|
READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT WOMEN AND BREASTCANCER---SHOCKING
READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT WOMEN AND BREAST CANCER---SHOCKING
Group: rec.food.cooking Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 10:20pm (EDT+4) From: (Michel=A0Boucher) IMPORTANT BREAST CANCER HOSPITALIZATION BILL With all due respect to cancer victims, this bill only applies to the 7% of the world's population living within the confines of USAia, and even more precisely to that part which is female (approx. 3.5001% of the world's population). Perhaps next time you could be a bit more explicit and save the remaining 93% of the world's population the trouble of trying to figure what this is. Thank you. |
|
|
(SportKite1) wrote in
: >>From: (Spud 555) > >>Group: rec.food.cooking Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 10:20pm (EDT+4) >>From: (Michel=A0Boucher) >>IMPORTANT BREAST CANCER HOSPITALIZATION BILL >>With all due respect to cancer victims, this bill only applies to >>the 7% of the world's population living within the confines of >>USAia, and even more precisely to that part which is female >>(approx. 3.5001% of the world's population). Perhaps next time you >>could be a bit more explicit and save the remaining 93% of the >>world's population the trouble of trying to figure what this is. >>Thank you. > > Pish tosh, he was talking about a post in an international forum > regarding a bill that was exclusive to the USA. He said nothing > about women and breast cancer. Thank you. The voice of sanity prevails. Obviously, webTV is still the hotbed of intellectual activity it has always been :-> -- German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this? Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you. |
On 24 Aug 2004 12:38:07 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (SportKite1) wrote in : > >>>From: (Spud 555) >> >>>Group: rec.food.cooking Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 10:20pm (EDT+4) >>>From: (Michel=A0Boucher) >>>IMPORTANT BREAST CANCER HOSPITALIZATION BILL >>>With all due respect to cancer victims, this bill only applies to >>>the 7% of the world's population living within the confines of >>>USAia, and even more precisely to that part which is female >>>(approx. 3.5001% of the world's population). Perhaps next time you >>>could be a bit more explicit and save the remaining 93% of the >>>world's population the trouble of trying to figure what this is. >>>Thank you. >> >> Pish tosh, he was talking about a post in an international forum >> regarding a bill that was exclusive to the USA. He said nothing >> about women and breast cancer. > >Thank you. The voice of sanity prevails. Obviously, webTV is still >the hotbed of intellectual activity it has always been :-> > >-- Of course, you brought it on yourself with the "7% of the population, etc. business." All you had to do was point out that he forgot to mention it was a bill for the US. Nicely, of course. After all, you are the author of the recent subjects "OT:Funny" and "OT:Funny will offend right-wingers" (right-wingers? really? where? what country? Ooops. When it suits you, we are supposed to know.) So it's not like you are setting a good model with respect to targeting an audience for OT posts or even keeping to appropriate subjects for this newsgroup. The poor guy was trying to do a public service, whether or not it applies to you. It seems likely that it applies to him in some way and a little compassion is in order rather than peevishness because he forgot to mention the country. It's a bit brutish to make fun of him considering you have transgressed in the same way. So, now what exactly was your complaint? Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
On 24 Aug 2004 12:38:07 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (SportKite1) wrote in : > >>>From: (Spud 555) >> >>>Group: rec.food.cooking Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 10:20pm (EDT+4) >>>From: (Michel=A0Boucher) >>>IMPORTANT BREAST CANCER HOSPITALIZATION BILL >>>With all due respect to cancer victims, this bill only applies to >>>the 7% of the world's population living within the confines of >>>USAia, and even more precisely to that part which is female >>>(approx. 3.5001% of the world's population). Perhaps next time you >>>could be a bit more explicit and save the remaining 93% of the >>>world's population the trouble of trying to figure what this is. >>>Thank you. >> >> Pish tosh, he was talking about a post in an international forum >> regarding a bill that was exclusive to the USA. He said nothing >> about women and breast cancer. > >Thank you. The voice of sanity prevails. Obviously, webTV is still >the hotbed of intellectual activity it has always been :-> > >-- Of course, you brought it on yourself with the "7% of the population, etc. business." All you had to do was point out that he forgot to mention it was a bill for the US. Nicely, of course. After all, you are the author of the recent subjects "OT:Funny" and "OT:Funny will offend right-wingers" (right-wingers? really? where? what country? Ooops. When it suits you, we are supposed to know.) So it's not like you are setting a good model with respect to targeting an audience for OT posts or even keeping to appropriate subjects for this newsgroup. The poor guy was trying to do a public service, whether or not it applies to you. It seems likely that it applies to him in some way and a little compassion is in order rather than peevishness because he forgot to mention the country. It's a bit brutish to make fun of him considering you have transgressed in the same way. So, now what exactly was your complaint? Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
