Hate Mailers Who Lost their Heads
Dear Ms. Nash:
That was not the title I gave the piece, although I used it within. Decapitations are known to date back to ancient Greece and undoubtedly occurred far earlier. They were common in the Roman Empire and later adopted by almost all the countries of Europe. (Perhaps you've heard of the French Revolution and Madame Guillotine?) Done properly, they were the most humane form of execution and therefore often reserved for royalty while commoners where strangled. Moreover, the expression about rolling heads is also old and has long since lost its original connotation. As you must know, it simply means "to fire someone." Finally, I am not about to let terrorists keep me from flying, from taking a train, from opening mail, or from living and working in a high-threat city (Washington, D.C.). So I'm certainly not going to let those monsters with their dull knives prevent me from using a perfectly good linguistic term.
Given what is happening in Iraq, perhaps you would consider replacing "heads should roll" with another idiom. Joey Armstrong, a good friend of ours, was killed in Yosemite [What this has to do with decapitation, I have no idea.] and any flippancy about decapitation needs to be pointed out.
Dear Mr. Hian,
It wasn't flippancy. It's an old expression, decapitation is even older, and everybody who sees the expression knows it refers to people losing their jobs. I'm sensitive; but Phil Donahue and Alan Alda I'm not. And I'm not going to let terrorists dictate to me which expressions I can or cannot use.
[I had no idea what he was talking about. But I later received a letter on this from Michael Bing. "He's referring to one of the women killed and decapitated by Cary Stayner in Yosemite. I doubt the validity of his statement. One would think a good friend would know she spelled her name Joie, not Joey. At least he didn't try and claim he was former special forces deep inside Iraq."]
And the theme of this hate mail page has nothing to do with the terrorists and I'm not going to let them dictate it either.
Stem Cell Hate
Same Tutu You, Buddy
Your column on Ron Reagan Jr.'s stem cell speech was too funny! I needed a good laugh on this topic and your column was just perfect for eliciting a chuckle or two. Quoting Michael Reagan and promoting your own work on stem cells through a connection with him was just the right touch. The lack of credibilty [sic] of this man added just the right touch of irony. Thanks for the great parody of informed editorial writing. Keep up the good work.
Dear Mr. Rich:
I do like to entertain my readers, so thanks. But I'm a bit perplexed how someone whose only expertise is in ballet and whose only claim to fame is being the liberal son of a conservative President has credibility in your eyes, whereas one of the nation's most listened-to talk show hosts with a syndicated column does not? Moreover, the point of quoting Michael Reagan was illustrated by his own words, that he was "tired of the media's insistence on reporting that the Reagan 'family' is in favor of stem cell research, when the truth is that two members of the family have been long time foes of it . . . my dad, Ronald Reagan during his lifetime, and me." Maybe I'm missing something here; maybe pirouetting does make a person an expert on stem cells. But it only seems fair to consider Michael Reagan credible on what Michael Reagan believes. Thanks for the great parody of informed letter-writing. You and your buddy Ron Jr. are just tutu much!
In Desperate Need of a Brain Cell Transplant
re: your favorable review of stem cell book in nypost
i [sic] must ask this question:
if [sic] you, your mother, father, wife, daughter, or son were afflicted with an awful disease,
then [sic] would you want research to be restricted on the basis of the ethical consideration of exploitation of the fetal stem cell ?
it [sic] was recently reported/gossiped in the ny post [sic] that (according to a charlie [sic] rose [sic] interview) prominent u.s. [sic] researchers are leaving the u.s. [sic] so as to be unhampered by the restriction(s) the book [Huh?] (apparently) upholds [sic]
my [sic] wife has m.s. [sic], and our children are apparently at more risk of having it too [sic]
if [sic] there were no problem with utilizing the adult stem cells, then why are some leading researchers apparently complaining/leaving the country?
it [sic] is my humble perception that you (and the author) are seemingly elaborately defending the theological/ethical holding/restriction [sic]
You are one thoroughly confused person. My review was unfavorable. There was no mention of stem cells from fetuses (though such things exist); the discussion was embryonic versus adult. Twice you mention researchers leaving the country but you seem to have no idea why. Are they leaving to work with adult stem cells or embryonic ones? The rumor, and it's just that, is that they are going to where there's more money for embryonic stem cell research. Let them go. The alchemists can leave, too. Why does it harm us if, as I noted, there's no need for ES cells? It is my humble perception that you are attacking a review you didn't bother to read and are seemingly elaborately defending the pigs-feeding-at-the-federal trough position.
This One Puts Me to Sleep
Pay attention. (You seem very mean-spirited. Wake up your soul.)
