Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 11/11/2018 22:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Which do you think is better? Why?

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:12:35 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 11/11/2018 22:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Which do you think is better? Why?

The regulatory authorities in the states have no teeth and the EU
precautionary approach is protectionist towards the consumer and not the
chemical companies.

So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.

If it were only Boris's arse, it would be okay, but it's Norman's, too.

On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:12:35 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 11/11/2018 22:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Which do you think is better? Why?

The regulatory authorities in the states have no teeth and the EU
precautionary approach is protectionist towards the consumer and not the
chemical companies.

Is there any evidence of disproportionate harm from cosmetics in the
USA? If so, do provide it.

You see, it's a very litigious country and there would be law suits
galore if there were. I can only assume therefore that it doesn't
exist, which means that the EU is being its usual silly self in banning
everything and anything.

Your bringing up 'the EU precautionary approach' is direct evidence of
that. What it means is that there's no evidence of any harm at all, but
we'll ban it anyway, probably for political or protectionist reasons not
scientific ones.

So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.

I doubt if cosmetics have even crossed his mind.

On 12/11/2018 00:33, GB wrote:
On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.

If it were only Boris's arse, it would be okay, but it's Norman's, too.

But he's not involved in any trade deals. Neither am I.

On 12/11/2018 09:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/11/2018 00:33, GB wrote:
On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.

If it were only Boris's arse, it would be okay, but it's Norman's, too.

But he's not involved in any trade deals.Â* Neither am I.


Has Boris been sacked? I forget.

In any case, I think you are right. He was put in charge of deciding
what colour the coffee cups should be in the embassies, although I think
he took the opportunity to offend as many people as possible.

"GB" wrote in message
news
On 12/11/2018 09:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/11/2018 00:33, GB wrote:
On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.

If it were only Boris's arse, it would be okay, but it's Norman's, too.

But he's not involved in any trade deals. Neither am I.


Has Boris been sacked? I forget.

Nope, he quit.

In any case, I think you are right. He was put in charge of deciding what
colour the coffee cups should be in the embassies,

Nope.

although I think he took the opportunity to offend as many people as
possible.

Nope.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:42:31 +0000, GB wrote:

On 12/11/2018 09:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/11/2018 00:33, GB wrote:
On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.

If it were only Boris's arse, it would be okay, but it's Norman's, too.

But he's not involved in any trade deals.* Neither am I.


Has Boris been sacked? I forget.

In any case, I think you are right. He was put in charge of deciding
what colour the coffee cups should be in the embassies, although I think
he took the opportunity to offend as many people as possible.

Ha Ha

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 07:34:57 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

You can put lipstick on a pig but you are still a pig....

I bow to your undoubtedly superior knowledge of the subject.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 22:43:49 +0000, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
wrote:


Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Hahahahaha.
You treat them just like the cat that owns me treats mice. The
mice always believe they'll manage to escape, but they never do.
Nasty !!!!
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:48:33 +0000, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 07:34:57 -0500, "Bouffant du Jour"
pouted in the mirror, as it applied a thin layer of its favorite purple lipstick:

You can put lipstick on a pig but you are still a pig....

I bow to your undoubtedly superior knowledge of the subject.

Might I add that putting lipstick on a goat works too ?
Still a goat, but much sexier.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:04:37 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 22:43:49 +0000, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
wrote:


Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Hahahahaha.
You treat them just like the cat that owns me treats mice. The
mice always believe they'll manage to escape, but they never do.
Nasty !!!!

cute innocent doe-eyed look


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 5:43:52 PM UTC-5, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Unless you're going to start buying your makeup in the U.S., I'm not sure
why you care.

Cindy Hamilton

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:09:31 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:12:35 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 11/11/2018 22:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Which do you think is better? Why?

The regulatory authorities in the states have no teeth and the EU
precautionary approach is protectionist towards the consumer and not the
chemical companies.

Is there any evidence of disproportionate harm from cosmetics in the
USA? If so, do provide it.

"the average American uses nine personal care products – containing 126
chemicals – every day. "

"Chemical safety is a growing consumer concern. A 2015 report by the
nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) says the average American
uses nine personal care products – containing 126 chemicals – every day.
Yet the federal agency responsible for overseeing the industry, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), lacks the legal authority to approve most
of these products before they go on the market. Some ingredients have
never been tested. Even when they have, little may be known about how
they interact with one another.

