nonprofit sector itself; few researchers have followed up on the observation of Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto:
* * *
Yet another protective function is employment for sons and daughters of the rich who might otherwise be unemployed and disaffected, along with those of any class who are dissident and troublesome. Mix a "soup" of potential and actual troublemakers with lots of gold floating around, and it will go down very smoothly, soothing sore throats and sore heads.
* * *
Foundations have also poured money into existing organizations to steer them to reasonable, pragmatic goals. There were no rewards for those who wanted blacks in the United States to see themselves as part of the world anticolonial uprisings. * * *
It often looks as though the energy to devise, promote, and initiate radical alternatives to the present system has been dissipated by the third sector's protective layer.
No, I wouldn't care "to play." Anybody dumb and wicked enough to be a Marxist after witnessing the horrors and ultimate failure of communism is beyond reach. Yes, that means you.
I really hate liars.
Yeah, well I hear tell your hero Josef Stalin told a few whoppers in his time. Like when he said he didn't murder tens of millions of people.
Chemical Sensitivity Hate
Better Do Some Thinking!
I just read your article [Sic, I've written several.] about Canada eliminating sense [sic] from schools etc. It sounds as if you didn't do your research. The FDA does not regulate what goes into cosmetics, perfumes etc. [Nor have I ever said it did.] At least 4,000 toxins are emitted when perfume is sprayed. Yes, people might not have an instant reaction to the smell/toxins – However, continuous exposure overtime [Is this a ball game?] added in with the increasing toxins in the environment has now been shown to be serious health risk. Better do some reading!
Thanks for you input though.
Actually I've written numerous articles on the subject and it seems you are the one eliminating "sense," as opposed to what you meant: "scents." Four thousand toxins, eh? Can you direct me to a listing of those 4,000 insofar I'm under the deluded belief that nowhere near 4,000 toxins have been identified, period. And many of the most important ingredients in toiletries are merely synthesized from natural chemicals in our own bodies, such as urea. (As in "urine.") Yup, the smell of synthetic urine is killing people left and right. A real pisser, is it not? And again, regarding this "shown to be," put up your money. My articles made clear it was not shown to be. You need to counter what I wrote, rather than just toss out the nonsense I was writing against. Better do some reading other than conspiracy websites.
Sure I will get the information for you. Not a problem. No need to get defensive or snippy! Sorry for teh [sic] typo I often type with an eight month old [sic] infant on my lap.
Getting back to you soon.
[And so he or she did; with this.] Here's a few...I have also studied this as well as other environmental toxins extensively. By eliminating them (or attempting to) from our house and our foods- from everything we can think of...I have noticed a dramatic increase in my well being.
Ruthann Rudel – Silent Institue [sic] Si – Newton Mass –
associated with Cape Cod Breast Cancer Environmental Study
Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention- March 2001 and updated Jan [sic] 2003
Mixture of Toxins [sic] creates death in lab. rats- Alaternative [sic] Medicine- the [sic] Definitive Guide- The Burton Goldberg Group
Annd [sic] Arrundel [sic] Medical Center- MD- has advised patients with Fibrom. [Fibromyalgia, an ill-defined chronic muscle ache and connective tissues.] to stop using personal care products laced with toxins- noted decrease in symptoms
National Academy of Sciences- 95% of chemicals are synthetic (in perfumes) including know toxins 1990- EPA- Indoor Air quality [sic] Basics for Schools- personal care products contributed to indoor air pollution...
Just a few I have saved for my references...
Let's see, the first source you list is an environmentalist group named after Rachel Carson's nonsensical book, Silent Spring. Rachel Carson was a marine biologist with absolutely no training – formal or self-taught – in toxicology. This is hardly an unbiased or scientific source. Under that heading, you list four alleged toxins. But I have written about one, DEHP, and it's harmless. Yes, it's banned in Europe. So what? They ban what they want; we ban what we want. Europe never banned Alar, for your information. Then as your second source you have something called "Alternative Medicine – The Definitive Guide," meaning it isn't recognized medicine. In any event, you list no toxins beneath that source.
If you go to the official Anne Arundel statement about fibromyalgia there is NO advice on anything patients can do to ameliorate it. I strongly doubt you have consulted their website, insofar as you misspelled both parts of the name.