On 8/23/2004, spud555 wrote:
>READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT WOMEN AND >BREAST CANCER---SHOCKING I wasn't sure what part of Michel's post was SHOCKING. I took you to mean that, in your opinion, Michel was being insensitive to the plight of women with breast cancer. On the other hand, maybe you were endorsing his attitude about USA-centric posts. I rarely agree with Michel's posts, but I seriously doubt that he is insensitive on this subject. His point about USA-centric posts has some merit, but I think the original poster wrote the post in a typical usenet telegram style and was not intentionally out to offend readers outside the US. As Michel's posts go, I thought this was among his least obnoxious. |
On 8/23/2004, spud555 wrote:
>READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT WOMEN AND >BREAST CANCER---SHOCKING I wasn't sure what part of Michel's post was SHOCKING. I took you to mean that, in your opinion, Michel was being insensitive to the plight of women with breast cancer. On the other hand, maybe you were endorsing his attitude about USA-centric posts. I rarely agree with Michel's posts, but I seriously doubt that he is insensitive on this subject. His point about USA-centric posts has some merit, but I think the original poster wrote the post in a typical usenet telegram style and was not intentionally out to offend readers outside the US. As Michel's posts go, I thought this was among his least obnoxious. |
|
|
|
In article >,
(Spud 555) wrote: > READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT WOMEN AND BREAST CANCER---SHOCKING [snipped Michel's post] I didn't find it the least bit shocking. It seemed like a very polite (but sarcastic) reminder that not every reader in this group is from the US. -- Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS |
On 24 Aug 2004 16:00:03 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (Curly Sue) wrote in : > >> Of course, you brought it on yourself with the "7% of the >> population, etc. business." > >I see...so stating an obvious fact is "bringing it upon myself"? > >> The poor guy was trying to do a public service, whether or not it >> applies to you. It seems likely that it applies to him in some >> way and a little compassion is in order rather than peevishness >> because he forgot to mention the country. It's a bit brutish to >> make fun of him considering you have transgressed in the same >> way. > >Sorry, but I made NO fun of him in any way. Perhaps you thought >that, but none was intended and none was shown. > >> So, now what exactly was your complaint? > >At this point, meddling busybodies... Perhaps if you had sent your statement of obvious fact to him by e-mail instead of the newsgroup, the meddling busybodies wouldn't know that you were being a "do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do" busybody yourself. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
On 24 Aug 2004 16:00:03 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (Curly Sue) wrote in : > >> Of course, you brought it on yourself with the "7% of the >> population, etc. business." > >I see...so stating an obvious fact is "bringing it upon myself"? > >> The poor guy was trying to do a public service, whether or not it >> applies to you. It seems likely that it applies to him in some >> way and a little compassion is in order rather than peevishness >> because he forgot to mention the country. It's a bit brutish to >> make fun of him considering you have transgressed in the same >> way. > >Sorry, but I made NO fun of him in any way. Perhaps you thought >that, but none was intended and none was shown. > >> So, now what exactly was your complaint? > >At this point, meddling busybodies... Perhaps if you had sent your statement of obvious fact to him by e-mail instead of the newsgroup, the meddling busybodies wouldn't know that you were being a "do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do" busybody yourself. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
Spud 555 wrote: > READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT WOMEN AND BREAST CANCER---SHOCKING > > Group: rec.food.cooking Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 10:20pm (EDT+4) From: > (Michel Boucher) > IMPORTANT BREAST CANCER HOSPITALIZATION BILL > With all due respect to cancer victims, this bill only applies to the 7% > of the world's population living within the confines of USAia, and even > more precisely to that part which is female (approx. 3.5001% of the > world's population). Perhaps next time you could be a bit more explicit > and save the remaining 93% of the world's population the trouble of > trying to figure what this is. Thank you. What is shocking about it? What some people find shocking is that breast cancer is such a major health concern but that there is so little public recognition of prostate cancer, a leading killer of men. Women get free screening for breast cancer here, though there is some controversy of the usefulness of mammograms. Meanwhile, there is almost no public dialogue or public awareness about prostate cancer, and we have to pay for PSA tests. |