[Omitted hyperlink to a Vandana Shiva screed against biotech golden rice.]
-------*******------- Richard [omitted]
Pay respect to your intellectual superiors. If I'm mean-spirited and need to wake up my soul, your karma just ran over three little girls playing on the sidewalk and you need to wake up your brain. You are no doubt writing because you read my piece on Vandana Shiva. That means you already know she's a fat bourgeois sow who stuffs her face while she demands that other Indians live off subsistence farming, and that she insists that hundreds of millions of her vegetarian countrymen eat liver they couldn't afford even if it weren't against their religion to eat it.
--------*******------- Michael Fumento
"she's [sic] a fat bourgeois sow".... and "Pay respect to your intellectual superiors."....
Well, oh mighty intellect, these two statements alone tell me who and what you are....
I won't waste my time (nor yours)... Your mind is closed, it appears.
And pray what in your single-line email suggested that yours was open enough to let so much as a molecule to slip in? The difference is I make my mind up on facts, such as the ones I stated about villainous Vandana. You make yours up on the basis of a political mindset adapted these days by many Americans who try to alleviate their guilty feelings over being born well-to-do by attacking corporations behind the veil of pseudo-environmentalism. Why don't you just move to India and live the life that Shiva would force upon you, subsistence farming on a couple of acres using no pesticides and no biotech crops? Ah, but such things are only for the dark-skinned folks over there! You want to live the life of a pampered, privileged, protester. You have no compassion and no soul.
"Dead Zone" Hate
A Bunch of Poop
[From a posting where the article (http://www.fumento.com/environment/sharks.html) appeared:]
Message: Mr. Fumento-- I try to be as measured and reasonable as I can in commenting on TCS articles, but here you're fomenting skunk science. I see no way you can sincerely hold the opinions you espouse.
It may well be that the atmosphere is 70% nitrogen. However you neglect to tell people that nitrogen must be made bioavailable before it impacts on [sic] living creatures. Free nitrogen in the air is so much empty matter for us. The issue is sources of ammonia and nitrates – NH3, NO3 and NO4 entering places where it upsets the natural balance (i.e. the balance before being disturbed). Where does this bound nitrogen come from? There are thousands of scientists, municipal and state employees who know this material very well, as they are charged with its control.
It comes from fertilizer and farm animals. And its most important source is people. The city of St Louis has controls on the quality of the water that forms its sewage system effluent, but the equivalent number of hogs being raised in the surrounding area do not. This hog poop is concentrated fertilizer, and causes algal blooms once it is flushed down the river through the groundwater from wherever it has been dumped. The algae uses [sic] up the oxygen and an area of anoxic water is created that can hold no oxygen-dependent life. Quite simple.
I resent the fancy dancing that surrounds your misleading version of reality, that lends the impression without ever saying so, that this is a natural thing, a minor thing, an unavoidable thing, a thing blown out of all proportion and finally a harmless thing. It is none of those things, but rather a description of the waste disposal problem itself.
Controls must be made to minimize runoff. If you don't like the argument that it creates dead zones, consider that it is a waste of resource. These excess nitrogenous wastes are black gold, and could more usefully and prifitably [sic] be deployed elsewhere if the basic science were done to solve the distribution problems. It would, for instance, be quite possible to traansform [sic] the crap that created the Dead Zone into a high-grade, high-protein food for fish or animal feed.
Ask me how.
My only reference to nitrogen in the air is that some of ends up in the water, comprising one of many sources of nitrates in rivers feeding into the hypoxic zone. That you somehow missed that point is rather disturbing. It's even more disturbing that you seem to be using, were it a logical fallacy, argumentum ad forget 'em. You want readers to simply forget that each and every charge you make was answered in the piece. I said that there was absolutely no correlation between fertilizer run-off as measured by nitrates in the water and the size of the hypoxic area in the Gulf. I even provided hyperlinks to my sources. You want readers to forget them. The nitrate measurement takes into account both mined fertilizer and hog wastes. You want them to forget that, too. As to being a wasted resource, farmers are the only ones with a stake in this and indeed they have gotten better and better at only using the fertilizer they need. That's why they're actually using slightly less now than two decades ago.
I quoted somebody from the Illinois Water Survey and provided facts that hypoxic zones in the Gulf as well as those elsewhere are indeed "a natural thing, a minor thing, an unavoidable thing, a thing blown out of all proportion and finally a harmless thing." You also want readers to forget all that. You seem to think people will go straight to your post without reading my piece. That's highly improbable. Finally, it's hard to imagine using excrement as "high-grade, high-protein food for fish or animal feed." The expression "Eat shit and die!" is just that. You can't really receive nourishment from it.
