Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill

More | Report Post

Your right Pat. There are exceptions to that rule, like the one who gets whacked
with a shovel.

On 3/06/05, Pat wrote:
> It's simply a matter of this, v:
>
> These people go through life saying, "Pain? What pain? I don't feel a thing."
>
> On 3/05/05, v wrote:
>> ff: If you lived here surounded by my three sets of neighbors, you would coe
>> to the conclussion the p*&#ks are born that way. They love their jobs. And they
>> are who they are because they like it. Did anyone loose sleep after the incident
>> in Bopall India? where between two & three thousand died. Surely no one lost
>> sleep after Chyernoble. The clean up crews were sent to their deaths. Prickyness
>> can be unlearnned that's for sure. But what about those who live for it? They
>> will always be with us.
>>
>>
>> On 3/05/05, ff wrote:
>>> Ozark's Lawyer:
>>>
>>> 3/04/05
>>>
>>> How does a person become someone that enjoys, and
>>>> profits, from damaging others?
>>>>
>>>> ff
>>>
>>> 3/05/05
>>>
>>> Assume it happens. Is this something that is learned behavior or do they
>>> start out that way?
>>>
>>> I'd like to know more about what makes these people tick, and I doubt it's
>>> all just dollars. They have to be at least corruptible in the first place.
>>> What forces are at work to cause alignments such as the Gots reference?
>>> Does he have a conscience, does he actually believe he's right, or was he
>>> just so greedy that he took advantage of an opportunity with total disregard
>>> for those adversely affected?
>>>
>>> Sorry about the ? marks, but you don't have to have answers to post here.
>>> Like Pat said, seek answers. Offer information when you can.
>>>
>>> ff
>>>
>>> ff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/04/05, Pat wrote:
>>>>> Dear ff: Dr. Ann Campbell and others write about this consolidated
>>>> effort
>>>>> of pesticide companies, perfume companies, etc. It has even been
>>>> reported
>>>>> in such literature that the previously mentioned Dr. Gots was paid
>>>> $10,000
>>>>> for one article to discredit MCS. This is why these people must be held
>>>>> accountable. Of course, such a lawsuit would include the companies and
>>>>> not merely the propagandists. It's just like the tobacco lobby days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, concerning fatal errors of the proganda machine:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1a] They can mock MCS all that they want. It does not take away the fact
>>>>> that mainstream medicine already recognized Chemical Sensitivity "in
>>>>> case-specific form." And of course, the propaganda machine's objective
>>>>> was to convince the public that chemical-bearing should be allowed to
>>>>> proliferate everywhere, at regulation levels. And to do this, they
>>>> needed
>>>>> to convince the public that no one at any time ever suffers adverse
>>>>> ractivity from any chemical at low-to-moderate levels. So, they made the
>>>>> MCS suffer the scapegoat, calling each one mentally ill. But, they
>>>>> overlooked the fact that the exact same chemicals are avoided by asthma
>>>>> patients who did fail the very physiological ABG test, etc. Thus, on
>>>>> account of the duly diagnosed asthmatics, alone, those chemical-bearing
>>>>> substance must be harnassed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1b] The propagandists always mention that the AAAAI rejected MCS as a
>>>>> valid diagnosis, in its official position statement. But, they never
>>>>> mentioned that, in the exact same statement, the AAAAI expressly
>>>>> recognized as valid the diagnostic title, "Building-related Illness."
>>>> And
>>>>> of course, that is Sick Building Syndrome + lingering sensitivies. Sick
>>>>> Building Syndrome (SBS) is also regarded as a cousion of MCS, by the way.