Spud 555 wrote: > READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAID ABOUT WOMEN AND BREAST CANCER---SHOCKING > > Group: rec.food.cooking Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 10:20pm (EDT+4) From: > (Michel Boucher) > IMPORTANT BREAST CANCER HOSPITALIZATION BILL > With all due respect to cancer victims, this bill only applies to the 7% > of the world's population living within the confines of USAia, and even > more precisely to that part which is female (approx. 3.5001% of the > world's population). Perhaps next time you could be a bit more explicit > and save the remaining 93% of the world's population the trouble of > trying to figure what this is. Thank you. What is shocking about it? What some people find shocking is that breast cancer is such a major health concern but that there is so little public recognition of prostate cancer, a leading killer of men. Women get free screening for breast cancer here, though there is some controversy of the usefulness of mammograms. Meanwhile, there is almost no public dialogue or public awareness about prostate cancer, and we have to pay for PSA tests. |
>Ranee Mueller
>>(Dan Abel) wrote: >> >> It seemed like a very polite (but sarcastic) > > Perhaps this is the crux of the issue. It used to be that sarcastic >did not ever equal polite. Sarcasm is never polite. The crux of the matter is how [illiterate] folks confuse sarcastic with facetiousness. M-W sarcasm Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2 : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual Thesaurus sarcasm Text: a savage bitter form of humor usually intended to hurt or wound Synonyms: acerbity, causticity, corrosiveness, sarcasticness Related Words: humor, irony, raillery, satire, wit; jest, repartee; gibe, lampooning; mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering; acrimony, invective; rancor, sharpness Contrasted Words: playfulness, waggishness, whimsicality --- facetious Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia 1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH <just being facetious> 2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark> synonym see WITTY Thesaurus facetious Text: Synonyms: WITTY, humorous, jocose, jocular Related Words: jesting, joking, quipping, wisecracking; blithe, jocund, jolly, jovial, merry; comic, comical, droll, funny, laughable, ludicrous Contrasted Words: grave, serious, sober, solemn, somber --- ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- ********* "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." Sheldon ```````````` |
>Ranee Mueller
>>(Dan Abel) wrote: >> >> It seemed like a very polite (but sarcastic) > > Perhaps this is the crux of the issue. It used to be that sarcastic >did not ever equal polite. Sarcasm is never polite. The crux of the matter is how [illiterate] folks confuse sarcastic with facetiousness. M-W sarcasm Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2 : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual Thesaurus sarcasm Text: a savage bitter form of humor usually intended to hurt or wound Synonyms: acerbity, causticity, corrosiveness, sarcasticness Related Words: humor, irony, raillery, satire, wit; jest, repartee; gibe, lampooning; mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering; acrimony, invective; rancor, sharpness Contrasted Words: playfulness, waggishness, whimsicality --- facetious Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia 1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH <just being facetious> 2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark> synonym see WITTY Thesaurus facetious Text: Synonyms: WITTY, humorous, jocose, jocular Related Words: jesting, joking, quipping, wisecracking; blithe, jocund, jolly, jovial, merry; comic, comical, droll, funny, laughable, ludicrous Contrasted Words: grave, serious, sober, solemn, somber --- ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- ********* "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." Sheldon ```````````` |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2004 22:02:23 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (Curly Sue) wrote in : > >>>> So, now what exactly was your complaint? >>> >>>At this point, meddling busybodies... >> >> Perhaps if you had sent your statement of obvious fact to him by >> e-mail instead of the newsgroup, the meddling busybodies wouldn't >> know that you were being a "do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do" busybody >> yourself. > >Are you Patrick NY ) or his/her/its official >representative? > >On a personal note, Curly (I may call you Curly, may I?) no one here >or anywhere else in this universe forces you to read what I write so >you undertake this task freely and with full forewarning of what may >be within drawn from your own personal experience. If I was saddled >with your attitude, I'd make a point of avoiding my posts instead of >constantly feeling obliged to be dissatisfied with my behaviour. Generally I don't read what you write unless it's about food, but I haven't taken a vow not to do so. On a personal note Michel, you have to accept the fact that when you post here anyone can comment on it, just as you feel free to comment on the posts of others. That seems fair, doesn't it? Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