Your statement about the NAS is irrelevant; it names no toxins. Likewise for your slightly-outdated reference to a 1990 EPA paper. You can't do better than something 14 years old?
In sum, I asked your source for those alleged "4,000 toxins." You have provided the names of four that are nothing more than suspect. Please provide the other 3,996 as promised, thank you. Otherwise you have proved my point that you just pulled a bunch of junk off a conspiracy website. Or maybe you're just a run-of-the-mill liar. That being the case, I'm sure it's exposures to perfume and cologne that made you that way.
I was just listing the sources not the results for you. I see that we are on opposite sides of the fence. Just writing to let you know others [sic] views. Everything we do we do to our earth. I just want it around for my children. Hopefully everyone will grow to some consciousness in this life time [sic]. I guess we can all find studies to back our ideas up. – And [sic] they can all be discredited for some reason by the opposing view. That's life – isn't it! Thanks for you input. I continue to look for ways to educate myself and others on these important issues.
Not so fast! First you accuse me twice in one email of not doing my research, claiming there are over 4,000 toxins in perfume alone. Then you assured me you could identify those 4,000. Instead, you fell about 4,000 short. So you changed the parameters and said you only intended to provide a list of sources. But you didn't do that, either. The Ann Arundel thing was a total fabrication. Unfazed, you now say that well, golly gee, we all have a right to our opinions and then imply that somehow toiletries are going to destroy the earth. Where's my apology for claiming I didn't do my research? Where's your confession that you know zip on this subject and were simply tooting out your rump roast? When are you going to stop complaining about people upwind of you wearing Charli or Polo? This isn't a matter of opinions; it's a matter of science. If you can't prove your allegations, withdraw them and let people who know what they're talking about handle the discourse.
Thanks for your comments although I didn't find anything educational in your
email. I have never claimed to be an expert, but then again what is an expert?
I have researched extensively on the subject of toxins. Again, I believe that
you will find research to back your ideas and I have found research to back
mine. No matter what I come up with will be argued with and that is not my intention.
My intention is to learn. I have definitely learned from personal experience.
I have enough books here and have spoken with many, many people who have made
a total turn around [sic] by significantly decreasing environmental toxins.
Thanks again. Hope all your research helps you on your path on this earth.
You couldn't come up with anything more relevant than the lyrics of Morris Alpert's detested song: "Feelings. Nothing more than feelings." If you have indeed found research to back up your feelings, why do you refuse to share it with anyone? Why should Robin be the only person on earth to have access to the awful truth about perfumes? People are keeling over left and right from this stuff and the earth is being destroyed, and yet you simply assert all this without providing the least evidence. In my pieces on people who claim that perfumes and other scented products make them ill, I have discussed at great length the importance of psychosomatic reactions and reported on tests of people who became quite ill when they merely thought they were being exposed to something. Some thought they were ill while others truly were. In other words, the cause of their sickness was not a chemical but rather suggestion. They go to a conspiracy website or they hear from people like you and they become convinced that perfume is more toxic than ingested botulism. It's not perfumes that are toxic; it is quite literally people like you. You make people sick. In fact, you're kind of making me sick right now. So I bid adieu, but admonish you that while you may have the right to make yourself miserable you have no right to inflict that misery upon others.
From a Left-Wing Chamber Pot
I guess you are one of those "right wing crackpots." I have no idea what caused my cancer but to minimize any possibility is absurd. I guess you never had the disease or had someone close die of it, but speaking for all cancer survivors: Go play in toxins.
If I'm a "right wing crackpot" and you disagree with me, I guess you are one of those left-wing crackpots. Now let's see, I guess you're telling me I shouldn't write about schizophrenia unless I'm psychotic or shouldn't write about murder unless I'm a killer. Nice logic. But as it happens I lost a grandmother to breast cancer, a dear friend has just died of bladder cancer, and I have a third friend who is terminal at age 43. It is hardly absurd to minimize possibilities that are minimal. Yes, you might get run over by a car while sitting on the porch. It's happened. But I think it's only fair to advise people that their odds of being struck by a vehicle are rather greater on the street than on a porch. I explicitly said that studies have shown some cancer is from man-made carcinogens, merely that little of it is and that blaming big corporations is hardly as helpful as quitting smoking and leading a healthier lifestyle. That doesn't strike me as the sort of thing a crackpot would say but, then, you're the expert. And no Jerry, I'm sorry, but all cancer survivors did not take a vote and elect you their speaker. In a poll of ten of them, nine said they'd never heard of you and the tenth said he wish he hadn't. Finally, why don't you become fixated with cars running you over on your porch and go out and play in the traffic?