Perhaps you are so quick to ignore because you were ignored as a child. More probably, you find yourself ignored as an adult and with good reason. Who am I to argue with the world? From now on, I'm going to ignore you as well.
Agrarian Utopian Hate
Your article was an amusing piece of propaganda. Who is currently funding your research"? [sic] If you really want to learn about progressive farming practices, I invite you to tour our farms and learn what the very best farmers in America are doing. What they are doing is farming in harmony with nature not fighting it. On a per calorie basis organic farming is far more efficient than the chemically intensive farming which has been promoted by Agri business. If you want to see the research on farming efficiencies contact AERO in Helena Montana.
Your entire livelihood is based on promoting the voodoo known as organics, but I'm the one accused of being the mercenary? Got evidence I'm on the take, or just shooting off the old mouth? Unfortunately for you I have demonstrated I know enough about what you dub "progressive farming practices," a nifty Orwellian expression for archaic farming practices. "Progressive" means adopting the best available technology, not sticking with the old in order to provide false added value for the yuppies who can afford it. Why do you think despite years of fear campaigns on the part of your industry, consumers continue to stay away in droves? If organic farming were more efficient, it would be measurable as such in yields. It clearly is not. As Norman Borlaug has pointed out, if all cropland were planted with organics we wouldn't even have enough to feed two-thirds of the world's people. Not that I would expect that to bother you. Terms like "in harmony with nature" are just more Orwellian pap. Do you call ripping up topsoil rather than using herbicides for no-till farming "harmonious?" Do organic farmers still not attempt to preserve as much of their crops as they can from insects that would "harmoniously" devour them, save that they do it relatively poorly compared to farmers who apply modern pesticides or use biotech crops? I have seen what the very best farmers in America are doing; they're providing Americans with the cheapest, safest food in the world with modern farming practices. Why don't you eat two bunches of E. coli-infected bean sprouts and call me from the hospital in the morning?
I have lots of "evidence" for you. If you will take the time to read it, I will take the time to send it. The offer for you to tour some organic farms stands, if you are brave enough to learn.
I'm not that big on alfalfa sprouts, an organic beef steak is more up my alley. I'll call you from home rather than the hospital if you give me your phone number.
The very fact that I know far more about organic food than you do is evidenced by my not eating it. And that you think it takes bravery to tour organic farm stands speaks volumes. Personally, I don't find I have to screw up my courage to go to the local store and buy nice, fresh organic-free food. Finally, you'll get my phone number when I start emailing it to organic farms and funny farms alike.
Technopoly wants a cracker!
The crazed utopians are those who think they can keep borrowing from the future, destroying the past, and living ever-more-obscenely plush, artificial, and ultimately miserable and meaningless lifestyles in an endless present of eternal economic and technological growth. They are burning up humanity's fossil fuel savings account like there's no tomorrow, and the crash, when it comes, will be much worse than anything Pol Pot could dream up.
As humanity is weaned from fossil fuel onto renewable energy, our way of life will inevitably shift to resemble that of our traditionally agrarian ancestors. Utopian? Hardly. It is those who are preparing for the inevitable transition who are the realists, while the worshippers of technopoly are utopians in deep denial. The techno-bubble of the 20th century was an epiphenomenon of fossil fuel, and it is about to pop.
Thanks for the swell, if rather spooky, insight into the mind of an agrarian utopian. Your letter also is a reminder of why techno-utopes really hate fossil fuel. It has nothing to do with pollution, but rather that fossil fuel and nuclear plants (which you hate even more) allow us to have the lifestyle WE choose rather than that which you would dictate. But at the risk of breaking that little green heart of yours, you must have missed one of my previous Tech Central Station articles in which I noted that counting shale oil and sands we have about another 500 years of oil left. That doesn't include all that wonderful carbon-dioxide-causing coal we could use if we wanted. But one way or another, we're not shifting to the lifestyle you suggest because that's where we CAME FROM and we left it for a reason. Still, there's hope for you. Most of the world's nations are still agrarian. You can hitch yourself behind an old water buffalo in Bangladesh any time you want. I assure you, we in the developed world won't even notice your absence. But your new Bangladeshi neighbors might just take you for the fool you are and the water buffalo would surely object to your presence.
Who's utopian? You missed the point--I'm forecasting the probable UNFORTUNATE reality: what is, not what should be. You think I WANT to live through something worse than Pol Pot? [I made reference in the original piece to Pol Pot being an agrarian utopian.]
[165 utopian words omitted.]