On 24 Aug 2004 22:02:23 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (Curly Sue) wrote in : > >>>> So, now what exactly was your complaint? >>> >>>At this point, meddling busybodies... >> >> Perhaps if you had sent your statement of obvious fact to him by >> e-mail instead of the newsgroup, the meddling busybodies wouldn't >> know that you were being a "do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do" busybody >> yourself. > >Are you Patrick NY ) or his/her/its official >representative? > >On a personal note, Curly (I may call you Curly, may I?) no one here >or anywhere else in this universe forces you to read what I write so >you undertake this task freely and with full forewarning of what may >be within drawn from your own personal experience. If I was saddled >with your attitude, I'd make a point of avoiding my posts instead of >constantly feeling obliged to be dissatisfied with my behaviour. Generally I don't read what you write unless it's about food, but I haven't taken a vow not to do so. On a personal note Michel, you have to accept the fact that when you post here anyone can comment on it, just as you feel free to comment on the posts of others. That seems fair, doesn't it? Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
I'm just catching up on the reading, and I thought I should go on the
record and say that I am in favor of women *and* breasts. I don't understand what all the controversy is about. Best regards, Bob |
I'm just catching up on the reading, and I thought I should go on the
record and say that I am in favor of women *and* breasts. I don't understand what all the controversy is about. Best regards, Bob |
zxcvbob > wrote in
: > I'm just catching up on the reading, and I thought I should go on > the record and say that I am in favor of women *and* breasts. > > I don't understand what all the controversy is about. There is no controversy and I certainly never said anything against women of any sort. I merely asked that someone indicate when posts concern only US citizens. It is to be assumed that if *I* were posting something concerning only Canadian citizens, that I would say so. But some have taken my reference to worldwide context to be some sort of negative put down of women in the US. Now you're caught up. -- German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this? Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you. |
zxcvbob > wrote in
: > I'm just catching up on the reading, and I thought I should go on > the record and say that I am in favor of women *and* breasts. > > I don't understand what all the controversy is about. There is no controversy and I certainly never said anything against women of any sort. I merely asked that someone indicate when posts concern only US citizens. It is to be assumed that if *I* were posting something concerning only Canadian citizens, that I would say so. But some have taken my reference to worldwide context to be some sort of negative put down of women in the US. Now you're caught up. -- German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this? Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you. |
|
|
On 25 Aug 2004 12:54:22 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (Curly Sue) wrote in : > >> Generally I don't read what you write unless it's about food, but >> I haven't taken a vow not to do so. > >So there's no way I can tell if you're going to butt in, is there... > >> On a personal note Michel, >> you have to accept the fact that when you post here anyone can >> comment on it, just as you feel free to comment on the posts of >> others. That seems fair, doesn't it? > >It's fair if you're being fair, and actually, you're not. Fair is >supporting my side, asking people to be more explicit in their >postings when it comes to their constituency...which is all I did. >You would be on my case faster than a cat on fish if I dared to post >something applying only to Canadians without ever saying it only >applied to Canadians, or mentioning Canada even once. You would call >THAT rude, and you would be right to do that. You wish I would. However, I notice that you haven't even though there is a very nice example in this subject. >I was not inclined that day to adhere to the strict Curly Sue code of >goodness and niceness, although I was neither rude nor insulting. >Are *you* always nice? No, as your many posts to me have >demonstrated, so learn to live with it. >Still waiting for Patrick NY ) to pipe up. So >far, he's nowhere to be found. Whatever floats your boat. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
On 25 Aug 2004 12:54:22 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (Curly Sue) wrote in : > >> Generally I don't read what you write unless it's about food, but >> I haven't taken a vow not to do so. > >So there's no way I can tell if you're going to butt in, is there... > >> On a personal note Michel, >> you have to accept the fact that when you post here anyone can >> comment on it, just as you feel free to comment on the posts of >> others. That seems fair, doesn't it? > >It's fair if you're being fair, and actually, you're not. Fair is >supporting my side, asking people to be more explicit in their >postings when it comes to their constituency...which is all I did. >You would be on my case faster than a cat on fish if I dared to post >something applying only to Canadians without ever saying it only >applied to Canadians, or mentioning Canada even once. You would call >THAT rude, and you would be right to do that. You wish I would. However, I notice that you haven't even though there is a very nice example in this subject. >I was not inclined that day to adhere to the strict Curly Sue code of >goodness and niceness, although I was neither rude nor insulting. >Are *you* always nice? No, as your many posts to me have >demonstrated, so learn to live with it. >Still waiting for Patrick NY ) to pipe up. So >far, he's nowhere to be found. Whatever floats your boat. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
Michel Boucher > wrote in message >. ..