God, if my little rant gets you so hopped up, I hate to see what you are like with things that really excite you. I really think you should calm down. I am glad your friends do not agree with me but that's life. You cannot be 100 percent correct. Get a friggin [sic] life. [Use a friggin' apostrophe.] You obviosly [sic] need one
Jerry gersten [sic]
Maybe one can't be 100 percent correct, but you're living proof it's possible to be 100 percent wrong.
With all due respect you are an asshole. You do not know me and for this I am thankful. I am sure you think I am wrong but my thesis was simple. Do not close your mind to any cause for cancer. I am sure you think you are 100 percent correct but what can you expect from a know it all [sic].
Your friend [sic]
After thinking about this (3-4 seconds) I guess I must have touched a raw nerve considering the amount of venom in your emails. Chill out my boy.
The "amount of venom" in my emails? You mean like calling someone an "asshole" because they were right and you were wrong; something like that? And again, I hardly "closed my mind" to man-made chemicals causing pollution in a piece that readily acknowledged that a percentage, however small, of cancers are indeed from just that source. By the standard YOU set I'm 100 percent correct. You're too simple even to know when you're arguing against yourself. Take this sincere advice, "my boy." If you want people to give you any respect, have your lips sewed together with just enough of a hole for a feeding tube and find a Muslim executioner willing to cut your fingers off. Short-term pain for long-term gain.
I really did not want to reply but you are really such a right wing [sic] bigoted idiot, it makes it almost impossible. I hope that you are not married and if you are have no children, since I would hate to be around if they got you upset. I would also hope, if you do have a family, they ignore you and do not espouse [sic] the same venom you have somehow acquired. You must be a real piece of work at parties. But then again since you are perfect, and you can prove it, I guess none of this would bother you.
Thank god I do not have to see you on a daily basis. This is as close as I would ever want to get to you. I am sure that if I showed both of emails [sic] to a shrink I have no doubt he would expect you in his office immediately. What kind of a person comes up with images you have put forth. [sic] Oh and just by definition an executioner is one who kills people and does not stop at the fingers. Or are you not up on the Koran. [sic]
Well, let's see now Jerry. You said earlier that you had "touched a raw nerve" and referred to the "venom" in my emails. Now you say I have serious mental problems. Yet I have called you no names while you have labeled me an "asshole," insane, and incapable of controlling my temper. Finally, you maintain your record of being 100 percent wrong with your remark about executioners. I am indeed "up" on corporal and capital punishment as practiced in medieval Europe and modern-day Islamic countries. Here is a short discussion of the latter: http://www.atour.com/religion/docs/20011018b.html.
As a deterrent to crime, on certain assigned Friday mornings [in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia], the executioner on behalf of the government makes a spectacle of some condemned persons; persons, who have committed crimes and sentenced for punishment publicly. The executioner metes out various sentences, including whipping the guilty 30 to 50 lashes or more, amputating toes, wrists and beheading the condemned as retribution for their crimes.
But Jerry says the only thing an executioner does is mete out death. And Jerry knows best. Tell ya what, Jerry ol' pal. Why not just write these simple words, because as they say the truth shall set ye free: "I Jerry Gerston have absolutely no function on this planet except to waste other people's time and to provide laughter to those who enjoy seeing somebody do the equivalent of peeing on himself."
More Dioxin Hate
Another Fish Story
After reading your articles about dioxin, and your hate mail letters (great stuff), I have to ask this question: would you be willing to feed dioxin tainted [sic] fish to your family? The Blackwater/Nottoway/Chowan watershed in your fine state and North Carolina is contaminated with dioxin from holding ponds of what used to be Union Camp Paper Company. Until recently, advisories were posted with both VA & NC fishing licenses warning people to eat fish from this watershed no more than once per month, and warning pregnant women to not eat any fish from this river system.
