Here's a way to reduce infectious disease for everyone.

http://cleanhands.0catch.com/

I apologize for the advertising but it's a free webhost.

Where I work a woman has been posting signs saying she is "allergic to
peanuts and nut products." She is trying to get management to ban PBJ
sandwiches, peanut crackers, cashews, bags of peanuts, and all other
"nut products."

I say someone ought to whack her in the parking lot some night.

I say that if she is allergic to ordinary foods like peanuts and peanut
butter and nut bars and all, she should stay home.

When she enters the lunch room, I blow peanut dust from my bags of
peanuts in her direction. She has threatened to sue, and I have said
that I will kill two of her children if she ever sues. So far, she has
backed down.

Evolution should have removed these freaks. It's fucking weird that
they now are gaining so much power in our society.


--Tim May

Tim May wrote:

I'm sorry, but you sound like an outright asshole to me. Do you have any
idea what your peanut dust can do to someone who is really allergic to
that stuff? It's not just an itch or something. The tissue in her
airways could swell up from the allergic reaction to the point that she
chokes to death. I hope she files a complaint with the police concerning
your deaththreat resulting in jailtime for you and that your boss fires
you. You deserve it.

Tim May wrote:
Timmy, you are half right. Evolution should remove some people. Please
step to the head of the line.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/..._deadly_kiss_2

MONTREAL - A 15-year-old girl with a peanut allergy died after kissing
her boyfriend, who had just eaten a peanut butter snack, hospital
officials said Monday.

If you do cause her any injury by your actions, she should file a
criminal complaint. In fact, with the threat that you made, she should
file a criminal complaint.

Tim why don't you suck my cock?Ernie
http://www.geocities.com/turd_eating/

"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
news:291120050018061508%timcmay@removethis.got.net ...

Peanut allergies can be deadly, so I think it's a little crass of you
to blow peanut dust at this woman.

Someone with peanut allergies is at little risk of a reaction if they
are vigilant about their own foods (the "deadly kiss" notwithstanding).
Therefore I think this woman is expecting too much to require
*everyone* in her workplace to abstain from eating nut products in her
presence.

Mark, MD

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:18:06 -0800, Tim May babbled on about Can peanut haters stop me
from eating peanuts? proclaiming:

On 30 Nov 2005 07:06:56 -0800, Mark babbled on about Re: Can peanut haters stop me from
eating peanuts? proclaiming:

Mark, it's great to hear a sensible response to Tim's posting. I'm responding because,
although I do have food allergies myself, it sometimes feels extreme, having to cater to
so few people, especially if they are only theoretical (eg. a blanket ban on peanut butter
regardless of whether or not someone has an allergy, "just in case".) I have an objection
to this concept as well. But I comply. Yet I agree that it is a little much to try to
force others to adapt to your allergies. If we did this we'd all wear masks, go naked and
never eat. There is a peanut ban at my daughter's school. My wife, being just so darn
exhausted earlier this week made a peanut butter sandwich for her. It was confiscated and
returned home. I apologized, assuring her teacher that we knew the rules and it was NOT
intentional. It was pizza day anyhow (I'm allergic to tomatoes, so go figure) so little
Zophie didn't starve at lunch time. I have no problem accommodating others, but when it
means changing my life for others, that is a challenge that I too resent unless it's
justified (the theoretical vs. genuine allergy danger I mentioned.) But violence, or even
threats will never do. Is there no love left in this sick sick planet?



-Sean (whose allergies aren't life threatening, but quite painful and therefore realizes
it's nothing to goof around with.)

In article <Ur-dnRBGGskOeBDenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@rogers.com>, Ugly
<ugly@mindless.com> wrote:



The violence is threatened against those who "require" me to not have
any peanut or nut products in their presence.

If they wish to try to get a special law passed just for them, covering
only where they are present, they will not succeed.

Those with food allergies, perfume allergies, aftershave allergies,
etc., should simply avoid areas where such things are perfectly legal
and are in fact protected by the Bill of Rights.

Including the Second Amendment, which states that people can use
firearms to defend their rights.


--Tim May

"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
news:301120051016565795%timcmay@removethis.got.net ...
"Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That's it. That is ALL of the second ammendment. Where in that does it say
you have the right to shoot people for objecting to your lunch choices at
work?



I'm sure that no matter where you live, there is a law that prohibits your
threatening of violence against your co-worker's children. Here in Hawaii,
it is called "terroristic threatening" and is a felony. Also, a case could
be made that your blowing peanut dust at your co-worker is assault, and
considering that you know that she has a life-threatening allergy, it might
even be considered assault with intent to kill.

