stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which said
that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:53:57 GMT, stoutman wrote:
I give up. You guys must be right. Don't use acetone to clean glue from
your hands.

Not much more to do than give the data. When the MSDS lists
'dries out your skin' as the top problem...

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:18:19 +0000, Andy Dingley wrote:
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "stoutman" wrote:

I sometimes forget how difficult it is to have discussions with the ignorant
and uneducated.

I'm sorry, but the only person who appears to be behaving ignorantly
around here is you. Paul _agreed_ with you, posted a reasonable
credible link to support this, then you bit his head off !

Yeah, I noticed that too.

Dave Hinz

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to make
it credible?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to make
it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should
be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which said
that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be made
available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should
be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Good grief. All I did was say that acetone was ok to use to get glue from
your hands and I get **** on. I described my personal accounts (10+ years
of experience using acetone) and it wasn't good enough to convince someone
that they can use it safely to get glue from their hands. If I had known
that all I had to due was post ONE link to a entheology web site and that
would of sufficed I would have done so.

-Take care

I hope you find someone else to argue with.






"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be made
available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should
be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
an
_example_.

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. It is appears to be a
compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.

Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific publication)
that is sighted in that web page? I could not.

They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I don't
know what is.

If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
inadequate so be it.





"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be made
available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should
be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Thu, Mar 10, 2005, 5:42pm (EST+5) (stoutman) claims:
Than Im in deep ****. We use acetone to wash our glasswear at work. I
have been getting it on my hands for over 10 years with no problems.
That beer you drink at night is worse for your liver than a little
acetone on your hand.

Duuno, but my dad used to work with a guy who rinsed the grease off
his hands with some type of chemical cleaner on a daily basis. He was
told it wasn't a good idea, but did it anyway. Then all of a sudden his
hands just kinda wrinkled up, and went all white. Never did hear the
final outcome.

With Titebond water cleanup works. Cool.



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

stoutman wrote:

Good grief. All I did was say that acetone was ok to use to get glue from
your hands and I get **** on. I described my personal accounts (10+ years
of experience using acetone) and it wasn't good enough to convince someone
that they can use it safely to get glue from their hands. If I had known
that all I had to due was post ONE link to a entheology web site and that
would of sufficed I would have done so.

Whoa. Are you the OP? I thought that was . If I've
lost track of the players then I apologize.

As far as this "entheology site" business goes, quit focussing on
"entheology" whatever that might be and instead focus on the provenance of
the content.




-Take care

I hope you find someone else to argue with.






"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
made available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
MSDS" will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
should be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

stoutman wrote:

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
an
_example_.

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

It is appears to be a
compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.

No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences of
acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on a
government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
public in that matter.

Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
publication)
that is sighted in that web page? I could not.

Why would you expect there to be one?

They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
don't know what is.

If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
inadequate so be it.

YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion. They
are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by a
number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
chemists, physicians, and other specialists.

Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and Health
Administration being more credible than you are?

You seem to be determined to be upset about this.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
made available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
MSDS" will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
should be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

You did.
You referred to it as a review of the literature. do you remember typing? :
"No, _they_ used a review of the literature."

"They used" != "it was".

What?? Don't understand your comment. Please elaborate.

Why would you expect there to be one?

Don't make me chuckle. Any decent review of the literature would CITE
references from the literature. This is NOT a review of the literature.
Have you ever read a scientific review article?

YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion.

I never claimed to be a government agency. I never gave my OPINION. When
did I give my opinion? I stated OBSERVATIONS from my extensive experience
as a Ph.D. medicinal chemist who uses acetone on a daily basis for the past
10-years.

Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and Health
Administration being more credible than you are?

I don't. Never said I was more credible. I'm willing to bet I have used
acetone more than the COSHA though.


You seem to be determined to be upset about this.

Not the least bit upset.





"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
an
_example_.

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

It is appears to be a
compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.

No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences of
acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on a
government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
public in that matter.

Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
publication)
that is sighted in that web page? I could not.

Why would you expect there to be one?

They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited
Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
don't know what is.

If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
inadequate so be it.

YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion. They
are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by a
number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
chemists, physicians, and other specialists.

Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and Health
Administration being more credible than you are?

You seem to be determined to be upset about this.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
made available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
MSDS" will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
should be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Why do I have to be the OP to respond like this?

As far as this "entheology site" business goes, quit focussing on
"entheology" whatever that might be and instead focus on the provenance of
the content.

Ok lets focus in. But I think you are WAY over your head. Lets keep going.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

Good grief. All I did was say that acetone was ok to use to get glue
from
your hands and I get **** on. I described my personal accounts (10+
years
of experience using acetone) and it wasn't good enough to convince
someone
that they can use it safely to get glue from their hands. If I had known
that all I had to due was post ONE link to a entheology web site and that
would of sufficed I would have done so.

Whoa. Are you the OP? I thought that was . If I've
lost track of the players then I apologize.

As far as this "entheology site" business goes, quit focussing on
"entheology" whatever that might be and instead focus on the provenance of
the content.




-Take care

I hope you find someone else to argue with.






"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
made available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
MSDS" will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
should be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:

They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I don't
know what is.

If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
inadequate so be it.





"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
an
_example_.

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

It is appears to be a
compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.

No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences of
acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on a
government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
public in that matter.

Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
publication)
that is sighted in that web page? I could not.

Why would you expect there to be one?

They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited
Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
don't know what is.

If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
inadequate so be it.

YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion. They
are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by a
number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
chemists, physicians, and other specialists.

Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and Health
Administration being more credible than you are?

You seem to be determined to be upset about this.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
made available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
MSDS" will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
should be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

It was somewhere outside Barstow when (J T)
wrote:

Duuno, but my dad used to work with a guy who rinsed the grease off
his hands with some type of chemical cleaner on a daily basis.

Any degreaser is bad new on your hands - humans are just made out of
too much grease. Anything that cleans them is also degreasing the
skin. There's a reason why my workshops always have barrier cream and
handcream to hand. (These days it's tradefair shea butter stuff -
much nicer than Nivea or Oil of Oily)

Then all of a sudden his
hands just kinda wrinkled up, and went all white.