> (Kevintsheehy) wrote in > : > > > As Michel's posts go, I thought this was among his least > > obnoxious. > > High praise indeed. But obnoxious is as obnoxious reads. The > noseyparker index is running high right now on rfc, with a plethora > of "the usual buttinskis" who feel compelled to exposit ad nauseam > THEIR take on my response to a post by someone who has expressed no > further opinion on this subject, either for or against my suggestion. > I take silence to be support, but what the hey... > > I call upon Patrick NY ) to come forward and > say whether he was deeply, moderately or not at all offended by my > request to be more precise in future. And I call upon the usual > buttinskis, and you know who you are, to keep quiet until we do hear > from Patrick NY ). If he is offended, I will > apologize to him, but to no one else. > > Qu'on se le tienne pour dit. This is a nearly perfect thread. It is offtopic, calls attention to someone's behavior (mentioned by name) degraded into a flame war, involves amusing charges and counter charges of breaches of nettiquette, and has the gathering stormfront of pro/antiUSA sentiment. All it needs is SPAM, kitty references, and for someone to post some private Email. Extra points for binaries or web graphics. Greg Zywicki |
Michel Boucher > wrote in message >. ..
> (Kevintsheehy) wrote in > : > > > As Michel's posts go, I thought this was among his least > > obnoxious. > > High praise indeed. But obnoxious is as obnoxious reads. The > noseyparker index is running high right now on rfc, with a plethora > of "the usual buttinskis" who feel compelled to exposit ad nauseam > THEIR take on my response to a post by someone who has expressed no > further opinion on this subject, either for or against my suggestion. > I take silence to be support, but what the hey... > > I call upon Patrick NY ) to come forward and > say whether he was deeply, moderately or not at all offended by my > request to be more precise in future. And I call upon the usual > buttinskis, and you know who you are, to keep quiet until we do hear > from Patrick NY ). If he is offended, I will > apologize to him, but to no one else. > > Qu'on se le tienne pour dit. This is a nearly perfect thread. It is offtopic, calls attention to someone's behavior (mentioned by name) degraded into a flame war, involves amusing charges and counter charges of breaches of nettiquette, and has the gathering stormfront of pro/antiUSA sentiment. All it needs is SPAM, kitty references, and for someone to post some private Email. Extra points for binaries or web graphics. Greg Zywicki |
|
|
On 25 Aug 2004 17:28:13 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote: (Curly Sue) wrote in : > >>>It's fair if you're being fair, and actually, you're not. Fair is >>>supporting my side, asking people to be more explicit in their >>>postings when it comes to their constituency...which is all I did. >>>You would be on my case faster than a cat on fish if I dared to >>>post something applying only to Canadians without ever saying it >>>only applied to Canadians, or mentioning Canada even once. You >>>would call THAT rude, and you would be right to do that. >> >> You wish I would. However, I notice that you haven't even though >> there is a very nice example in this subject. > >Haven't what? Are we playing guessing games now? "post something applying only to Canadians without ever saying it only applied to Canadians, or mentioning Canada even once. " <glee> Oh, don't tell me it went right by you!</glee> Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter