>I just read the thing. There is nothing it it that even implies you'd
>need a prescription to buy supplements.
Well, not unless a manufacturer or seller is dumb enough to claim they
treat or cure disease, anyway. It's mostly a matter of semantics.
>Where DO you get these ideas?
It seems people who don't understand a simple "MAY happen IF certain
criteria apply" sentence structure are the ones getting this whole
issue exactly backwards. That, and those who tend to harbor
conspiracy theories. Sad to see how many there are, netwide.
Mark Probert - 29 Apr 2007 04:49 GMT
>> I just read the thing. There is nothing it it that even implies you'd
>> need a prescription to buy supplements.
>
> Well, not unless a manufacturer or seller is dumb enough to claim they
> treat or cure disease, anyway. It's mostly a matter of semantics.
Wrong. Let me re-write:
Well, not unless a manufacturer or seller is GREEDY enough to claim they
treat or cure disease, anyway. It's mostly a matter of ECONOMICS.
The manufacturers of these chemicals would love to make medical like
claims to boost sales.
>> Where DO you get these ideas?
>
> It seems people who don't understand a simple "MAY happen IF certain
> criteria apply" sentence structure are the ones getting this whole
> issue exactly backwards. That, and those who tend to harbor
> conspiracy theories. Sad to see how many there are, netwide.
Jan Drew - 29 Apr 2007 06:16 GMT
>>> I just read the thing. There is nothing it it that even implies you'd
>>> need a prescription to buy supplements.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Wrong. Let me re-write:
NO.
You had a change to write and one to be heard when you were disbarred. You
were silent which means guility