He was lucky. Most of the workshop solvents that really are harmful
cause liver damage. Very nasty way to go 8-(

If the skin went white, might it have been hydrogen peroxide he was
splashing about ?

stoutman wrote:

Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:

Give it a rest...

stoutman wrote:

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

You did.
You referred to it as a review of the literature. do you remember typing?
: "No, _they_ used a review of the literature."

"They used" != "it was".

What?? Don't understand your comment. Please elaborate.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who understands the English language. Or are
you having trouble with "!=" meaning "not equal to"?

Why would you expect there to be one?

Don't make me chuckle. Any decent review of the literature would CITE
references from the literature. This is NOT a review of the literature.
Have you ever read a scientific review article?

Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red herring.

YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion.

I never claimed to be a government agency. I never gave my OPINION. When
did I give my opinion? I stated OBSERVATIONS from my extensive
experience as a Ph.D. medicinal chemist who uses acetone on a daily basis
for the past 10-years.

In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your experience.

In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.

Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and
Health
Administration being more credible than you are?

I don't. Never said I was more credible. I'm willing to bet I have used
acetone more than the COSHA though.

I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a government.

You seem to be determined to be upset about this.

Not the least bit upset.

Yeah, right.





"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
as an
_example_.

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

It is appears to be a
compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.

No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences
of acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on a
government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
public in that matter.

Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
publication)
that is sighted in that web page? I could not.

Why would you expect there to be one?

They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited
Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
don't know what is.

If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal
accounts inadequate so be it.

YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion. They
are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by
a number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
chemists, physicians, and other specialists.

Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and
Health
Administration being more credible than you are?

You seem to be determined to be upset about this.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
made available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health &
Safety", google same, and come up with


http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study
to make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30
years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make
it true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature
of acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
MSDS" will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just
plain foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
should be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too
harsh. Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a
URL which said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I will. I'm beginning to think that this guy is just trolling me.

My original intentions were sincere (to be helpful), but regretful at this
point.



"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:

Give it a rest...

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

That's new to me.

Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red
herring.

Once again, (are you hard of reading?) You referred to it as a review of the
literature. Again your words:"No, _they_ used a review of the literature.
They mentioned that study as an
_example_."

They never state that it WAS or that they USED a review of the literature.
YOU DID. They did not use or claim to use a review of the literature.
There is NO review of the literature in that documentation.

In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your
experience.

Again, not my opinion, but rather my OBSERVATIONS. Do you know the
difference? I will write it again for you so you can hear me better:I NEVER
STATED MY OPINION.

In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.

I think Paul said it best "Ah, if all else fails, revert to the ad hominem
attack. "

I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a government.

You sure like to put words in my mouth.

Yeah, right.

Spoken like a true 12-year old.




"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

You did.
You referred to it as a review of the literature. do you remember
typing?
: "No, _they_ used a review of the literature."

"They used" != "it was".

What?? Don't understand your comment. Please elaborate.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who understands the English language. Or
are
you having trouble with "!=" meaning "not equal to"?

Why would you expect there to be one?

Don't make me chuckle. Any decent review of the literature would CITE
references from the literature. This is NOT a review of the literature.
Have you ever read a scientific review article?

Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red
herring.

YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion.

I never claimed to be a government agency. I never gave my OPINION.
When
did I give my opinion? I stated OBSERVATIONS from my extensive
experience as a Ph.D. medicinal chemist who uses acetone on a daily basis
for the past 10-years.

In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your
experience.

In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.

Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and
Health
Administration being more credible than you are?

I don't. Never said I was more credible. I'm willing to bet I have used
acetone more than the COSHA though.

I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a government.

You seem to be determined to be upset about this.

Not the least bit upset.

Yeah, right.





"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
as an
_example_.

Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

It is appears to be a
compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.

No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences
of acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on
a
government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
public in that matter.

Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
publication)
that is sighted in that web page? I could not.

Why would you expect there to be one?

They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited
Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
don't know what is.

If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal
accounts inadequate so be it.

YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion.
They
are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by
a number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
chemists, physicians, and other specialists.

Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and
Health
Administration being more credible than you are?

You seem to be determined to be upset about this.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.


REALLY? Did you read it?

We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?

It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.

No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
as
an
_example_.

Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
VOLUNTEERS?????

What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which
the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?

Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page
to
make it credible?

It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
made available to the public.

Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health &
Safety", google same, and come up with


http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.

Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?

Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study
to make it a credible one.(not that I do).


PAUL WROTE:
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30
years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make
it true?












"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

One more think.

So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
web
page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature
of acetone than my personal accounts?

Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided
by
the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health.
The
US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
MSDS" will give you more of the same.

Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
is
NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just
plain foolish.

His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
opinion.

"Paul Kierstead" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you
need
to
reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
should be
ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.


No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist --
for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too
harsh. Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a
URL which said that acetone was pretty benign.

PK

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

It was somewhere outside Barstow when "stoutman" wrote:

this is my last post on this thread.

What part of "last post on this thread" are you having the problem
with ?

The "last" part.


"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "stoutman" wrote:

this is my last post on this thread.

What part of "last post on this thread" are you having the problem
with ?

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:10:38 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

stoutman wrote:

Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:

Give it a rest...

One of these guys is acting like a total dick. Unfortunately I haven't
been able to figure out which one it is.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

stoutman wrote:

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

That's new to me.

Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
programming language used all over the place.

Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red
herring.

Once again, (are you hard of reading?) You referred to it as a review of
the
literature. Again your words:"No, _they_ used a review of the literature.
They mentioned that study as an
_example_."

The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
thing?

They never state that it WAS or that they USED a review of the literature.
YOU DID. They did not use or claim to use a review of the literature.
There is NO review of the literature in that documentation.

I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
literature survey. If the author did not use a literature survey to find
the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
_did_ he find them? Were they all lying on the coffee table in his
dentist's waiting room or something?

In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your
experience.

Again, not my opinion, but rather my OBSERVATIONS. Do you know the
difference? I will write it again for you so you can hear me better:I
NEVER STATED MY OPINION.

Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
and that inference is somehow not an opinion. I guess that we should
believe that cold fusion is in fact a nuclear reaction on the basis of the
"observations" of a couple of chemists.

In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.

I think Paul said it best "Ah, if all else fails, revert to the ad hominem
attack. "

And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm insulting
you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
"using".

I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a government.

You sure like to put words in my mouth.

Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you now
retracting that statement?

Yeah, right.

Spoken like a true 12-year old.

What will come next from you? "Does so?"

numerous quotes rendered irrelevant by some moron's top-posting snipped

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

stoutman wrote:

Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:

They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
don't know what is.

If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
inadequate so be it.

They did not state that that was the entirety of the evidence, but you seem
to have a great deal of difficulty actually seeing what was written. All
that you personally have is "limited human experience" unless you've poured
it on the cat or something.

How many people do you have to try to irritate before you determine that
something is not irritating anyway?

snippage

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mon, Mar 14, 2005, 12:09am (EST+5)
(Andy=A0Dingley) wonders:
snip If the skin went white, might it have been hydrogen peroxide he
was splashing about ?

Nope, a 55 gallon drum of some chemical they dipped tools in, on a
wire, to degrease them. Something like carb cleaner, apparently. That
guy was the only one that wanted it on his skin. The rest of 'em, if it
splashed on their hands, they went and washed with soap and water.
Strictly for degreasing/cleaning metal.



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

stoutman wrote:

Why do I have to be the OP to respond like this?

Because I believe that all the beating that the OP took was totally
unjustified.

As far as this "entheology site" business goes, quit focussing on
"entheology" whatever that might be and instead focus on the provenance
of the content.

Ok lets focus in. But I think you are WAY over your head. Lets keep
going.

Coming from someone who isn't even paying enough attention to be able to
figure out that a page has been lifted from another site bodily and to then
go look at the original that's a hoot. Coming from someone who seems to be
upset that the evidence of government safety agency which basically agrees
with him is more credible than his own it's even more so.


snip

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J T" wrote in message
...
Mon, Mar 14, 2005, 12:09am (EST+5)
(Andy Dingley) wonders:
snip If the skin went white, might it have been hydrogen peroxide he
was splashing about ?

Nope, a 55 gallon drum of some chemical they dipped tools in, on a
wire, to degrease them. Something like carb cleaner, apparently. That
guy was the only one that wanted it on his skin. The rest of 'em, if it
splashed on their hands, they went and washed with soap and water.
Strictly for degreasing/cleaning metal.

Could have been 1-1-1-tricholoroethylene, although it's more effective as a
vapor degreaser. And I wouldn't want it on my hands.

todd

Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
programming language used all over the place.



No thanks.

The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
thing?


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature? I see no evidence of
there being a review of the literature conducted for the purposes of writing
that documentation.


WHAT PART OF "LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? They
used 6-male volunteers? Do you consider that sufficient? I sure do not.

How do you consider that ADEQUATE?




I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
literature survey.

Your right. You don't even remember what you wrote. You wrote he used a
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

If the author did not use a literature survey to find
the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
_did_ he find them?

What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I see
NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
and that inference is somehow not an opinion.

Why do you not refer to the OBSERVATIONS made by those in documentation
OPINIONS as well? Because they published it on a web page, thus they are
OBSERVATIONS and not OPINIONS? They also made observations did they not?

And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
insulting
you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
"using".



Blah Blah Blah, personal attack, Blah Blah Blah, personal attack.

What was it you said before? something along these lines: Quit focusing on
my grammar and instead focus on the provenance of
the content. Or should we focus in on the fact that you like scientific
references from ENTHEOLOGY web pages?

Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
now
retracting that statement?

Ok, how about those that conducted the experiments referred to in the
documentation?








"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".

That's new to me.

Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
programming language used all over the place.

Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red
herring.

Once again, (are you hard of reading?) You referred to it as a review of
the
literature. Again your words:"No, _they_ used a review of the
literature.
They mentioned that study as an
_example_."

The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
thing?

They never state that it WAS or that they USED a review of the
literature.
YOU DID. They did not use or claim to use a review of the literature.
There is NO review of the literature in that documentation.

I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
literature survey. If the author did not use a literature survey to find
the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
_did_ he find them? Were they all lying on the coffee table in his
dentist's waiting room or something?

In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your
experience.

Again, not my opinion, but rather my OBSERVATIONS. Do you know the
difference? I will write it again for you so you can hear me better:I
NEVER STATED MY OPINION.

Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
and that inference is somehow not an opinion. I guess that we should
believe that cold fusion is in fact a nuclear reaction on the basis of the
"observations" of a couple of chemists.

In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.

I think Paul said it best "Ah, if all else fails, revert to the ad
hominem
attack. "

And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
insulting
you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
"using".

I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a
government.

You sure like to put words in my mouth.

Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
now
retracting that statement?

Yeah, right.

Spoken like a true 12-year old.

What will come next from you? "Does so?"

numerous quotes rendered irrelevant by some moron's top-posting snipped

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

stoutman wrote:

I will. I'm beginning to think that this guy is just trolling me.

Takes two to tango, so to speak...

My original intentions were sincere (to be helpful), but regretful at this
point.

I don't doubt the former, but you just can't seem to back off and
instead just got higher-pitched which sorta' negates the latter...

I'm going to take a extreme chance here and make a couple of comments
that may (or may not ) help in a longer-run...

First, I'm going to presume you're not particularly familiar w/
usenet--if you were, you would have already realized there was no point
in continuing a "is/is not" discussion--they never change anybody's
opinion and as amply demonstrated herein, simply degenerate--how fast
and how far is somewhat variable, but the general trend is clear.

Second, to succeed in sharing what you do know well in usenet, it's
much more successful to not tout personal expertise/experience (at least
directly) in the "I'm a whatever so it's clear I'm an expert"
mode--it's simply amazing to find the number and types of people who
either actively participate (or lurk w/ only an occasional pop-up) that
invariably have at least as much if not much more experience in your
field---remembering that initially is a good thing.