I'm not "suggesting" I'm predicting.
[187 utopian words omitted.]
Ultimately, my point is that YOU are the irrational, emotionally-driven, radical utopian ideologue who refuses to face the probable limits of physical reality, and that you're projecting your own neurosis on your imaginary "enemies" for some unknown psychological reason (an unconscious recognition of the artificial and unsustainable quality of your own life?) Read my words again. Then look at your reaction for "spooky insight" into a "utopian" mind.
Okay, I'm not SUGGESTING that you don't have the least idea of what you're talking about or that it's coming out of your hind end, I'm FORECASTING it! And thanks for the free psychoanalysis; that could have set me back me $150 coming from a professional.
In your case I'd recommend forking over the $150 and whatever else it takes to stop those "agrarian utopian" voices in your head. With the right medication you could be restored to relatively normal functioning...maybe [sic] even recover the ability to actually read texts and respond to what they say, rather than spewing ad-hominem attacks at hallucinatory enemies.
Actually, you mean "hallucinating enemies;" viz., yourself. But I don't regard you as an enemy; just well, hallucinating. Maybe you simply need to cool your brain with some nice fossil-fueled air conditioning. Those windmills just don't produce a whole lot of power, do they? Of course, if we just reduced the earth's population by 99 percent and moved back into those well-insulated caves . . . .
"You're on the Take" Hate
with [sic] all the money exxon [[sic]] gives your organization, its [sic] pretty lame you dont [sic] give them a bigger banner on your site.
Actually, the name of the company is neither "Exxxon" nor "Exxon," but rather ExxonMobil. It gives my organization, Hudson Institute, no money. Finally, they have no banner on my personal website nor that of Hudson's. But besides all that . . .
Ask an Idiotic Question . . .
Question – if scents aren't harmful, why will the manufacturers not release what the ingredients are in each scent willingly? They are protected by the Trade Secrets' Act.
Question: If scents aren't harmful, why SHOULD manufacturers list the ingredients? Can you not possibly know that counterfeit perfumes and colognes is a huge business and it's a lot easier to keep your formula a secret than to sue absolutely everybody out there who imitates it?
Thanks for your response. It's appreciated. However, if there's nothing to hide in the first place then at least the governments [sic] (U.S. and Canadian) Health Departments should have access to a true list of the ingredients. In Canada a few, but not all, scents have been analyzed and found to contain potentially harmful substances. (It's an expensive process.) Human lives are more important that big businesses' balance balance [sic] sheets. Breast cancer in women has been increasing and, as a women [Either a "sic" or she has multiple personality disorder.], I know just where perfume is likely to be dabbed.
The breast milk of nursing mothers, when analyzed, outline [sic] the various chemicals used in the scents the mothers apply. Anyway, only time will tell just how truly safe or dangerous scents are. Something like cigarettes?
And pray, just what are those harmful ingredients? Some cancers have been increasing; some decreasing. Why does nobody blame chemicals for the decreasing ones? Actually, as I understand it most women and men tend to apply perfume to the neck, wrists, and throat. Are you aware of an increase in neck, wrist, and throat cancer? Regarding breast cancer, according to a major study of U.S. cancer rates published on July 1, 2004, "Recent increases in female breast cancer incidence reflect the increased use of mammography and perhaps an increased prevalence of obesity and the use of hormone replacement therapy." Do you see "scents" in there anywhere? As I've written, the obesity epidemic alone is enough to explain the slightly rising breast cancer rates. But that's called "blaming the victim," and we mustn't have that, must we? After all, the real purpose of all this baloney isn't saving women's lives; it's attacking corporations. Finally, your comparison with cigarettes destroys your own case. Tobacco has been known to be dangerous for 400 years and the term "coffin nail" for cigarettes dates back to 1896. Time told pretty darned quickly.
Fall River, Massachusetts, Center of the Universe
You do a great disservice when you lump all anti-LNG forces under one umbrella. We here in Fall River Massachusetts [sic], an older industrial town on Mount Hope Bay, one of the feeder bays of Narragansett bay [sic], are fighting one such proposal.
We are twenty five [sic] miles inland with a 1300 foot channel (the ships are almost one thousand feet long). Ten thousand residents live within one mile of it's [sic] proposed location. Four bridges will have to close to accommodate the ships, isolating towns from emergency services such as our hospitals and mutual aid agreements. Elderly housing, a grade school and public housing are all within one mile.
Most of the opposition here is not against LNG. We realize that the Clean Air Act mandates this. We wish there were more natural gas, just not one hundred and eleven Hiroshima's worth next to a densely populated area. "They" are trying to put these in population centers, and you should be ashamed for trying to help them.