Among the chemicals causing concerns are suspected endocrine disruptors:
diethyl phthalate (DEP), frequently used in fragrances, parabens and
used as preservatives; and triclosan, an ingredient often found in
antibacterial products like hand sanitizer as well as some toothpastes
and soaps. Formaldehyde, a preservative found some hair straighteners
and other beauty items, and coal tar, used in anti-dandruff shampoos,
are among the known carcinogens present in many products."

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...organic-beauty


https://www.100percentpure.com/blogs...banned-only-30



You see, it's a very litigious country and there would be law suits
galore if there were.

That's just a lie. The chemicals aren't banned and proving harm in these
kind of cases is almost impossible. Just look tobacco and pesticides.

Besides just finding out what chemicals are in a cosmetic is very
costly. See that word on the label FRAGRANCE. Have you any idea what
chemicals are in that? Nope. They don't have to list them.


I can only assume therefore that it doesn't
exist, which means that the EU is being its usual silly self in banning
everything and anything.

Of course you are right as usual.

Nevertheless, snowflakes like me would rather not see our water systems
burdened with this stuff and the comcomitant NHS bills for treating the
victims.




Your bringing up 'the EU precautionary approach' is direct evidence of
that. What it means is that there's no evidence of any harm at all, but
we'll ban it anyway, probably for political or protectionist reasons not
scientific ones.

So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.

I doubt if cosmetics have even crossed his mind.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 14/11/2018 09:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:09:31 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:12:35 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 11/11/2018 22:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Which do you think is better? Why?

The regulatory authorities in the states have no teeth and the EU
precautionary approach is protectionist towards the consumer and not the
chemical companies.

Is there any evidence of disproportionate harm from cosmetics in the
USA? If so, do provide it.

"the average American uses nine personal care products €“ containing 126
chemicals €“ every day. "

"Chemical safety is a growing consumer concern. A 2015 report by the
nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) says the average American
uses nine personal care products €“ containing 126 chemicals €“ every day.
Yet the federal agency responsible for overseeing the industry, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), lacks the legal authority to approve most
of these products before they go on the market. Some ingredients have
never been tested. Even when they have, little may be known about how
they interact with one another.

Among the chemicals causing concerns are suspected endocrine disruptors:
diethyl phthalate (DEP), frequently used in fragrances, parabens and
used as preservatives; and triclosan, an ingredient often found in
antibacterial products like hand sanitizer as well as some toothpastes
and soaps. Formaldehyde, a preservative found some hair straighteners
and other beauty items, and coal tar, used in anti-dandruff shampoos,
are among the known carcinogens present in many products."

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...organic-beauty

https://www.100percentpure.com/blogs...banned-only-30

You see, it's a very litigious country and there would be law suits
galore if there were.

That's just a lie. The chemicals aren't banned and proving harm in these
kind of cases is almost impossible. Just look tobacco and pesticides.

Besides just finding out what chemicals are in a cosmetic is very
costly. See that word on the label FRAGRANCE. Have you any idea what
chemicals are in that? Nope. They don't have to list them.

I can only assume therefore that it doesn't
exist, which means that the EU is being its usual silly self in banning
everything and anything.

Of course you are right as usual.

Exactly. There is no evidence whatsoever of disproportionate harm from
any cosmetic chemicals in the USA relative to the EU.

Nevertheless, snowflakes like me would rather not see our water systems
burdened with this stuff and the comcomitant NHS bills for treating the
victims.

Oh, I see, you've shifted from personal harm to 'water systems' now.

Got any evidence of disproportionate harm to water systems in the USA
relative to the EU?

Tell me, do you **** in the woods, or do you flush it away into the
'water system' like everyone else, complete with all the chemicals it
contains? It's 100% chemicals, in case you're confused.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:28:41 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 14/11/2018 09:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:09:31 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:12:35 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 11/11/2018 22:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

Answer: US 10

EU 1200

Cue Norman.

Which do you think is better? Why?