Thirdly, it's also a characteristic that there are those who simply wait
for the opportunity to pounce--unfortunately, it's a knee-jerk reaction
for many, a source of glee for others, and an occasional lapse by others
(like I occasionally find myself).

Finally, in the particular case, it's fine to post personal opinion
and ancecdotal accounts of work practice if they're clearly such. Where
you slipped up here was attempting to justify that as a
pseudo-scientific argument. If, when questioned you had simply posted a
link to an MSDS or referred to it as backup to your own attitude, the
tempest would have died before it got started.

When, otoh, you attempted to justify your previous claim simply by
touting your own expertise and personal experience, that simply (as you
no doubt have noticed) fanned the flames and at that point there's no
way you can ever "win" such an argument.

And, for one last comment, if you are going to attempt to make arguments
"scientific", at least check your spelling, grammar and use facts rather
than opinions/personal experience as the building blocks. Your
credibility will be in direct proportion to the amount of effort taken
in proofing your comments...nothing will start the usenet police off
quicker than a chance to point out what can easily come off as
pretentiousness even if as here (I'm sure) it wasn't intended.

HTH...

Enough. The information is easy to get:
"stoutman" wrote in message
om...
Like I said, do your own research. All I have to offer are personal
experiences from my years of experience as a medicinal chemist. Take it
or leave it. You need more than what I have to offer in order to make an
educated decision as to whether or not to use acetone to clean up glue
from your hands? DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Take it or leave it.


"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"stoutman" wrote in message
news
The parts of the discussion (the majority) that pertain to the
toxicology
of
acetone are considered scientific in nature. Thus, the discussion can
be
considered a "scientific discussion"

If you need more information as to its toxicity do your own research and
come to your own conclusions about the toxicity of acetone. I am MORE
than
confident that you will (or have already) come to the same conclusions I
have regarding its toxicity.




WHAT! Empirical data, not testimonials?

That's what educated, intelligent people use.....

It might depend on the grade of acetone,
there's

low-strenght acetone,

medium-strength acetone,

high-strength acetone,


and......








KICK-acetone!


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

stoutman wrote:

Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
programming language used all over the place.



No thanks.

Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?

The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
thing?


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature?

The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.

I see no evidence of
there being a review of the literature conducted for the purposes of
writing that documentation.

So from whence did he find his numerous cases?

WHAT PART OF "LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? They
used 6-male volunteers? Do you consider that sufficient? I sure do not.

How do you consider that ADEQUATE?

What makes you believe that that was the only experiment conducted? He
didn't tell how many animals they experimented on so by your logic there
must have been no animal experiments conducted. One may assume that that
was _part_ of the "limited human information". One may not safely assume
that that was _all_ of it.

I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
literature survey.

Your right. You don't even remember what you wrote. You wrote he used a
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.

If the author did not use a literature survey to find
the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
_did_ he find them?

What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
case report" (bear in mind that this is a government agency charged with
occupational safety and health, from which one may assume that they receive
a plethora of "case reports"), then "a single case report", then "animal
and limited human information", then "there are several reports of
people . . .", then "in 3 human cases" then "in one unusual case" which
clearly was not among the 3, then "several studies report", then "animal
information suggests", then "one case report describes" then "most human
poulation studies indicate" then "in a series of studies", then "another
study which reviewed . . ." then "one other study" then "no conclusions can
be drawn from other reports . . ." then more "animal information suggests"
then "no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available studies", then "a
study of 25 men" then "a study of 891 women" then "in a Russian study",
then "one animal study showed". Now where did he find all these studies?

Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
and that inference is somehow not an opinion.

Why do you not refer to the OBSERVATIONS made by those in documentation
OPINIONS as well?

Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers dealing
with larger populations than just you.

Because they published it on a web page, thus they are
OBSERVATIONS and not OPINIONS? They also made observations did they not?

They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".

And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
insulting
you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
"using".



Blah Blah Blah, personal attack, Blah Blah Blah, personal attack.

Actually, for the most part statements of fact.

What was it you said before? something along these lines: Quit focusing
on my grammar and instead focus on the provenance of
the content.

I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".

Or should we focus in on the fact that you like scientific
references from ENTHEOLOGY web pages?

Please provide some evidence to support the contention that
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html
is an "ENTHEOLOGY web page". And why do you keep shouting "entheology".
Do you like the sound of it or something?

Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
now
retracting that statement?

Ok, how about those that conducted the experiments referred to in the
documentation?

How about them? What do you know of them?

snip

If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:34:04 GMT, (Lawrence
Wasserman) wrote:

It might depend on the grade of acetone,
there's

low-strenght acetone,

medium-strength acetone,

high-strength acetone,


and......








KICK-acetone!

Which is what you get from a well set-up electric guitar with a
mega-amp that goes to "11".

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?


Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature?

The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.


Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review of
the literature. Ok, If you say so.

If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I think
I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.

So from whence did he find his numerous cases?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.

Again, this is not a review of the literature. We have NO evidence that he
used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature these
"case reports" came from. Do you?


What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
case report"

Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
referencing the literature. A reference from the literature would contain a
REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the source of
the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain the
journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc. Have
you ever read a scientific publication?

You crack me up sir.

Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers dealing
with larger populations than just you.

Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague recollections.
I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I go to work.
Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using acetone (FYI).


Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know how
many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?

Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to see
what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people show
up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would consider that a
LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not just
me.

They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".

They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference to
the literature would be nice wouldn't it?

You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when (A.)
You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to LITERATURE
here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of volunteers (THEY
EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION).

Ok, sure. Trust away.

I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".

Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
attacking me?

If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.

Why should I do you any favors?


Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to use
the literature to write a scientific manuscript.

Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
literature.


So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.

You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the document.

Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
document that does not contain a review of the literature?


Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?









"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn
at
least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
programming language used all over the place.



No thanks.

Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?

The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
thing?


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature?

The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.

I see no evidence of
there being a review of the literature conducted for the purposes of
writing that documentation.

So from whence did he find his numerous cases?

WHAT PART OF "LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? They
used 6-male volunteers? Do you consider that sufficient? I sure do not.

How do you consider that ADEQUATE?