Dear Mr. Frederick:
Am I missing something here or did not my column support a terminal that was 14 miles offshore and 21 miles from the nearest population center (not to mention 3,000 miles away from you), thereby avoiding the problems and fears you suggest?
Indeed you did, while neglecting to condemn proposals such as the ones we face. If you are not a part of the solution, ... [sic]
Oh, I get it. In a column entirely about placing an LNG terminal in California I became "part of the problem" in not providing an in-depth discussion of a specific proposed terminal on the opposite coast. YOU are certainly not part of any solution. So here's a cliché for you: Wear the shoe; it fits.
While you may judge to be part of the problem my efforts to stop the urban placement of LNG (of which you know no more than the fact that I commented to you on your article), you cannot judge or measure my accomplishments in raising awareness of this problem (of which you know nothing), from which opposition naturally flows.
Now your sentences (or actually "sentence," as it were) have become as convoluted as your thinking. The only thing flowing here is nonsense from your mouth. I'll bet a lot of good people in Fall River would like to keep YOU 14 miles offshore and 21 miles from the nearest populated area.
Sometimes They Just Beg for It
I just read your article on LNG and your opposition to the environmentalists [sic] opposition.
I don't know what the answer is, or if you are even aware of the following, but I would be interested to hear your opinion:
My son-in-law is a mechanic who works on LNG trucks for a major food chain. He has been doing this for quite a few years now. The problem is because of working with LNG and around it and breathing the fumes, he has now lost most of his lung capacity and, at times, has no feeling in his arms and hands, along with other problems. His wife often has to help him get dressed because he cannot feel his arms. He is only 45 years old and does not know if this is reversible. They are extremely worried about his health. He is really a hard worker and just wants to keep [Keep? Is he sick or not?] healthy and keep working.
Have you heard anything about this?
Thank you for your research into this matter.
I'm sorry, I know nothing about this.
Dear Michael, inasmuch as you wrote an article about LNG and praised it, I think it behooves you TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT.
What if the fumes poisons [sic] the air and reduces [sic] lung capacity in those who breathe it? Don't you think you should look at both sides in order to get a real picture of LNG? Just a thought.
Thank you for your reply to my first e-mail.
Okay, when I said "I'm sorry, I know nothing about this" it was a polite way of avoiding saying that you're a nutcase. Now you've drawn me out. You're a nutcase.
Dear Michael, I am not sure exactly what I said to make you think that I am a "nutcase" just because I asked you to look into something further which you "know nothing about". At least you admit the fact that you don't know much!
It just proves to me again, that when an ignorant person makes up his mind about something that he admits he knows "nothing about", there is no further research on his part. Note that I did not say you were stupid, just ignorant, which you yourself admitted. And, by the way, name calling is an ignorant and uneducated way of communicating. I was asking you a serious and complicated question, which obviously you don't seem to care about.
So keep up the good work.
Again, you misread. I actually know a lot about what you described; as I said, I was just trying to be polite. This "malady" could go by the Latin name "post hoc ergo propter hoc." That means your son-in-law worked with LNG, he became ill, therefore (you assume) the LNG made him ill. That is as logical as saying President Clinton was elected, your in-law became ill, therefore Clinton's election made your in-law ill. Or it goes by another term: hypochondria. That you make absolutely no reference to his having so much as contacted a doctor is telling. He's sick as a dog but he goes on with his work while his fastidious father-in-law, instead of seeking medical attention, tries to get a diagnosis from somebody who wrote a column about LNG receiving terminals. There is something terribly wrong with this picture and what is terribly wrong with it is you.
The Other White Meat
did [sic] you get butt-fucked by a pig?
No, by the time he was through with you he was as happy as a pig in, well, you know. Hope you practiced safe sex.
[A few weeks later, I got this message with the same subject heading ("Good job!") and therefore ostensibly from the same person.]
Your views are pathetic! Get a life!
You're right. From the front of the house there's a half-finished condo complex. From the rear it's just plain. Regarding your demand, however; I've already met it. My purpose is to make pinheads like you miserable. It appears I've succeeded.
Gulf War Syndrome Hate
I'm Not a Gulf Vet, But I Played One on TV . . .
Dear Mr. Fumento,
Please go to this site and read what Dr. Haley has to say about GWI.... The link is below:
The reason I'm saying this is because I never though about GWI until I became quite ill... I was a civilian aviation mechanic who worked on aircraft that were both deployed to the Gulf and returning aircraft [sic] as well...