I would be glad to take you fishing and supply boat, all gear, bait, etceteras [sic], and if you actually will eat catfish from this area, then I will believe what you write about the non-issue of dioxin. Put up, or shut up.
A river rat
Dear Mister River Rat:
As it happens I just fed my family a dioxin-tainted fish. I even made them eat the heads, like the Chinese do. So I put up; now you shut up.
Air Pollution Hate
Thought-Provoking – Until He Disagreed with Something.
I found you commentary thought provoking until you started with generalizations about senior citizens. If Seniors [sic] refuse to turn on A/C then they are not enrolled in the FERA, Federal Energy Rate Assistance program which provides discounts on the most expensive variable part of the energy bill – the over baseline charge. Also, I'm not sure where you live but in California we have CARE, an additional state program offering an additional 20% discount for qualified users.
When you and I pay more for cleaner airour taxes for these programs increases [sic] maintaining a status quo of affordability so the poor won't suffer.
The only generalizations I made about seniors were that their bodies can't adjust to heat and that they are far more likely to die in heat waves. By no means did I say most couldn't afford cooling bills; merely that a significant number can't. It is significant enough that virtually the only people who die during heat waves are the elderly. Has it occurred to you that the truly poor among the elderly can't even afford to pay up to that baseline? As to California's program, I live in one of the other 49 states. Most of us do. Finally, you're saying that one of the nice things about all of us paying higher utility bills is that in addition we're also taxed more. Hmm… I have a feeling a lot of people would disagree with that assertion.
No because the summertime baseline in CA is only 30kwh for DWP generation @ .08 cents and 80kwh @ .06 cents. ....this is very low. (110kwh [sic] That's [sic] about $8 /month) The other CARE & FERA programs covering 1-100% over baseline cost for seniors and poor means after $8 dollars a month they can run their A/C as much as needed over baseline.
Well, insofar as there's no such thing as the "Federal Energy Rate Assistance" program (I took your word for it initially, but then took the time to look it up - and didn't find it) so much for that. There is, however, something called the "Family Electric Rate Assistance" program, yet not only does it apply only in California but the eligibility rule is that "For households with three or more persons, this program provides a discount on electricity costs once your energy usage reaches certain levels." How many elderly live in households of three or more? The other program you mention, "California Alternate Rates for Energy," obviously also applies to only one of the 49 states. It can benefit any size household. Nevertheless, the rule is that "The CARE program provides a 20% discount on monthly gas & electric bills for qualifying households. Qualifications are based on the number of people living in your home and your total household income including wages, government checks and benefits, and other financial support you or members of your household receive." There is no mention of baselines; you fabricated it.
The EPA's Obesity Problem
[Originally, I thought this was hate mail. Later I concluded he was sneering at the EPA, not me. Oh, well . . . ]
Gee, Mike, could it be that this is all just a promotion for a big expansion of EPA and a big hike in pay for all those selfless men and women from Alexandria and Falls Church who staff it?
That is indeed a great part of it. A bureaucracy is an organism. As such, its first duty is survival. Try to close even the tiniest little office in the federal government and you'll soon find, as Reagan did, that without that office the earth would instantly implode. An organism's second duty is propagation. Hence there is the natural impetus to expand the impression of that bureaucracy's regulatory powers, its budget, its number of employees, and even the amount of buildings it uses. Yes, the EPA is tremendously expanding its offices and yes it needs to justify it.
Agrarian Utopian Hate
You Can't Please Everyone
Your science articles are good. You always hyperlink to the sources of your information and your reasoning based on that information is flawless. "Beware Agrarian Utopians," makes you sound like one of your less articulate hate mailers.
Dear Mr. Norton,
Thanks for the compliments. I found your one-sentence critique of my piece to be highly thoughtful, specific, and in general a tour-de-force of constructive criticism. And now you've just become one of my less articulate hate mailers.
Peter Duesberg Hate
I Don't Know His Name, but He's Quite Important
Read Peter Duesberg's (National Acadamy [sic] of Science) "Inventing the AIDS Virus" even though he is denounced by almost all of the AIDS "experts". It is forewarded [sic] by Kim Mullin (Nobel Chemist [sic]).
Dear Mr. Watson:
1. You make it sound as if Duesberg's book is from the National Academy of Sciences. It is not. He is a member of the Academy; his position is the opposite of that which they have taken.