What makes you believe that that was the only experiment conducted? He
didn't tell how many animals they experimented on so by your logic there
must have been no animal experiments conducted. One may assume that that
was _part_ of the "limited human information". One may not safely assume
that that was _all_ of it.

I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
literature survey.

Your right. You don't even remember what you wrote. You wrote he used a
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.

If the author did not use a literature survey to find
the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
_did_ he find them?

What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
case report" (bear in mind that this is a government agency charged with
occupational safety and health, from which one may assume that they
receive
a plethora of "case reports"), then "a single case report", then "animal
and limited human information", then "there are several reports of
people . . .", then "in 3 human cases" then "in one unusual case" which
clearly was not among the 3, then "several studies report", then "animal
information suggests", then "one case report describes" then "most human
poulation studies indicate" then "in a series of studies", then "another
study which reviewed . . ." then "one other study" then "no conclusions
can
be drawn from other reports . . ." then more "animal information suggests"
then "no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available studies", then
"a
study of 25 men" then "a study of 891 women" then "in a Russian study",
then "one animal study showed". Now where did he find all these studies?

Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you
observed
and that inference is somehow not an opinion.

Why do you not refer to the OBSERVATIONS made by those in documentation
OPINIONS as well?

Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers dealing
with larger populations than just you.

Because they published it on a web page, thus they are
OBSERVATIONS and not OPINIONS? They also made observations did they not?

They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".

And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
insulting
you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being"
and
"using".



Blah Blah Blah, personal attack, Blah Blah Blah, personal attack.

Actually, for the most part statements of fact.

What was it you said before? something along these lines: Quit focusing
on my grammar and instead focus on the provenance of
the content.

I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".

Or should we focus in on the fact that you like scientific
references from ENTHEOLOGY web pages?

Please provide some evidence to support the contention that
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html
is an "ENTHEOLOGY web page". And why do you keep shouting "entheology".
Do you like the sound of it or something?

Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
now
retracting that statement?

Ok, how about those that conducted the experiments referred to in the
documentation?

How about them? What do you know of them?

snip

If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

stoutman wrote:

Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?


Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature?

The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.


Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review
of
the literature. Ok, If you say so.

If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I
think I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.

And what if your boss decided that the citations were irrelevant for the
targeted audience and told you not to waste space on them?

So from whence did he find his numerous cases?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.

Again, this is not a review of the literature.

Straw man. You are the only one claiming that it was a review of the
literature.

We have NO evidence that
he
used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature these
"case reports" came from. Do you?

Some body of literature that he or someone must have surveyed in order to
find them.

What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
case report"

Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
referencing the literature.

Another straw man. Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
except you.

A reference from the literature would contain
a
REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the source
of
the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain the
journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc.
Have you ever read a scientific publication?

Fine, you know what a "reference from the literature is". So do I. Nobody
has claimed that that web page was "a reference from the literature", only
that someone who prepared it _used_ the literature.

You crack me up sir.

Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers
dealing with larger populations than just you.

Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague
recollections. I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I
go to work. Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using acetone
(FYI).

So to how much acetone were they exposed? For how long? In what
concentration? How many subjects were involved? What methodology did you
use to determine that there were no "adverse effects"? What would you
consider to be an "adverse effect"?

Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know
how
many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?

I do not have to know an exact number to place a lower bound. Count up the
number of different studies mentioned by the author and that will put a
lower bound on it.

Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to see
what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people
show up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would consider
that a
LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not just
me.

Again you are taking one statement out of context and asserting that that
was the totality of the research.

Still, 6, observed, with some description of the methodology and the
observed results, is more than you have presented.

They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".

They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference to
the literature would be nice wouldn't it?

The many others who wrote the various results that were mentioned. I don't
_care_ specifically _who_ in this context.

You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when
(A.) You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to
LITERATURE here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of
volunteers (THEY EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION).

You have no idea how many "volunteers" were used. They mentioned some
studies that had hundreds of subjects. You are again focussing on one
result and ignoring the rest of the document.

Ok, sure. Trust away.

I shall.

I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your
intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".

Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
attacking me?

How about you actually reading the entire document in question and finding
something to criticize other than "ENTHEOLOGY web page" and "6 volunteers"?

If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.

Why should I do you any favors?

I am not asking you for favors, I am asking you to behave in a socially
responsible manner.

Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to
use the literature to write a scientific manuscript.

Another straw man. The page in question is clearly not intended to be a
"scientific manuscript" in the sense that you mean.

Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
literature.

What difference does that make to the topic at hand?

So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.

You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the document.

Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
document that does not contain a review of the literature?

No, I am not suggesting that. I am stating it. If one uses a typewriter to
write a document that does not mean that the document contains a
typewriter. If one uses a dictionary to write it that does not mean that
it contains a dictionary. If one uses a style manual to write it that does
not mean that it contains a style manual. If one uses the CRC Handbook to
write it that does not mean that it contains the CRC handbook. If one uses
a literature survey to write it that does not mean that it contains a
literature survey.

Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?

The only thing I see you beating is straw men and your own chest.

and again a duplicate post was snipped

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

First of all, writing a document using a "review of the literature" and
writing a document using a couple or even a few articles from the literature
are not the same. Second, you have no evidence that he used a "review of
the literature". How do you know the authors information didn't come form
ONE or even TWO articles? There are NO references to the literature, but
yet you think a "review of the literature" was used. A "review of the
literature" implies a degree of totality. Could you write a review of a
movie by only watching the middle of it? Or only watching the end of it?

If one uses a style manual to write something how do you know a style manual
was used? If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
handbook was used? Unless the author told you?

I refer to the inadequate study (the one with only 6-volunteers) because it
is the one entitled: What happens when acetone comes into contact with my
skin?". We are talking about using acetone to get glue from our hands.
This is the part of the document that would apply the most and it is here
that the author states that the study is based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION". Yet you find this adequate.

Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
except you.

Ok, you think he used a "review of the literature" to write the document but
he does this with out referencing the literature. Interesting. How is that
done?





"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?


Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature?

The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.


Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review
of
the literature. Ok, If you say so.

If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I
think I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.

And what if your boss decided that the citations were irrelevant for the
targeted audience and told you not to waste space on them?

