In article <oUhvb.106$GB2.3713@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
Organic Living <no@spam.net> wrote:
How original. How amusing. How puerile.

On the contrary, it's an informed opinion. I actually went to the
trouble of looking up the MSDS for the various compounds. You, on the
other hand, simply regurgitate MLM propaganda.

My informed opinion. And pardon me, spammer, if I don't see you as
the selfless angel you see in yourself.

Yeah, but unlike you, I actually read them. Which informed me that
the substances you so revile are, in fact, not the health hazards you
paint them to be. If they were, I'd have stopped using them myself.

That's very humorous, coming from an MLM regurgitator like yourself.
What I said was true.

Also, the recording of health statistics was nowhere near as good in
1901 as it is today.

Heart disease. Next question?


It does, eh? What does fluoride that you don't even swallow do to
your immune system?

I didn't comment on the fertility issue. Go complain to the people
who did.

Nope. Good genes. Barring accident, it would not be surprising if I
lived to be at least 90.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

In article <7gxvb.427$GB2.12419@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
Organic Living <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> wrote:
Not on text-based newsreaders, it doesn't. And it makes the posts
more than twice as long.

Yeah, like your body exploding if you consume soda and Pop Rocks, or
gangs of people stealing your kidney in Las Vegas.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Dear Bob..

Thank you for clarifying.. My Statement above about them being similar in
nature, i.e. My understanding of it was that SLES came from the sulfating,
ethoxylating of SLS. etc whch you point out as being incorrect. I will keep
that in mind when talking to people, howevere it still does not alter the
overall issue presented..

I have some much more recent and extensive studies which support the toxic
issue, I will see if I can get them scanned, or at least point you to the
source to check for yourself since you are into this kind of thing you might
find it interesting and find an edge for your own business. I am not
questioning your own research, I am sure you are way ahead of me in that
regards..

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that was the exact reason.. Not the
claims.. But the reactions they cause..

We do not promote Organic Products becaue of the "Claims" either.. But
because the reactions caused by the chemicals mentioned.

From your website:
-------
Friends encouraged me to do something with this, so I sought other subjects,
young and old, who'd had a history of *reproducible urinary or genital
irritation from surfactant preparations* -- bubble baths, bar soap, shampoo,
spermicide, or bath oil with emulsifiers. The irritation was usually a
*vulvitis or vulvovaginitis*, but there were even some male cases of
*urethritis*. Not only were they able to use my invention to foam their bath
water without symptoms, but even undiluted as a perivaginal cleaner. Even
masturbating with my formula by one tester did not lead to the urinary
irritation he'd gotten from such use of other products. My most sensitive
subject was even pregnant at the time of her test. ***Other makers of
toiletries, when they've tested against urogenital irritancy, have
deliberately screened out of their test population the very type of subject
I engaged. ***
The other major advantage of my invention is its foam's density and wetness.
Bubble baths tend to make a light, fluffy foam of large bubbles, pretty to
look at, but brittle to the touch. Even when made of mild surfactants, their
dry foams can *sting eyes.* MarshWallow's fine lathery foam resists breaking
when played with, and doesn't sting eyes.
-------

What was the reasons you didn't use sulphates again?

This sounds kind of strange.. To me its like saying.. If you expose yourself
to radiation and get sick, it is because your "allergic to it". or "we
don't use DDT in our home because of the Toxic _claims_.. No we don't use it
because we know it causes adverse reactions" Everyone who puts this stuff
in their eyes will feel pain unless anaesthetised. Just like the poor little
bunnies who had their eyes burnt out with the stuff. Only the lab techs
have weighed up the most "appropriate levels" necessary to create the
desired effect with minimal reaction.. (That we can immediately SEE and
FEEL) Anyone who exposes themself to enough of it will suffer Toxic
Poisoning. Some people are more sensitive than others..

Some people can smoke a pack of cigarettes a day from the Age of 14, and
live to 100 right? So that means cigarettes are safe and people who develop
lung cancer are just having an Adverse reaction? Which is the norm? Do 50?
60? 70% of people who smoke die because of it? No they don;t.. the point is
that enough people do, because we have had the opportunity to pursue it and
investigate it to a much more detailed level. Society is going through the
same process now with the Chemical Industry and the results are not in their
favour at all.

And if it is not an issue then why is it an important part of fertility
programs that get results? I.e. To get these chemicals out of your system.
Clear out your home of this garbage. Its a vital step and sure it is part
of a whole lifestyle change, including an Organic Diet, Detox and Cycle
Management, but they all work together to create superior results. I think
as far as the industry is concerned, it is simply a matter that, it is an
area best left unstudied.. But thankfully people are investigating, because
it needs to be done. Just imagine the economic and litigation
ramifications.

You say you wanted to make a product that didn't generate the reactions
common to these substances. Do you not think that the same could apply to
other areas of peoples health, the not so obvious areas? It seems there is
a growing body of evidence to show that this is indeed the case.

I am the same.. But I wanted a whole certified organic product.. And I
believe in it, because I know the results people get, and I have weighed up
the issues myself and made a commitment to pursuing it further.

Like your Darklady friend says on her website.. We are all entitled to our
opinion and I am happy to hear any alternatives or errors in the way I
present the topic. I am not a BioChemist. I know people who are, I talk to
them a lot get their input an opinion. And each has a varied concept of the
issue. Show me the results.. that's all I really care about at the end of
the day, and makes perfect sense. Shampoo with Thick Bubbles that isn't
systemic, and doesn't cause the skin damage, irritation, urinary tract
infects. That's a positive result in my book. But IMO, I would rather use
truly natural, and true organic.. Take care..

<HTML><Input type message></HTML>
begin <7gxvb.427$GB2.12419@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>, Organic Living wrote:

Well, if you think that's readable. Personally, I prefer
proper line termination. Then again, my newsreader doesn't
try to guess at the MIME-type of messages.

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
end

"Organic Living" <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<yTpvb.369$GB2.10276@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
You will not know true pain until you try to have a child for YEARS
and CANNOT and then come to an infertility group for support and see a
message addressed to MOTHERS.

Obviously you are THAT clueless.

Killfile the troll, everyone. It's an idiot.

-L.

Organic Living is shoveling an all natural, organic substance, a/k/a male
bovine excreta.

It is astounding that this scammin's spammin' dirtbag does not get it. When
you are clearly not wanted, crawl back in your hole.

"Organic Living" <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:UJwvb.422$GB2.12164@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...

"-L." <k3_e81@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7b085a.0311220443.26e11dff@posting.google.co m...
Do not insult idiots.

"Bob Goodman" <robgood3@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:ccd23c50.0311211841.46f46cc7@posting.google.c om...

Good post, Robert, but, being the internet scammin', spammin' lying dirtbag
that s/h/it is, Organic (so is manure) will not even bother to think about
what yo wrote.

"Organic Living" <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<APBvb.479$GB2.15289@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...

Sorry I can't delete the extra lines here, only blank them, so there's
a lot of extra vertical space here, due to my temporary use of Lynx
thru Google Groups.

The difference here is that your use of the word "toxic" at least
strongly implies serious systemic effects.

Meanwhile the only problem my formula is directed against is temporary
irritation of superficial tissues -- the vagina, urethra, and cornea.
It's just to keep certain susceptible people from experiencing itching
or burning sensations that may last at most 3 days, and usually no
more than a day, sometimes accompanied by an urge to urinate. It's
not like anybody was going to die or something!

See below for a question.







What would qualify a toiletry product of this kind as "truly natural"
and/or "true organic" as you conclude at the bottom? -- Robert

What is Natural?
Existing in, or formed by nature; not artificial.

The Cosmetic Industry definition of Natural:
Any ingredient "derived from" a natural substance.

What is Organic?
Grown, cultivated and processed without the use of the synthetic chemicals
such as insecticides, herbicides and fumigants.

The Cosmetic Industry definition of organic:
Any compound containing carbon.

What is Certified Organic?
Certified organic is a third party guarantee of an "organic" claim.

Certified organic products must comply with stringent international
standards that cover all aspects of the processing chain to ensure that the
organic integrity is maintained from seed, growing, harvesting, storage,
transporting and processing through to the finished product.
A Grade is 70%+ Organic Ingredients..
100% Certified Organic is.. 100% Organic..

In article <y%evb.31868$f74.501@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com> ,
wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:

Anyway, someone beat you to it. Look at http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
if you want to see the dangers of water.

Zannah.

"Zannah" <zannah_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zannah_-F6D6D1.22583922112003@news.telus.net...
I tried to point this out upthread,but Organic said 'up yours.'

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message
news:y%evb.31868$f74.501@newssvr31.news.prodigy.co m:

Also, there is sure a lot more and worse air pollution today than in 1901.

In article <Xns9446E902C70E1mr4x@195.228.240.20>,
Mr. 4X <random.zhoan@dbbom.invalid.com> wrote:
I'm not sure that air pollution is worse today than in 1901. It just
comes from different sources. In many ways, air pollution may have
peaked in the 1950-1970 region.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in
news:5wtzb.2974$%G6.2679@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m:

True, and most of the air pollution in 1901 would have come from the large-
scale burning of coal, which, especially back then with no scrubber
technology, would have been particularly nasty, full of highly carcinogenic
polycyclic aromatic compounds.