The regulatory authorities in the states have no teeth and the EU
precautionary approach is protectionist towards the consumer and not the
chemical companies.

Is there any evidence of disproportionate harm from cosmetics in the
USA? If so, do provide it.

"the average American uses nine personal care products – containing 126
chemicals – every day. "

"Chemical safety is a growing consumer concern. A 2015 report by the
nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) says the average American
uses nine personal care products – containing 126 chemicals – every day.
Yet the federal agency responsible for overseeing the industry, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), lacks the legal authority to approve most
of these products before they go on the market. Some ingredients have
never been tested. Even when they have, little may be known about how
they interact with one another.

Among the chemicals causing concerns are suspected endocrine disruptors:
diethyl phthalate (DEP), frequently used in fragrances, parabens and
used as preservatives; and triclosan, an ingredient often found in
antibacterial products like hand sanitizer as well as some toothpastes
and soaps. Formaldehyde, a preservative found some hair straighteners
and other beauty items, and coal tar, used in anti-dandruff shampoos,
are among the known carcinogens present in many products."

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...organic-beauty

https://www.100percentpure.com/blogs...banned-only-30

You see, it's a very litigious country and there would be law suits
galore if there were.

That's just a lie. The chemicals aren't banned and proving harm in these
kind of cases is almost impossible. Just look tobacco and pesticides.

Besides just finding out what chemicals are in a cosmetic is very
costly. See that word on the label FRAGRANCE. Have you any idea what
chemicals are in that? Nope. They don't have to list them.

I can only assume therefore that it doesn't
exist, which means that the EU is being its usual silly self in banning
everything and anything.

Of course you are right as usual.

Exactly. There is no evidence whatsoever of disproportionate harm from
any cosmetic chemicals in the USA relative to the EU.

How many died from smoking before the 'evidence' was good enough for you
Norman.


Nevertheless, snowflakes like me would rather not see our water systems
burdened with this stuff and the comcomitant NHS bills for treating the
victims.

Oh, I see, you've shifted from personal harm to 'water systems' now.

Got any evidence of disproportionate harm to water systems in the USA
relative to the EU?

Tell me, do you **** in the woods, or do you flush it away into the
'water system' like everyone else, complete with all the chemicals it
contains? It's 100% chemicals, in case you're confused.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 14/11/2018 09:36, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:28:41 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 14/11/2018 09:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:09:31 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

I can only assume therefore that it doesn't
exist, which means that the EU is being its usual silly self in banning
everything and anything.

Of course you are right as usual.

Exactly. There is no evidence whatsoever of disproportionate harm from
any cosmetic chemicals in the USA relative to the EU.

How many died from smoking before the 'evidence' was good enough for you
Norman.

There's a difference between evidence that is not good enough, and no
evidence whatsoever. If you can't appreciate that, I suggest you go
away and learn.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:37:25 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

LOL Bitch slap!

Do you think the EU banned over a thousand chemicals at random?

Preemption requires some evidence does it not?

Therefore, Norman is wrong and he hit himself with a kipper.

I rest my case.

Slappy poos, but only because you seem to like it so much. Kissy, and
send my regards to the goat.




"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: On 14/11/2018 09:36, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:28:41 +0000, Norman Wells
: wrote:
: On 14/11/2018 09:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:09:31 +0000, Norman Wells
: wrote:
:
: I can only assume therefore that it doesn't
: exist, which means that the EU is being its usual silly self in
banning
: everything and anything.
:
: Of course you are right as usual.
:
: Exactly. There is no evidence whatsoever of disproportionate harm from
: any cosmetic chemicals in the USA relative to the EU.
:
: How many died from smoking before the 'evidence' was good enough for you
: Norman.
:
: There's a difference between evidence that is not good enough, and no
: evidence whatsoever. If you can't appreciate that, I suggest you go
: away and learn.
:


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 14/11/2018 11:02, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:37:25 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

LOL Bitch slap!

Do you think the EU banned over a thousand chemicals at random?

Preemption requires some evidence does it not?

Exactly the opposite in fact. If you're the EU, and you're applying
your ridiculous 'precautionary principle', there doesn't have to be any
scientific evidence at all. It's your excuse not to need any.

Therefore, Norman is wrong and he hit himself with a kipper.