>>>>> So, the propaganda machine needed to discredit SBS as much as MCS. The
>>>>> AAAAI thwarted the propagand machine. As well, Fumento wrote a
>>>>> sterotypically sarcastic article, mocking Sick Building Syndrome, as well
>>>>> as an additional one or two, mocking the perfume sensitivity that
>>>> afflicts
>>>>> Sick Building Syndrome sufferers. Milloy did similar. By the way, Milloy
>>>>> expressly advocated bringing back DDT to the market. He called the DDT
>>>>> ban genocidal. That is the character of the propaganda machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1c] By the way, the same AAAAI, in the same position statement, also
>>>>> recognized Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome as physiological illness
>>>>> and not a matter of "anxiety attacks". It also recognized
>>>>> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis, as purely physiological and no psychiatric,
>>>>> also. So, in its attempt to discredit chemical sensitivity, the anti-MCS
>>>>> lobby cited the exact document that recognizes Chemical Sensitivity in
>>>>> "case-specific form".
>>>>>
>>>>> 2] Barrett gave himself away when he wrote "synthetic chemicals",
>>>> claiming
>>>>> that there is no evidence that anyone could be sensitized to the chemical
>>>>> industry's procudt line. Well, if I were a hired propagandist, I would
>>>>> have simply mentioned that not all chemical sensitivity triggers are
>>>>> limited to the chemical industry's product line. Rather, some chemical
>>>>> sensitvity triggers are found in unprocessed nature, as is the case in
>>>>> untreated pine, peruvian lily, willow bark, tulip, and primose. I would
>>>>> have said, "Some people are allergic to pine. But, that does not mean
>>>>> that you cut down all the pine trees in the forests." "Some people are
>>>>> allergic to freshly cut grass. But, that does not mean that you uproot
>>>>> all the grass in the world." "Some workers get sensitized to cotton dust
>>>>> and develop a respiratory illness known as byssinossis. But, that doesn't
>>>>> mean that you bury all the cotton in the world." You simply give these
>>>>> people their allergy-free climates. But, the propaganda machine didn't
>>>> do
>>>>> this. This shows intentional deceit. This indicates that:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1] either they knew that there was a harm factor in the perfume,
>>>>> pesticide, and chemical industry's product line.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2] or they are so greedy and selfish that they want their product line
>>>>> sold and applied everywhere unrestrictedly.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3] or both.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know what, there is something deadly wrong with a society that
>>>> insists
>>>>> on even having its toilet paper scented. This is gluttony. By the way,
>>>>> do you know why certain people are fixated on having scents everywhere
>>>>> they go? Ans: To stimulate their bored adrenal system. In fact, that
>>>> is
>>>>> the exact same reason why certain people frequented horror movies. All
>>>>> that these people have to do to is take up vigorous exercise:
>>>>> return sprints, full court basketball, tennis, trampoline, etc. Simply
>>>>> get a punching bag or some rope to skip. Sprint up hillsides. It has to
>>>>> be something that breaks a sweat and makes a person feel free. That will
>>>>> do it. Scent gluttony is the result of a sedentary society.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/04/05, ff wrote:
>>>>>> Pat, Patrick,and all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Junk Science" is, of course, not my term, but thank you for your
>>>>>> feedback and additional thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What comes to mind after reading your references to MCS, and
>>>>>> those "scientists" supported by industry that may conduct fraudulent
>>>>>> science efforts to suppress a medical consensus which would ultimately
>>>>>> place liability on chemical manufacturers, is the Chemical
>>>>>> Manufacturers _________ (If I have the name correct, an association?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In previous discussions on this board, reference was made to such an
>>>>>> industry organization's plan/recommendations on how to handle the
>>>>>> merging MCS issue. As I recall, it was pretty crude. I'm still
>>>>>> baffled that huge corporations with the resources to do things right,
>>>>>> don't mind screwing up so bad. The screw-ups contradict the portrayed
>>>>>> corporate image, but seem to go relatively un-noticed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible that an 'association' comprised of specific corporate
>>>>>> entities is behind a fraudulent science effort (just avoiding the term
>>>>>> junk science)? If so, is there something wrong with such an effort?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/03/05, Pat wrote:
>>>>>>> ff: I should finish this train of thought with you. If want to see
>>>>>>> how an actual expert writes look up a Dr. William Meggs, Vice Chair
>>>>>>> for Clinical Affairs, Division of Toxicology, Department of Emergency
