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.

>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.

Ellen

(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!

(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...

--

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 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!

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!

(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 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.

(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.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

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

(Greg Zywicki) wrote in
om:

> 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.

Oh, come on...it's fairly tedious as flaming goes...Curly sez "It's
all your fault cause you're a Canadian!" and I sez "No it ain't and
you're not being fair" and she sez "Sez you" and I sez "Up yours" and
so it goes...how exciting can this actually be to anyone? I'm
falling asleep from tedium just retelling it.

--

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 18:40:25 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

(Greg Zywicki) wrote in
. com:
>
>> 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.
>
>Oh, come on...it's fairly tedious as flaming goes...Curly sez "It's
>all your fault cause you're a Canadian!" and I sez "No it ain't and
>you're not being fair" and she sez "Sez you" and I sez "Up yours" and
>so it goes...how exciting can this actually be to anyone? I'm
>falling asleep from tedium just retelling it.

It's not because you're Canadian and I've never said or implied
anything of the sort. Since when does anyone pick on Canadians for
being Canadian?

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On 25 Aug 2004 18:40:25 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

(Greg Zywicki) wrote in
. com:
>
>> 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.
>
>Oh, come on...it's fairly tedious as flaming goes...Curly sez "It's
>all your fault cause you're a Canadian!" and I sez "No it ain't and
>you're not being fair" and she sez "Sez you" and I sez "Up yours" and
>so it goes...how exciting can this actually be to anyone? I'm
>falling asleep from tedium just retelling it.

It's not because you're Canadian and I've never said or implied
anything of the sort. Since when does anyone pick on Canadians for
being Canadian?

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

(Greg Zywicki) wrote in
om:

> 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.

Oh, come on...it's fairly tedious as flaming goes...Curly sez "It's
all your fault cause you're a Canadian!" and I sez "No it ain't and
you're not being fair" and she sez "Sez you" and I sez "Up yours" and
so it goes...how exciting can this actually be to anyone? I'm
falling asleep from tedium just retelling it.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

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

(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.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

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

In article >,
(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.

Regards,
Ranee

--
Remove do not and spam to e-mail me.

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of
heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man." Acts 17:24

>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
````````````

In article >,
(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.

Regards,
Ranee

--
Remove do not and spam to e-mail me.

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of
heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man." Acts 17:24

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.

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.

Michel Boucher's post is disgusting, inhumane, coldhearted and
meanspirited. I am 33 years old, and my wife succumbed to breast cancer
three years ago at the age of 29! Our only child, a beautiful daughter,
is now motherless! How could any woman (or any man) be so insensitive???
God forgive her.
-Brandon-

(Halcyon222 aka Brandon) wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher's post is disgusting, inhumane, coldhearted and
> meanspirited. I am 33 years old, and my wife succumbed to breast
> cancer three years ago at the age of 29! Our only child, a
> beautiful daughter, is now motherless! How could any woman (or any
> man) be so insensitive??? God forgive her.

For all that I may feel sorry for your loss, I don't believe for an
instant that you could possibly have come to that conclusion by reading
what I wrote. Just so you don't misunderstand, what I was saying was
that information about breast cancer which is only of interest to
citizens of the US should be clearly indicated as such.

Cheez...

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

(Halcyon222 aka Brandon) wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher's post is disgusting, inhumane, coldhearted and
> meanspirited. I am 33 years old, and my wife succumbed to breast
> cancer three years ago at the age of 29! Our only child, a
> beautiful daughter, is now motherless! How could any woman (or any
> man) be so insensitive??? God forgive her.

For all that I may feel sorry for your loss, I don't believe for an
instant that you could possibly have come to that conclusion by reading
what I wrote. Just so you don't misunderstand, what I was saying was
that information about breast cancer which is only of interest to
citizens of the US should be clearly indicated as such.

Cheez...

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

>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.

Ellen

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.

Michel Boucher's post is disgusting, inhumane, coldhearted and
meanspirited. I am 33 years old, and my wife succumbed to breast cancer
three years ago at the age of 29! Our only child, a beautiful daughter,
is now motherless! How could any woman (or any man) be so insensitive???
God forgive her.
-Brandon-