In 1993 I was diagnosed with a mycoplasmal infection and a chlamydial respiratory infection. I was given doxycycline [a common antibiotic] and the infection cleared up... I have spoken to one doctor at the VA who told me that a studies [sic] indicate that quite a large number of GWI sufferers have had mycolplasmal [sic] and chlamydial respiratory infections and this is may be a warning sign or precursor to GWI, and I also spoke to Dr. Garth Nicolson who said the same...
Now I have joint pain, muscle pain, fatigue, nausea, irritable bowel syndrome, tingling skin, numb lips, rashes head to toe and I have been tested till I'm sick of tests.... Somatoform disorders and PTSD have ALL been ruled out as well. In fact if I am correct, Dr. Haley says without a doubt, that stress is NOT the cause of GWI.
Recently I found through diligent research that Dr. Garth Nicolson of the International Institute of Molecular Medicine has quite a bit of success treating GWI and has himself been exposed to GWI. He is advising my physician... I have also spoken to people at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the VA who informed me that they get NUMEROUS calls from people regularly, who were never deployed to the Gulf and are sick with GWI! The DoD says that only deployed personnel are subject to GWI, but the VA and the CDC say that GWI is probably an infectious disease and this is what Dr. Nicolson has been saying all along!
I also spoke with a woman who worked in a warehouse in Rota, Spain and became ill with GWI after she came in contact with materials and equipment that had been shipped back from the Gulf. I have been in contact with two British soldiers who were never deployed to the Gulf and both became sick with GWI after they were housed with other soldiers that were deployed to the Gulf! Is this a coincidence?
If Gulf War Syndrom [sic] is not real why does the CDC Atlanta, the US Navy, and the USAF all hold that it DEFINITELY is real? Why does the VA and Walter Reed Army Hospital and the Deployment Health Clinical Services calim [sic] that it is absolutely real?
Could it be that the CDC, Navy, USAF, etc. have no idea of what they are talking about?
Please go to this site (www.fumento.com) and read what Michael Fumento has to say about Dr. Haley. He is a chronic liar who preys on vets to get fat grants from H. Ross Perot and to get his name in the paper.
It means nothing that you were diagnosed with mycoplasma and a chlamydial respiratory infection, insofar as both are extremely common. You may as well say you were diagnosed with a rhinovirus (the common cold.) That MIGHT just explain why "quite a large number of GWI sufferers have had" these as well.
Garth Nicolson is a crackpot and has had no real success in treating Gulf vets. He simply gives people suffering hypochondriosis a placebo in the form of an antibiotic. Since their illness was mental in origin, placebos obviously have a high success rate.
I would definitely rule out PTSD (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder) in your case, insofar as doing repair work on aircraft doesn't generally qualify as "traumatic" – Unless a plane you were repairing fell on you. But your wholly unrelated constellation of symptoms points like a dagger at psychogenic illness. And thanks for admitting that many so-called "Gulf War Illness" victims had absolutely no connection to the Gulf War. There was a time when I said that the term "Gulf War Syndrome" meant nothing more than any illness that any Gulf soldier or his or her spouse or child contracted. But now it's expanded so far that any nexus to the Gulf is considered utterly unnecessary.
Neither the VA nor the CDC (which is the same thing as "the CDC Atlanta") recognizes GWS as a diagnosis. Nor do the Navy, Air Force, Walter Reed Army Hospital, or the Deployment Health Clinical Services. You have been misled in part because you have allowed yourself to be. You obviously have access to the Internet, yet you will not avail yourself of it. They DO have an idea of what you're talking about; it is you who are lacking.
Incidentally, using a grid paper background behind your emails may seem "cool" to you but just makes your writing even more difficult to read.
Dear Mr. Fumento,
[This letter did not use grid paper backround.]
[One hundred fifty-five words omitted.]
I admit that I haven't studied both sides of the coin, so to speak, so for argument's sake, give me the findings that GWI is a somatoform disorder…
[Eighty-four words omitted.]
Okay, I'll tell you what. You wrote in your first email: "The CDC DOES have hold [sic] the opinion that Gulf War Illness is a very real illness and is not a somatoform disorder (psychogenic disorder)." Very specifically, tell me where you got this information and exactly what the CDC said. If you cannot, then since you are untrustworthy on this one very important point it is clear you are untrustworthy on all points.