>>>>>>> Medicine, East Carolina University.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/03/05, ff wrote:
>>>>>>>> Patrick:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure about the firm and issue you raise, but it seems
>>>>>>>> related to a question I have wondered about. Hypothetically
>>>>>>>> speaking:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If, by some sufficient means, it was learned that a group of
>>>>>>>> professionals, doctors for example,profited by "creating"
>>>>>>>> scientific studies and or testimony which they knew were really
>>>>>>>> not scientifically valid, for a profit, and these invalid
>>>>>>>> resources became useful in denying medical claims and essentially
>>>>>>>> diseases, thereby causing the victim to continue to siffer and the
>>>>>>>> condition to worsen, are the creators of the junk science in some
>>>>>>>> way responsible for those affected?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess, creating junk science for a profit with the intent or
>>>>>>>> knowledge that people could suffer if the junk science and/or
>>>>>>>> testimony were applied/used against those suffereing may be an
>>>>>>>> easier way to express this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I could imagine someone
>>>>>>> approaching a scientist and asking them to
>>>>>>>> develop a study that could be used to support the desired outcome
>>>>>>>> that product X did not cause symtoms 1,2,3..., and, regardless of
>>>>>>>> whether or not X did cause the problem. I guess, starting out
>>>>>>>> with a desired conclusion, and them manipulating a research
>>>>>>>> project to supported the desired conclusion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/02/05, JD wrote:
>>>>>>>>> At last! What a relief. Cowgirl Mary is both "speachless"
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> "speechless"... Double the pleasure!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> See? And Speechless too...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow...... I'm speachless....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/05, Patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Question: Which law firm can find the legal foundation upon
>>>>>>>>>>>> which to file a class action defamation suit against the
>>>>>>>>>>>> duly noted Barrett/Fumento/Milloy/Gots/Stossel and company
>>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda machine? Such a lawsuit would be on behalf of
>>>>>>>>>>>> every Chemical Sensitivity sufferer in the States, including
>>>>>>>>>>>> those Chemical Sensitivity sufferers formally diagnosed with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the following titles:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1a] Occupational Asthma due to low-molecular weight agents.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1b] Irritant-induced Asthma.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2] Chemical Worker's Lung.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3] External Allergic Alveolitis, aka Hypersensitivity
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pneumonitis "due to chemical sensitization."
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4] Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5] World Trade Center Cough.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6] Sick Building Syndrome; a diagnostic title which is
>>>>>>>>>>>> even recognized in the Merck Manual.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7] Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8] Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9a] Chronic Actinic Dermatitis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9b] Occupational Dermatitis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10] Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 11] And of course, the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is now recognized by name, by the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed & accredited entities, in each one's
>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupatonal & Environmental Medicine Programs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I] Johns Hopkins.
>>>>>>>>>>>> II] Mt. Sinai Hospital.
>>>>>>>>>>>> III] Yale.
>>>>>>>>>>>> IV] Cambridge Hospital (affiliate of Harvard Med. School.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> V] Northeast Specialty Hospital (also Harvard affiliate.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> VI] University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> VII] HealthPartners-Regions Hospital, Minneapolis
>>>>>>>>>>>> (affiliate of the NIOSH Educational Resource Ctr.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> VIII] Central New York Health Occupational Clinical Center.
>>>>>>>>>>>> IX] Marshall University.
>>>>>>>>>>>> X+] a number of board certified and licensed physicians.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus, there is the technologically advanced nation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany which coded MCS as "an allergic condition."
>>>>>>>>>>>> And there are also a notable number of licensed entities
>>>>>>>>>>>> which recognize the titles:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Indoor Air Quality Assessment", "Building-related Illness",
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sick Building Syndrome", "Environmentally-related
>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases", "Chronic Chemical Exposure", "Chemically-induced
>>>>>>>>>>>> Illness", "Occupationally-induced Illness", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this includes the world renown Duke, as well as Iowa
>>>>>>>>>>>> Univ., Boston Medical Ctr., the Univ. of Maryland, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Univ. of Pittsburgh (home of the polio vaccine and first
>>>>>>>>>>>> liver transplant.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is the matter of including CFS sufferers
>>>>>>>>>>>> and GWS sufferers. Of course, GWS sufferers have apparently
>>>>>>>>>>>> suffered the most defamation of all the Chemical Sensitivity
>>>>>>>>>>>> sufferers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, and only perhaps, a subset of patients who were
>>>>>>>>>>>> diagnosed with the following 'medically accepted' diagnostic
>>>>>>>>>>>> titles can be included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1] Chemically-induced Hepatitis, 2] Chemically-induced
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aplastic Anemia (Bone Marrow Suppression).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The subset, of course, would consist in those who suffered
>>>>>>>>>>>> lingering sensitivity beyond the acute stage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Such a lawsuit would not be against any licensed practicing
>>>>>>>>>>>> physician, it seems. After all, Barret was never board
>>>>>>>>>>>> certified at anything in his life, and he never praticed
>>>>>>>>>>>> "physical" medicine since his internship days, ending in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1957. Gots hadn't had a patient in decades, so say the
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports. As well, neither Fumento nor Stossel nor Milloy
>>>>>>>>>>>> have ever been doctors in any medical discipline. And of
>>>>>>>>>>>> course, the only non-licensed (or non-Doctorate-bearing)
>>>>>>>>>>>> person qualified to give sound & valid evidence into the MCS
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter is one who has suffered from the physiological
>>>>>>>>>>>> medical condition for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nor would such a lawsuit be against the pharmaceutical
>>>>>>>>>>>> industry, unless of course, discovery would should that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> pharmaceutical industry funded any of the defamatory
>>>>>>>>>>>> propagandists for producing the defamatory things which they
>>>>>>>>>>>> did. That would be a subsequent filing and joinder.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Barret/Fumento/Milloy/Stossel & company propaganda
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine employed slight-of-hand semantics & convenient
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence omission in asserting to the inexperienced public
>>>>>>>>>>>> that Chemical Sensitivity is entirely a process of mental
>>>>>>>>>>>> illness, instead of a physiological process accompanied with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the following physiological medical findings:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1] Inflammation Scenarios, such as Turbinate Hypertrophy
>>>>>>>>>>>> & Interstitial Inflammation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2] Failing the Arterial Blood Gases Test.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3] Dermatitis scenarios and similar.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4] Enzyme QPon-1 Deficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5] Erythema, even internally.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6] Over Production of Leukotrienes, such as LTD4.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7] The Production of N-acetyl-benzoquinoneimine in
>>>>>>>>>>>> excess of the Mercapturate which neutralizes it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8] Elevations of Alanine Aminotransferase,
>>>>>>>>>>>> aka Serum Glutamic Pyruvic Transaminase.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9] Hyperactive Conjugations and Deficient Conjugations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10] Visible and Measurable Wheals during Skin Testing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> etc., etc., etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And then there is the matter P-300 Waves, IgA immunoglobins,
>>>>>>>>>>>> T-Cells, porphyira, and the observable and non-deniable
>>>>>>>>>>>> symptom of Profuse Dry Heaving, as well as that of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Blacking-Out. All in all, the smoking gun was the Fiber
>>>>>>>>>>>> Optic Rhinolaryngoscopic Exam and the medical findings
>>>>>>>> thereof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The defamatory propaganda resulted in the deprivation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> research funding. Furthermore, how many ignorant persons in
>>>>>>>>>>>> America believed the conclusions of Barret/Stossel/Fumento
>>>>>>>>>>>> and refused to accomodate a chemical sensitivity sufferer in
>>>>>>>>>>>> a time of crisis? How much suffering has that propaganda
