Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>> And I notice you had nothing to say to this:
>> *NONE* of the BernzOmatic products had the California
>> warning on them. *NONE* of the other similar products from
>> other companies had the California warning on them, either.
>> Not for propane, butane or MAPP gas. The cylinders
>> themselves, of course, were so labeled.
>
> In what sense is a gas cylinder not a product?

Mark, a gas cylinder is a product. I'm my original statement
which I've tried to translate into Thorson-speak several
times, I apparently haven't been able to make it simple
enough. In the interests of a wild curiosity to see if you
can grasp this, I hereby concede that I didn't write with
perfect, uninterpretable clarity. And I apologize for that.

I was trying to create a parallel with your assertion that
the packaging of the Lighter didn't carry the warning by
citing *all other* fuel-using products. Alas, my diction was
imperfect.

A gas cylinder is a product. You are correct in that statement.

But that doesn't negate the simple fact that *only* the
cylinders carry the California warning. The BernzOmatic
products that use fuel cylinders aren't so marked.
Competitive products from other companies also lack that
warning.

What is your conclusion from that series of facts?

> The one I have has a UPC bar code on it.
> UPC stands for "Universal Product Code".
> It is a product. And it has the State of
> California warning on it. Both the UPC
> and the warning can be seen in the images
> I posted to alt.binaries.food.
>
> Is this how you defend yourself?

I don't need to defend myself. Have you forgotten that you
began all this with your insane business about "food-grade"
propane and have continued it to this Lighter, asserting
that it's got a non-carcinogenic fuel because the packaging
doesn't carry a California warning?

Are you going to continue to evade dealing with the other
products that I specifically sited with no California
warning on them? Are you going to insist that they, too,
have this non-carcinogenic fuel?

> By redefining "product" to exclude
> anything that exposes your words
> as false? That is transparent nonsense,
> but typical of you.

Of course you have to say that, there's nothing else left.
No evidence for food-grade fuels. Period.

<LOL> I certainly hope you don't actually imagine that you
have somehow made your case for food-grade fuels. Here's a
sad, sad reality for you. No matter how wrong or right I
might be about any facet, trivial or large, you have offered
no substantive evidence for the existence of a food-grade
fuel. Period. Period. It's all based on your mistaken belief
that only the lighter has no California warning, and that it
somehow signals a non-carcinogenic fuel. Both plainly false
assumptions.

You haven't contacted the best source of all - the
manufacturer. You're still trying to make a phony assertion
stand in the face of demolishing counter-information from
*all* other posters. Nope.

Pastorio