Dear Mr. Fumento,
I just spoke with a Dr. Swoboda at York College / City University of New York who is doing a study on Gulf War Illness. She attended a National Gulf War Conference in May 2004 where the VA stated that Gulf War Illness is a REAL medical condition, not a psychosomatic disorder, and she said the evidence of Gulf War Syndrome being a psychological disorder just isn't viable as there is too much evidence to support the theory that it is a medical problem…
You can contact Dr. Swoboda at:
I gave you one simple task. You claimed the CDC recognized GWS as a true disease so I challenged you to prove it. Instead you send back hearsay malarkey about a personal phone call you had with a psychologist in which allegedly claimed that the VA stated GWS is real. Not only is the VA not the CDC, but surely if the VA had stated such a thing you could prove it in a better way than saying you had called up somebody who isn't even in the VA. In short, you failed in the simple task assigned you and you failed for one reason: You're wrong. You lied to me and have lost all credibility, as if you ever had any. By your own inability to rise to the challenge you have yet again shown that the most fastidious supporters of this thing called GWS have no evidence that it exists. Do not write to me again.
Gulf War Syndrome AND Agent Orange Hate
Subject: You Wanted to Hear from Me (No, I didn't.)
Hello, I noticed ya'll have an article of mine in google [sic] search. [He means he put his name or article name into Google and saw it mentioned on my website, but doesn't quite have the cranial capacity to say it.]
If you liked that article enough to use it. I have a new one out today:
The US Is "a Distorted, Bastardized Form of Illegitimate Government."
I have never written an article, "What Gulf War Syndrome?" Could you please reference that article for me. It seems that someone may be using my name for publishing crapola, in which case, I need to know about it. Or, you are unable to read or comprehend, in which case, You [sic] need to know about it. I have published an article that is used as reference material in some sites. "Uranium: Deja Du [I don't know if this is a play on words "du" meaning "you" or not]: The Agent Orange of Eternity".
In that article, "On April 19, 2001, the U.S. government signs a global treaty to ban the existence of dioxin from the face of the earth."
So might I ask, since you have posted at least 2 emails libeling my name without any facts regarding my article, are you a chuckleheaded incompetent moron looking for attention? Or, is someone using my name to post things I obviously have not written? If it is (sic, should be "were") the latter, I would very much appreciate that post regarding "What Gulf War Syndrome?" that is using my name in publishing, and withdraw the former question. If the former is true, don't worry about it, as I'm sure most people already know that and there is no need to reply.
Ed Ward, MD, MT
No, I didn't want to hear from you. You have no idea what you're talking about, which is par for the course for you. You did write me a really dumb letter (http://www.fumento.com/hatemail/hatemail20.html) responding to my article "What Gulf War Syndrome?" in which among other things you claimed I had stopped writing about dioxin after the U.S. signed a ban on it - the implication being that I had conceded I was wrong. I responded that there was simply nothing new to write about at that point and since then I have indeed again addressed the issue. (http://www.fumento.com/military/agent.html ) That was your only connection to the article. You may be an M.D. who knows nothing about medicine, but I'm a J.D. who does know about libel law and you have not been libeled. In fact, you essentially defame yourself every time you write about dioxin. Have you considered hiring a lawyer to sue yourself?
You wrote in that hate mail section:
"I would most certainly like to hear your response,,," http://www.fumento.com/hatemail/hatemail20.html
Well, now we know your solid facts. Thanks for answering my question. My best to you and yours,
Ed Ward, MD, MT
I've heard of people reading into things that which isn't there but you set new standards. The actual quote, available at the URL you provided above, is: "And by the way, I have no desire to hear your response." The word "no" is generally perceived as a negation. I also have no desire to hear your response to this. Either you're no doctor or you're a "Distorted, Bastardized Form of Illegitimate physician." Either way, you act as if somebody jammed the ends of a stethoscope directly into your brain.
Dan Rather Hate
A Basic Lack of Understanding
Somehow I just don't understand how YOU could evaluate anyone on the subject of "unbiased truth".
Dear Mr. Fluck:
Somehow I just don't understand how YOU could evaluate anyone who writes on the subject of "unbiased truth". Nevertheless, thank you for such insightful and informative constructive criticism.
Let's compare your lifes [sic] work to Dan R and see who has something to be proud of................
Dear Mr. Whaley:
A ditch digger or the poorest farmer in Bangladesh has more to be proud of than somebody who became rich and famous through lying and cheating to the public.
Obviously you have a deep seated [sic] grudge against Dan Rather. I can not hope to change that.
But get a grip.
Obviously the prescription of drugs to treat each and every invented disease of modern medicine is a hoax more perverse than any form of journalism.
Small pox is a disease, based on a specific virus. HIV is a disease. But Modern [sic] medicine [sic] desperately, I mean as desperate as life and death, would like to convince every human on earth that they had a disease that only drugs could control, at $ 50/ day.