So from whence did he find his numerous cases?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.

Again, this is not a review of the literature.

Straw man. You are the only one claiming that it was a review of the
literature.

We have NO evidence that
he
used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature
these
"case reports" came from. Do you?

Some body of literature that he or someone must have surveyed in order to
find them.

What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then
"one
case report"

Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
referencing the literature.

Another straw man. Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the
literature"
except you.

A reference from the literature would contain
a
REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the source
of
the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain the
journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc.
Have you ever read a scientific publication?

Fine, you know what a "reference from the literature is". So do I.
Nobody
has claimed that that web page was "a reference from the literature", only
that someone who prepared it _used_ the literature.

You crack me up sir.

Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers
dealing with larger populations than just you.

Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague
recollections. I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I
go to work. Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using acetone
(FYI).

So to how much acetone were they exposed? For how long? In what
concentration? How many subjects were involved? What methodology did you
use to determine that there were no "adverse effects"? What would you
consider to be an "adverse effect"?

Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know
how
many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?

I do not have to know an exact number to place a lower bound. Count up
the
number of different studies mentioned by the author and that will put a
lower bound on it.

Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to see
what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people
show up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would consider
that a
LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not
just
me.

Again you are taking one statement out of context and asserting that that
was the totality of the research.

Still, 6, observed, with some description of the methodology and the
observed results, is more than you have presented.

They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".

They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference
to
the literature would be nice wouldn't it?

The many others who wrote the various results that were mentioned. I
don't
_care_ specifically _who_ in this context.

You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when
(A.) You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to
LITERATURE here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of
volunteers (THEY EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION).

You have no idea how many "volunteers" were used. They mentioned some
studies that had hundreds of subjects. You are again focussing on one
result and ignoring the rest of the document.

Ok, sure. Trust away.

I shall.

I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your
intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".

Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
attacking me?

How about you actually reading the entire document in question and finding
something to criticize other than "ENTHEOLOGY web page" and "6
volunteers"?

If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.

Why should I do you any favors?

I am not asking you for favors, I am asking you to behave in a socially
responsible manner.

Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to
use the literature to write a scientific manuscript.

Another straw man. The page in question is clearly not intended to be a
"scientific manuscript" in the sense that you mean.

Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
literature.

What difference does that make to the topic at hand?

So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.

You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the
document.

Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
document that does not contain a review of the literature?

No, I am not suggesting that. I am stating it. If one uses a typewriter
to
write a document that does not mean that the document contains a
typewriter. If one uses a dictionary to write it that does not mean that
it contains a dictionary. If one uses a style manual to write it that
does
not mean that it contains a style manual. If one uses the CRC Handbook to
write it that does not mean that it contains the CRC handbook. If one
uses
a literature survey to write it that does not mean that it contains a
literature survey.

Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?

The only thing I see you beating is straw men and your own chest.

and again a duplicate post was snipped

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

OK. The movie analogy is not a good one, but the rest applies.



"stoutman" wrote in message
. com...
First of all, writing a document using a "review of the literature" and
writing a document using a couple or even a few articles from the
literature are not the same. Second, you have no evidence that he used a
"review of the literature". How do you know the authors information
didn't come form ONE or even TWO articles? There are NO references to the
literature, but yet you think a "review of the literature" was used. A
"review of the literature" implies a degree of totality. Could you write
a review of a movie by only watching the middle of it? Or only watching
the end of it?

If one uses a style manual to write something how do you know a style
manual was used? If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know
a CRC handbook was used? Unless the author told you?

I refer to the inadequate study (the one with only 6-volunteers) because
it is the one entitled: What happens when acetone comes into contact with
my skin?". We are talking about using acetone to get glue from our hands.
This is the part of the document that would apply the most and it is here
that the author states that the study is based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION". Yet you find this adequate.

Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
except you.

Ok, you think he used a "review of the literature" to write the document
but he does this with out referencing the literature. Interesting. How
is that done?





"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?


Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that.
What
makes you think he used a review of the literature?

The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.


Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review
of
the literature. Ok, If you say so.

If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I
think I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.

And what if your boss decided that the citations were irrelevant for the
targeted audience and told you not to waste space on them?

So from whence did he find his numerous cases?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.

Again, this is not a review of the literature.

Straw man. You are the only one claiming that it was a review of the
literature.

We have NO evidence that
he
used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature
these
"case reports" came from. Do you?

Some body of literature that he or someone must have surveyed in order to
find them.

What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all?
I
see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then
"one
case report"

Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
referencing the literature.

Another straw man. Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the
literature"
except you.

A reference from the literature would contain
a
REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the
source
of
the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain
the
journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc.
Have you ever read a scientific publication?

Fine, you know what a "reference from the literature is". So do I.
Nobody
has claimed that that web page was "a reference from the literature",
only
that someone who prepared it _used_ the literature.

You crack me up sir.

Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are
numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers
dealing with larger populations than just you.

Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague
recollections. I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I
go to work. Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using
acetone
(FYI).

So to how much acetone were they exposed? For how long? In what
concentration? How many subjects were involved? What methodology did
you
use to determine that there were no "adverse effects"? What would you
consider to be an "adverse effect"?

Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know
how
many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?

I do not have to know an exact number to place a lower bound. Count up
the
number of different studies mentioned by the author and that will put a
lower bound on it.

Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to
see
what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people
show up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would
consider
that a
LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not
just
me.

Again you are taking one statement out of context and asserting that that
was the totality of the research.

Still, 6, observed, with some description of the methodology and the
observed results, is more than you have presented.

They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".

They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference
to
the literature would be nice wouldn't it?

The many others who wrote the various results that were mentioned. I
don't
_care_ specifically _who_ in this context.

You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when
(A.) You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to
LITERATURE here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of
volunteers (THEY EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION).

You have no idea how many "volunteers" were used. They mentioned some
studies that had hundreds of subjects. You are again focussing on one
result and ignoring the rest of the document.

Ok, sure. Trust away.

I shall.

I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your
intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".

Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
attacking me?

How about you actually reading the entire document in question and
finding
something to criticize other than "ENTHEOLOGY web page" and "6
volunteers"?

If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are
responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.

Why should I do you any favors?

I am not asking you for favors, I am asking you to behave in a socially
responsible manner.

Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to
use the literature to write a scientific manuscript.

Another straw man. The page in question is clearly not intended to be a
"scientific manuscript" in the sense that you mean.

Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
literature.

What difference does that make to the topic at hand?

So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make
the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.

You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the
document.

Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
document that does not contain a review of the literature?

No, I am not suggesting that. I am stating it. If one uses a typewriter
to
write a document that does not mean that the document contains a
typewriter. If one uses a dictionary to write it that does not mean that
it contains a dictionary. If one uses a style manual to write it that
does
not mean that it contains a style manual. If one uses the CRC Handbook
to
write it that does not mean that it contains the CRC handbook. If one
uses
a literature survey to write it that does not mean that it contains a
literature survey.

Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?

The only thing I see you beating is straw men and your own chest.

and again a duplicate post was snipped

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

stoutman wrote:

First of all, writing a document using a "review of the literature" and
writing a document using a couple or even a few articles from the
literature
are not the same. Second, you have no evidence that he used a "review of
the literature". How do you know the authors information didn't come form
ONE or even TWO articles?

Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies. You seem to have trouble
distinguishing between a "study", a "paper", an "article", and a "section"
by the way. You might want to work on that.

There are NO references to the literature, but
yet you think a "review of the literature" was used. A "review of the
literature" implies a degree of totality. Could you write a review of a
movie by only watching the middle of it? Or only watching the end of it?

No "review of the literature" gets everything.

If one uses a style manual to write something how do you know a style
manual
was used?

Generally because the style is in the manner prescribed by that style manual
and not by another one. The Chicago manual differs in several particulars
from the New York Times manual for example, and the New York Times manual
differs from the style specified by Physical Review, and no, I am not going
to write a dissertation on the differences between various style
manuals--if you really care to know you should be able to find the major
ones any decent library.

If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
handbook was used?

Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between the
lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.

Unless the author told you?

I refer to the inadequate study (the one with only 6-volunteers) because
it is the one entitled: What happens when acetone comes into contact with
my
skin?".

That is the title of the study? How do you know this? With all your
whining about how he does not give the source of his information here you
go asserting that you know the title of one of the research items on which
he based the page.

The full content of the SECTION (not "study") entitled "What happens when
acetone comes in contact with my skin" is as follows:

"Acetone is either slightly irritating or not irritating, based on animal
and limited human information. Application of 1 mL of acetone in a small
glass tube to six male volunteers for 30 or 90 minutes resulted in only
mild redness and swelling at 90 minutes.


"The risk of developing health effects following the absorption of acetone
through unbroken skin is very slight. There are several reports of people,
usually young children, becoming ill following skin exposure to acetone
while lightweight casts were being put on broken limbs. The symptoms
experienced were similar to those described following high inhalation
exposures. In all cases, a large amount of acetone came into contact with
the skin for several hours and inhalation exposure may also have occurred.
These reports are not considered relevant to people exposed to acetone at
work."

Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited human
information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was applied
to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On what
basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
"limited"?

Note by the way that there is an implication of at least two studies, one
with animals, one with humans. Further, since the animal information is
not described as "limited" one may conclude that the author regarded the
number of experiments performed and their nature to be sufficient to allow
anything that might be learned in that area from animal experimentation to
have been learned, which suggests that there were a number of animal
studies.

He goes on to discuss "several reports of people. . ." with details
different from the experiment involving 6 volunteers. That implies at
least two additional data points. So we can put the lower bound on the
number of documents used in the preparation of this section at 4.

We are talking about using acetone to get glue from our hands.
This is the part of the document that would apply the most and it is here
that the author states that the study is based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION". Yet you find this adequate.

More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more clear,
is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.

Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
except you.

Ok, you think he used a "review of the literature" to write the document
but
he does this with out referencing the literature. Interesting. How is
that done?

By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
literature of course.

snip

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Clarke, what literature was reviewed? If you claim the documentation to be
authored by someone who "used a review of the literature" than show me the
literature was used? The author made NO citations to the literature. I
would like to read it.

No references were cited, but yet you claim (your OPINION by the way) that
the documentation was written by somebody who used a review of the
literature".

Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies.

He mentions studies? Or does he provide information from studies?

Where in the "literature" do these studies come from? And why do you assume
they come from the literature?

He mentions various studies, therefore they must have come from the
literature. Ok, if you say so Clarke. For all you know the studies were
done by unqualified graduate students and the data was NEVER published,
therefore NOT IN THE LITERATURE.

Clarke, do not respond to this post until you can provide me with support
that any of the studies in that document are from the literature.
Otherwise, you are wasting my time.

Mentioning various studies does not equal "he used a review of the
literature".

Stop with the straw man comments and come back with some real support for
your argument.

Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited
human
information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was
applied
to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On what
basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
"limited"?

I am not interested in animal data. It can be misleading. Why are you
harping on the animal data?

If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
handbook was used?

Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between
the
lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.

You can tell if someone uses a CRC handbook to write a document? Ok. You
are really talented. Talk about "beating your chest".

More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more
clear,
is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.

Here you are clearly stating YOUR OPINION. By the way (talk about having a
blind spot), I NEVER GAVE MY OPINION as to the toxicity of acetone.

By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
literature of course.


Show me EVIDENCE that he used the literature. You are the only one that
claims that literature was used.

Until you can provide me with the above request I am finished here. I will
let you have the last word. I'm sure it will be something along these
lines:

"He mentions studies therefore he used a review of the literature. Or
a study with 6-people is more than adequate or
You have a blind spot or
straw man or
you can't read or
na nany boo boo."

Later Clarke






"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
stoutman wrote:

First of all, writing a document using a "review of the literature" and
writing a document using a couple or even a few articles from the
literature
are not the same. Second, you have no evidence that he used a "review of
the literature". How do you know the authors information didn't come
form
ONE or even TWO articles?

Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies. You seem to have trouble
distinguishing between a "study", a "paper", an "article", and a "section"
by the way. You might want to work on that.

There are NO references to the literature, but
yet you think a "review of the literature" was used. A "review of the
literature" implies a degree of totality. Could you write a review of a
movie by only watching the middle of it? Or only watching the end of it?

No "review of the literature" gets everything.

If one uses a style manual to write something how do you know a style
manual
was used?

Generally because the style is in the manner prescribed by that style
manual
and not by another one. The Chicago manual differs in several particulars
from the New York Times manual for example, and the New York Times manual
differs from the style specified by Physical Review, and no, I am not
going
to write a dissertation on the differences between various style
manuals--if you really care to know you should be able to find the major
ones any decent library.

If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
handbook was used?

Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between
the
lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.

Unless the author told you?

I refer to the inadequate study (the one with only 6-volunteers) because
it is the one entitled: What happens when acetone comes into contact with
my
skin?".

That is the title of the study? How do you know this? With all your
whining about how he does not give the source of his information here you
go asserting that you know the title of one of the research items on which
he based the page.

The full content of the SECTION (not "study") entitled "What happens when
acetone comes in contact with my skin" is as follows:

"Acetone is either slightly irritating or not irritating, based on animal
and limited human information. Application of 1 mL of acetone in a small
glass tube to six male volunteers for 30 or 90 minutes resulted in only
mild redness and swelling at 90 minutes.


"The risk of developing health effects following the absorption of acetone
through unbroken skin is very slight. There are several reports of people,
usually young children, becoming ill following skin exposure to acetone
while lightweight casts were being put on broken limbs. The symptoms
experienced were similar to those described following high inhalation
exposures. In all cases, a large amount of acetone came into contact with
the skin for several hours and inhalation exposure may also have occurred.
These reports are not considered relevant to people exposed to acetone at
work."

Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited
human
information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was
applied
to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On what
basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
"limited"?

Note by the way that there is an implication of at least two studies, one
with animals, one with humans. Further, since the animal information is
not described as "limited" one may conclude that the author regarded the
number of experiments performed and their nature to be sufficient to allow
anything that might be learned in that area from animal experimentation to
have been learned, which suggests that there were a number of animal
studies.

He goes on to discuss "several reports of people. . ." with details
different from the experiment involving 6 volunteers. That implies at
least two additional data points. So we can put the lower bound on the
number of documents used in the preparation of this section at 4.

We are talking about using acetone to get glue from our hands.
This is the part of the document that would apply the most and it is here
that the author states that the study is based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION". Yet you find this adequate.

More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more
clear,
is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.

Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
except you.

Ok, you think he used a "review of the literature" to write the document
but
he does this with out referencing the literature. Interesting. How is
that done?

By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
literature of course.

snip

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

stoutman wrote:

Clarke, what literature was reviewed? If you claim the documentation to
be authored by someone who "used a review of the literature" than show me
the
literature was used?

He does not say what specific literature was used.

The author made NO citations to the literature. I
would like to read it.

Then call the agency and talk to the guy who wrote the page if it's _that_
important to you.

No references were cited, but yet you claim (your OPINION by the way) that
the documentation was written by somebody who used a review of the
literature".

Yes, my opinion that he used a literature survey. If you want to believe
otherwise, feel free.

Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies.

He mentions studies? Or does he provide information from studies?

There are fourteen separate mentions of "study" or "studies".

Where in the "literature" do these studies come from?

Some publication or other.

And why do you
assume they come from the literature?

Where else would they come from?

He mentions various studies, therefore they must have come from the
literature. Ok, if you say so Clarke. For all you know the studies were
done by unqualified graduate students and the data was NEVER published,
therefore NOT IN THE LITERATURE.

If they were never published and NOT IN THE LITERATURE then how did some
bureaucrat writing a web page for the Canadian government happen to come
across them?

Clarke, do not respond to this post until you can provide me with support
that any of the studies in that document are from the literature.
Otherwise, you are wasting my time.

No, you are wasting your time. If you are too busy to participate in this
discussion then go do whatever you consider to be more important.

Mentioning various studies does not equal "he used a review of the
literature".

So how did he find them?

Stop with the straw man comments and come back with some real support for
your argument.

When you stop introducing straw men then I will stop pointing them out.

Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited
human
information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was
applied
to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On
what
basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
"limited"?

I am not interested in animal data. It can be misleading. Why are you
harping on the animal data?

I should not have to explain things in this degree of detail to a person
whose IQ is sufficient to allow him to obtain a PhD. But I will
nonetheless give it another shot. This is becoming rather tedious by the
way.

He states that there was limited human research, then mentions a specific
study with 6 volunteers. From this you conclude that there was _no_ other
human research. By that reasoning, since he did not provide details of any
of the animal research, there must not have been any. You're the one
jumping to conclusions here and I'm trying to point out to you that you are
doing so. If you can't follow that line of reasoning then God help you.

If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
handbook was used?

Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between
the
lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.

You can tell if someone uses a CRC handbook to write a document? Ok. You
are really talented. Talk about "beating your chest".

I did not say that I could do so infallibly, but it is possible to do so in
some cases.

More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more
clear,
is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.

Here you are clearly stating YOUR OPINION. By the way (talk about having
a blind spot), I NEVER GAVE MY OPINION as to the toxicity of acetone.

Only if we accept your claim that your statement of opinion was in fact not
an opinion is that true.

By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
literature of course.

Show me EVIDENCE that he used the literature. You are the only one that
claims that literature was used.

Tell me where else he would find at least 14 studies, some of which use
hundreds of human subjects.

Until you can provide me with the above request I am finished here.

Hope springs eternal.

I
will
let you have the last word.

Didn't you say that about 20 posts back?

I'm sure it will be something along these
lines:

"He mentions studies therefore he used a review of the literature. Or
a study with 6-people is more than adequate or
You have a blind spot or
straw man or
you can't read or
na nany boo boo."

Really hurts that you can't bull**** me or intimidate me or force me to
accept your redefinition of the English language, doesn't it professor.
Although I'm feeling remorse now because I'm sure you're going to take your
frustration out on some hapless victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hstudent.

Later Clarke

That's odd, I thought you said that this was your last post to me. Can't
even keep your story straight for ten lines.

snip
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)