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine caused? In as much, all Chemical Sensitivity
>>>>>>>>>>>> sufferers have suffered triply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1] at the hands of the illness,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2] at the hands of a ruthless form of defamation,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3] at the hands of abandonment for years, due to
>>>>>>>>>>>> little research funding and outrightly lazy physicians
>>>>>>>>>>>> who make lots of money upon one nitch repetitively,
>>>>>>>>>>>> steamlining their practices to a comfortable laziness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point in time, the plaintiff-class of Chemical
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensitivity Sufferers would have mainstream medicine on it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> side. After all, the AMA, AAAAI, and American Lung
>>>>>>>>>>>> Association all recognize Chemical Sensitivity as it applies
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the ASTHMA symptom. And the AAAAI & AMA recognize it as
>>>>>>>>>>>> it applies to Dermatitis, Aspririn/Salicylate Senstivity,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ramin Wood Allergy, Acetaminophen Intolerance, Red Cedar
>>>>>>>>>>>> Allergy, Peruvian Lily Allergy, Isocyanate Sensitivity,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivty, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the AMA, AAAAI, & ALA all advocate the practice of
>>>>>>>>>>>> AVOIDANCE as a necessary part of treatment for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> chemically sensitive, as it applies to asthmatics. Their
>>>>>>>>>>>> official literature enumerates the same chemical-bearing
>>>>>>>>>>>> agents that MCS patients has been avoiding for years, out of
>>>>>>>>>>>> instinct. And remember, Barrett condemned the practice of
>>>>>>>>>>>> AVOIDANCE as detrimental, while Fumento called the practice
>>>>>>>>>>>> "nonsense." Thus is the proof that Barrett is the real
>>>>>>>>>>>> quack, speaking contrary to the AMA & AAAAI. (Fumento is
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a pushy-shovey brat who needs to be put his place, as
>>>>>>>>>>>> all bully-brats picking on helpless people need to be.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, comdemning the practice of AVOIDANCE, while
>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that Chemical Sensitivity patients must be placed
>>>>>>>>>>>> in direct encounter with the triggers that torment them, is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the act of inciting a crime known in some jurisdictions as
>>>>>>>>>>>> TOXIC BATTERY. Thus, Fumento and Barret have publicly
>>>>>>>>>>>> advocated the committing of crimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof that the AMA, AAAI, & ALA recognize Chemical
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensitivity, at least as it applies to the ASTHMA symptom,
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be found at the following mainstream medical sites:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AMA Report 4 of the Council of Scientific Affairs (A-98),
>>>>>>>>>>>> found at http://ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13603.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> The other ones are found at:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://bdapps/ama-assn/org/aps/asthma/manage.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://aaaai.org/patients/publications/publicedmat/tips/
>>>>>>>>> asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=
>>>>>>>>> 34706&ct=67442
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec04/ch044a/html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The propaganda mahcine fraudulently went about, claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the AMA & AAAAI condemned MCS as non-existent. This is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a lie. The AMA & AAAAI merely declined to recognize the
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific title, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> case-specific diagnostic title of its own medical code.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is because MCS is too vague and non-case-specific of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> name. The AMA & AAAAI merely said that more research was
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to be done, in order them to encapsulate MCS into a
>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously defined and analysed "case definition". And
>>>>>>>>>>>> though they did not recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
>>>>>>>>>>>> by name, they still recognized the phenomenon of Sensitivity
>>>>>>>>>>>> of Chemicals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mainstreams Medical Science has long since recognized the
>>>>>>>>>>>> process of "sensitization." And it has long since
>>>>>>>>>>>> recognized the phenomenon of hypersensitivity to
>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical-bearing agents when encountered by susceptible
>>>>>>>>>>>> persons, at commonly encounter levels (at low to moderate
>>>>>>>>>>>> levels).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The MCS debate has been game of semantics. The anti-MCS
>>>>>>>>>>>> lobby went beyond the sound barriers of obsecenity. All
>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing members must be held accountable.