All that said, I'm on your side in the general disagreement. There is no
reason to believe that this woman cannot protect herself from ingestion of
peanut products without imposing draconian measures of the rest of the
employees. If she feels so threatened by peanut residues in the lunchroom,
perhaps she should eat elsewhere. So again I agree with your cause, but not
with your methods.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

I agree. Definitely assault because he has prior knowledge that peanuts are
harmful to her.

I somewhat disagree with this one. I have a nephew who is so allergic to
certain foods that after eating them, he only needs to touch the same
surface I have touched. If any food residues were on my hands, he'll break
out in hives and airways begin to close. I question whether this woman's
allergies are so severe -- I'm sure people like this are in the minority,
but we can only speculate... My guess is the original poster is so
disgruntled by having to make changes that he hasn't taken the time to
inquire.

"V" <r3publicansrul3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Vspjf.676$Dk.164@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
With allergies that severe, I'm sure your nephew has learned, or will learn,
strategies to avoid exposure. One of the things he will learn is that he
cannot change the behavior of all the other people in the world.

Suggestions: If contaminated surfaces are a problem, perhaps he could use
what medical professionals call "sterile technique." He could wear gloves
when touching suspect surfaces is unavoidable, and could establish a
'sterile field' using a sheet of waxed paper or something similar to isolate
his meals from table surfaces. Also, I would hope that he has an allergist
who might explore desensitization strategies.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Tim May wrote:
Resorting to violence is utterly unnecessary. If the owner of the
setting where this takes place decides that they do not want to place
those with severe peanut allergies who may visit at risk, then it is
their right to do so. Not yours. If you do not like it, you have the
absolute right to move on to another job.

They may very well succeed. Laws are passed all the time, and, if you
are law abiding, you will abide by the law. Of course, you have the
right to oppose the law, and, try to have it changed or repealed.

I see that you are not a strict constructionist, as the BoR does not
specifically provide for a right to eat what you want, smell like you
want, etc.

Rich has already pointed out that the Second Amendment does not provide
for any such thing. It provides for the right to keep armed bears, so
long as the bears are part of a well regulated militia.

Even this right is not absolute, and can be alienated by the government.

Rich wrote:
Why have a right to bear them, if you cannot use them?

And, if she has a severe, deadly, reaction, it could be homicide.

Agreed. However, I also have a problem with his logic.

V wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/..._deadly_kiss_2

MONTREAL - A 15-year-old girl with a peanut allergy died after kissing
her boyfriend, who had just eaten a peanut butter snack, hospital
officials said Monday.

"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2Epjf.46326$2k6.14508@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Agreed. But I still think that other people should be considerate of those
around them. Is it gonna kill this guy to eat his peanuts at home instead
of work?? Just like smoking in restaurants. Even though there are
designated areas, it still annoys me that I should have to ingest others'
smoke with my food.

"V" <r3publicansrul3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7wsjf.214$1U2.203@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Most people your nephew comes in contact with on a daily basis probably are
aware of his problem and careful to avoid exposing him to dangerouse
allergins. The danger is from strangers and uninformed associates in new
environments. When you nephew goes to a new school, or starts a new job, it
is going to be his responsibility to let folks know about his allergies and
what they can do to help him with his problem. It's important that he not
start off by demanding status as a "victim" and claiming entitlement to
unreasonable conditions. That only raises the ire of people who are prone to
violent reactions, i.e., threats and guns.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Tim May wrote:

Well dumb-dumb, if she ever experiences an allergic reaction from your
peanut dust you can be criminally prosecuted; just like people with
AIDS/HIV can be prosecuted for intentionally biting people with the
intent to transmit their disease.

Are you nuts, or are you just naturally stupid?

Why is the manager of this group allowing this thread to continue? Is
there no control in this group? I joined to find out more about
allergies, not read all this rubbish. This is not an isolated occasion
either and it is bound to put people off.

Tim May wrote:
Wasn't there something about the right to selfdefense also? Since
blowing peanut dust in her direction amounts to firing a gun in her
general direction, I say she has every right to shoot you if you do it
again. Hell, I say she's got the right to shoot you for just being the
ass you are.

Rich, do you know, or anyone else for that matter, if one who is allergic
severely to peanuts can be desensitized with shots to elevate the problem?
I thought this didn't work so well with peanut allergies. I went through an
allergist as a child for all kinds of things that would cause me to swell
with hives or close my air wave. I fortunately either out grew it or
getting pregnant changed me somehow because I stopped the shots when I found
out I was pregnant (23 years old, had the shots for over five years I think,
sorry long time ago). I still have trouble with some things at times but
not serious that it can't be controlled, though I do still have problems
from the chemicals exposed to me that damaged my lungs. Thanks for any info,
UM MOM Susan

"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9Psjf.49604$Hs.11955@tornado.socal.rr.com...