2. The "Kim Mullin" whom you hold in such high regard is named Kary Mullis. There is no such thing as a "Nobel Chemist." He won a Nobel for work in chemistry. That should make a normal person wonder: "What is the value of a chemist weighing in on an issue of virology and epidemiology?" Would you be equally impressed to find that the world's finest chef also supported Duesberg?
3. It is the year 2004. There are now a vast number of drugs in use that target various mechanisms of HIV and by some incredible coincidence are also highly effective in preventing symptoms and deaths from AIDS. That at this late date there could be a single person who still believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS simply blows my mind.
Sorry about the Kary Mullis thing. His input has more to do with the shoddy scientific methods that were used to make the HIV claim. Please try to find the original published scientific papers by either Robert Gallo (US National Institutes of Health) or Luc Montagnier (Pasteur Institute) which prove the causative effect of the HIV virus. There are none.
So let's be clear on this. You want me to ignore the 19 years of research papers since HIV was discovered in 1985, in favor of reading the first two articles on the subject. Isn't that just a little like trying to learn about current rocket science by reading the first rocketry paper written by Robert Goddard in 1919? I'll save you the trouble of having to think about that: The answer is "yes." Scientific methodology comprises surveying the latest research first and if necessary working your way back, not reading the earliest research and ignoring everything thereafter because it doesn't serve your purpose.
Gallo and Montagnier have been given credit for discovering the cause of AIDS without proof and this does not concern you????? As for your 19 years of research papers, I beg you to show me any one that proves how this virus called HIV causes AIDS. All there has been is speculation and as the failures have mounted up the speculation has become more and more bizarre. I am not asking you to take my word for it, just do some research. When you have directed me to this breakthrough paper I promise to stop annoying you.
What concerns me is that people like you exist. Plug "Duesberg" into PubMed and you'll find any number of papers that refute his idiot thesis, which I can only imagine he stopped believing in a decade ago but is too vain to admit it. Nor do I consider a multitude of anti-HIV drugs that have dropped AIDS deaths to only 16,000 for 2002 to be "mounting failure." You ARE asking me to take your word for it because the research has been done, regardless that you haven't bothered to look at it. Get online and direct yourself to this "breakthrough paper." I'm not your personal Complete Idiots Guide to HIV and AIDS. And as for when you'll stop annoying me, that's right now because you are BLOCKED.
Subj: Michael, Have You Repented?
As you may recall, or anyway see from the Net, I have watched at [sic] the Duesberg HIV AIDS [sic] controversy from the beginning, and personally have seen nothing to recommend the science of the Gallo and Fauci crowd from the beginning.
You yourself wrote one of the best books exposing at least part of this ideology as nonsense. You deserve every credit for it. Yet in 1992 you wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times saying Duesberg's other arguments didn't convince you, and lately I heard you were furious at the Post for publishing a piece on page Six which supported you in the Myth of Heterosexual AIDS yet mentioned Duesberg.
In other words, the intervening years have not convinced you of the sterility of the rest of the HIV-AIDS crowd's arguments, is that it?
Is this true? If it is, I think I could recommend some convincing new reading material for you, unless your mind is closed, which would be disappointing and hardly true to your own independent 1992 spirit.
I find it interesting that the key verb in your subject line is "repented." Medical terminology would use something like "retracted," whereas common terminology provides various choices such as "changed your mind," "rethought your position," and so on. That you would use a term fraught with moral or religious connotation is telling. Duesberg is a cult leader and those in his camp are cult followers.
I was not "furious" at the Post; I simply said Page Six confused the heterosexual AIDS "explosion" being a dud with the whacky theories of Duesberg. It did so because there are people like you who tell reporters as much. My 1990 book and previous and subsequent writings have been deliberately distorted by Duesberg cultists to support his position and I have repeatedly been put in the position of saying the two couldn't be less related.
Finally, no, the numerous new medicines that specifically target HIV and have thereby converted AIDS from a death sentence to a controllable disease have not convinced me of a disconnect between HIV and AIDS. But if it makes you any happier, I have "repented" of my position that the moon is not made of cheese.
[1,059-word response omitted.]
If you think I'm going to provide you a personal response to all that then either you are unaware that a few of us have to work for a living, you have a rather over-inflated sense of self-worth, or both.