I have a daughter who was diagnosed as being manically depressed. But I have far less than zero faith that modern medicine either understands her condition or has her best interest in mind when they prescribe drugs.
Modern medicine is so ineffectual that they [sic] have neither the time or [sic] energy to treat any ailment without either drugs (man made artificial drugs with little evidence of results) or surgery.
I deeply believe that attd [sic] is a manufactured illness designed to sell drugs.
Dear Mr. Whaley:
How does pointing out that a powerful man who's a chronic liar put me in the position of having a "deep-seated hatred?" I am doing what he is supposed to be doing; investigative reporting exposing wrongdoing. By your standard, Woodward and Bernstein had a "deep-seated hatred" of Richard Nixon, rather than being two reporters simply doing their job.
Your quick dismissal of ADHD is equally foolish. You provide absolutely no evidence to support your position. You can't even spell the acronym properly; but somehow you're an expert while the experts are all liars. Obviously you have a deep-seated hatred of the truth. I pity your poor daughter for being saddled with not only a terrible disease but also such an ignoramus of a father.
I suppose that everything I have heard you say about Dan R is a scathing critique.
I am beginning to feel sorry for you, you sound like you are angry at the world, anyone and everything.
[179 words omitted.]
I think you may have an anger problem, or perhaps are too subjective on these particular issues to be reasonable.
Good luck, take a nap or a hot bath, not drugs.
Yes, I do have an anger problem. For example, terrorists who saw off civilians' heads with dull knives make me angry. Child molesters make me angry. Reporters whom millions of people trust and knowingly betray that trust out of a desire for increased ratings or to push an individual bias make me angry. I guess I'm a real sicko for having all that anger in me, huh?
By the way, I would be angry too about the beheadings. BUT unfortunately we invaded a country that never did anything to us, and we killed tens of thousands of their men, women and children for absolutely no good reason.
When they fight to reclaim their sovereignty, I guess we deserve what we have coming.
A superpower with half the worlds [sic] WMD attacks a ransacked desert nation with no real modern weaponry, and we act surprised when they resist the occupation of their land, the humiliation and siege of a foreign army and the theft intrinsic in our nationalizing and selling off of their oil, and entire economy.
Child molesters and lying presidents piss me off too. I can imagine no liars in US history that can equal the skill, volume and consequence of the lies of Bush.
But I have also been accused of having an anger problem.
You've got more than that. History and geography lesson: We invaded Iraq and deposed somebody you may faintly recall. His name was Saddam Hussein. He killed tens of thousands of Iraqi, Iranian, and Kuwaiti men, women, and children for absolutely no good reason. He did it with bombs, with bullets, with chemical weapons, and with torture such as his infamous acid showers. His heirs were perhaps even worse, picking out school girls to first rape and then murder. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not Iraqi; he is Jordanian. Therefore he can hardly be among those fighting "to reclaim their sovereignty." He violates the dictates of Islam, so he's not even a practicing Muslim. He cuts off the heads of innocent people for one simple reason: He wants to. He enjoys it. And now you're defending him right alongside Dan Rather. I suggest you forward these emails you've been sending to both and they might send you a nice framed, autographed photo for your living room wall. Perhaps you could try to visit al-Zarqawi, as well. Then you, too, could feel that cold, dull blade against your throat right before he begins sawing away. If you think your sympathy for his cause would save you; you're wrong. Remember, he's not into ideology; he's into neck-sawing.
In the event, it is now clear what kind of a creature I am dealing with and I wish to hear no more from you.
As Jack Nicholson put it: "You can't handle the truth!"
Why did CBS's "60 Minutes" rely on forged documents its own experts found suspicious? It was probably hoping to boost its ratings, along with John Kerry's flagging campaign. Yet there's a more telling reason: They and Dan Rather have gotten away with gross distortions of the truth before.
Your statement about Kerry's campaign, according to all the polls, is not true. The campaigns are pretty much even.
Dear Mr. Gray:
1. Actually, the polls are now concentrating not on overall percentages but in so-called "battleground states" or "swing states," as well they should be by this point. The latest shows Bush ahead in all five such states. In any event, it is irrelevant for our purposes here what the latest polls indicate. CBS aired the segment on September 8th, not September 23rd when you wrote. At that time polls showed Bush with overall percentage leads ranging from large to huge. Obviously you have difficulties with temporal concepts and I suggest you purchase something called a calendar.
2. Regardless of what polls showed even when the segment was aired, all you would have to do is remove the word "flagging" and the entire rest of the sentence would still stand.
Repubs are so touchy. Even when they are wrong.
I belong to no political party.
How was I wrong? Have you bought that calendar yet?
[No response, natch.]