I rest my case.

You haven't got one to rest.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:55:40 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 14/11/2018 11:02, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:37:25 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

LOL Bitch slap!

Do you think the EU banned over a thousand chemicals at random?

Preemption requires some evidence does it not?

Exactly the opposite in fact. If you're the EU, and you're applying
your ridiculous 'precautionary principle', there doesn't have to be any
scientific evidence at all. It's your excuse not to need any.

So they chose them at random and no criteria was applied whatsoever? Yes
or no?


Therefore, Norman is wrong and he hit himself with a kipper.

I rest my case.

You haven't got one to rest.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 11/14/2018 6:55 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
Exactly the opposite in fact.Â* If you're the EU, and you're applying your ridiculous 'precautionary principle', there doesn't have to be any scientific evidence at all.Â* It's your excuse not to need any.

Yes, we get it.

Your right to pollute the Earth and make obscene corporate profits trumps everyone elses right to be healthy and live on a clean planet.

Are you a shill for reverse osmosis water filters too?

On 14/11/2018 12:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:55:40 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 14/11/2018 11:02, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:37:25 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

LOL Bitch slap!

Do you think the EU banned over a thousand chemicals at random?

Preemption requires some evidence does it not?

Exactly the opposite in fact. If you're the EU, and you're applying
your ridiculous 'precautionary principle', there doesn't have to be any
scientific evidence at all. It's your excuse not to need any.

So they chose them at random and no criteria was applied whatsoever? Yes
or no?

Not entirely at random. I imagine they chose only those included in
cosmetics.

Within that, it does very much look like a pin-sticking exercise.

Therefore, Norman is wrong and he hit himself with a kipper.

I rest my case.

You haven't got one to rest.

On 2018-11-14 6:57 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 14/11/2018 12:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:55:40 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 14/11/2018 11:02, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:37:25 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

LOLÂ* Bitch slap!

Do you think the EU banned over a thousand chemicals at random?

Preemption requires some evidence does it not?

Exactly the opposite in fact.Â* If you're the EU, and you're applying
your ridiculous 'precautionary principle', there doesn't have to be any
scientific evidence at all.Â* It's your excuse not to need any.

So they chose them at random and no criteria was applied whatsoever? Yes
or no?

Not entirely at random.Â* I imagine they chose only those included in
cosmetics.

Within that, it does very much look like a pin-sticking exercise.

Therefore, Norman is wrong and he hit himself with a kipper.

I rest my case.

You haven't got one to rest.


can he afford one

On 14/11/2018 13:35, Jack wrote:
On 11/14/2018 6:55 AM, Norman Wells wrote:

Exactly the opposite in fact.Â* If you're the EU, and you're applying
your ridiculous 'precautionary principle', there doesn't have to be
any scientific evidence at all.Â* It's your excuse not to need any.

Yes, we get it.

Your right to pollute the Earth and make obscene corporate profits
trumps everyone elses right to be healthy and live on a clean planet.

Everything is chemical, 100%.

And there is no such thing as 'a clean planet'. You pollute it just by
being on it.

Got any evidence that the chemicals concerned affect anyone's health
adversely?

No? Thought not.

Are you a shill for reverse osmosis water filters too?

Why? Are they anything to do with cosmetics?

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 07:01:11 -0700, % wrote:

On 2018-11-14 6:57 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 14/11/2018 12:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:55:40 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 14/11/2018 11:02, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:37:25 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

LOL* Bitch slap!

Do you think the EU banned over a thousand chemicals at random?

Preemption requires some evidence does it not?

Exactly the opposite in fact.* If you're the EU, and you're applying
your ridiculous 'precautionary principle', there doesn't have to be any
scientific evidence at all.* It's your excuse not to need any.

So they chose them at random and no criteria was applied whatsoever? Yes
or no?

Not entirely at random.* I imagine they chose only those included in
cosmetics.

Within that, it does very much look like a pin-sticking exercise.

Therefore, Norman is wrong and he hit himself with a kipper.

I rest my case.

You haven't got one to rest.


can he afford one

I have several. They rest most of the time. That would point to them
being socialists but I haven't asked them as I don't want them to hurt
themselves attempting the goose step.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky