On 24/05/2011 08:44, David Paste wrote:
On May 24, 12:46 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:

I did, but you chose to chop the post up, so it was no longer obvious
that I was referring to your mention of paracetic acid.

There really is not much point in continuing a discussion with someone
who is simply out to score points by twisting the wording of a post.

But that was part of my point. You came in saying that wood was
unsuitable for food use.

I actually said I choose not to eat somewhere that uses it for plates as
I consider it microbiologically suspect. Given that the food they serve
on it includes bloody steaks, I see no reason to review that decision.

It maybe unsuitable for certain aspects, but
it isn't FLAT OUT wrong to use for ALL aspects.

I don't recall claiming that. I do recall stating that it fails to meet
the requirements for use in food preparation areas and stating that I
think it is wrong to use it for plates in this restaurant. I would have
less concern if it were a vegan restaurant.

Twisting words, eh?

Indeed, you continue to do so.

I'd urge you to make sure you are clear in the point you are trying to
make in future, to avoid such confusions.

The point was quite clear - I stopped eating in a particular restaurant
because of concerns about the safety of the plates they were using.

Colin Bignell