 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / May 2005link about Chet and the CA Dental Board
Bill, I did find one link, here is the version of events according to the website: http://www.toxicteeth.org/natCamp_stateGovt_CA_hearing_Jan2604.cfm Here is the specific part about Dr. Yokoyama and the fact sheet: Chet explained that, after the entire board twice approved the new and improved fact sheet (8 to1 and 8 to 0) and the Department of Consumer Affairs had agreed and the Dental Board President promised to release the fact sheet in December of 2003, he was fired from his position as Chairman of Dental Materials Fact Sheet Committee and every other dentist on the board was appointed to the committee with Lawrence Hundley as Chair. Ariane Trelet (The other Pro-Mercury committee member) mysteriously produced a whole new fact sheet that looked suspiciously like the ADA's position on amalgam. Charlie Brown points out and has sued to correct the fact that the committee is unlawful under the rules of California since a quorum of board members now serves on one committee. That committee is set to meet at 9 AM Thursday January 29th in Sacramento at the Marriott Rancho Cordova. (Dr. Kennedy predicts the ADA fact sheet will be approved 8 to 1). Chet complained that he had spent over a year getting the present version into the condition that it was and felt betrayed by the board in this 11th hour coup. He said the CDA brought in a supposed expert from the National Council Against Health Fraud who has never published anything scientific in the field of mercury who wrote a letter that claimed the Prop 65 statement was false and misleading. This link also implies, right or wrong that Dr. Terlit, the other "neutral" dentist assigned to compose the fact sheet is instead a puppet for the CDA: http://www.toxicteeth.org/natCamp_stateGovt_CA_CBcoverupDec03.cfm STOP THE COVER-UP - Do Not Re-Appoint Dr. Terlet to the California Dental Board Please take a moment to write Gov. Schwarzenegger: Please do NOT re-appoint Ariane Terlet to Dental Board The Dental Board has voted to approve -- but refuses to distribute -- the compromise Fact Sheet that gives parents, pregnant women, and young women notice that mercury fillings may damage the developing brain of a child or fetus and may cause birth defects. Dental Board member Ariane Terlet is blocking the honest fact sheet from being distributed. Working hand-in-glove with the Calif. Dental Assoc., she proposes a substitute Fact Sheet with NO disclosures of risks of mercury fillings. The cover-up enters its twelfth year. The Watson Law of 1992 goes unmet. Most of us would go to jail if we violated the law for 12 years. But Dr. Terlet wants the Board to keep right on violating the law, and covering up the risks of mercury fillings. Dr. Terlet's term expires January 4, 2004. Her loyalty is to the ADA and CDA -- not to the citizens of California. Governor Schwarzenegger should not reappoint her. Please write - and phone -- the Governor's Deputy Appointments Secretary, Ashley Gunn, and ask that the new Governor appoint someone who will not cover up the risks of mercury fillings, someone who is not in the hip pocket of the special interests. Ashley Gunn, Deputy Appointments Secretary to Gov. Schwarzenegger State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone 916.445-4541 Fax 916.323-8714 E: Shannon.George@gov.ca.gov Coming from toxicteeth, what would you expect them to say considering they did not ban amalgam outright? Fawks > This link also implies, right or wrong that Dr. Terlit, the > other "neutral" dentist assigned to compose the fact sheet > is instead a puppet for the CDA: > http://www.toxicteeth.org/ > Coming from toxicteeth, what would you expect them to say > considering they did not ban amalgam outright? Coming from http://www.toxicteeth.org the best website for updated information, working to ban amalgams, who care about people and the environment, unlike the dentists here are *truthful, they care about our future generation. > Fawks > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> http://www.toxicteeth.org/ > Coming from toxicteeth, what would you expect them to say > considering they did not ban amalgam outright? > > Fawks Commentary by Dr. Kennedy DDS. > Coming from toxicteeth, what would you expect them to say > considering they did not ban amalgam outright? > > Fawks What I don't get about organizations like this is that those who post links to them and/or similar sites are willing to ignore the incestuous relationships associated with these sites. We are bombarded with warnings about the conspiracy of organized medicine and dentistry, yet the owners of the toxicteeth web site run a company that serves to profit handily from people buying into what they say on that web site. I am not saying this instantly makes the information wrong, but it is a bit disingenuous to only fault those you disagree with for being part of a conspiracy, when arguments that support "your" side are often put forth by people with equally suspect motivation. T May Flap opine here: Quack! http://flapsblog.com > May Flap opine here: > > Quack! > > http://flapsblog.com The Hawaii License info is interesting. I think many of these protectionist type licensing laws or regulations would fall if anyone challenged them in court, but no one has mounted the proper offensive just yet. When I was a junior in dental school I was a patient for a friend taking the NC boards and can say that I came away knowing that the deck was stacked. There was also an orthodontist who was forced to take an exam and do procedures he hadn't done in years. It is an absurd process. T > > Coming from toxicteeth, what would you expect them to say > > considering they did not ban amalgam outright? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to them and/or similar sites are willing to ignore the incestuous > relationships associated with these sites. We are bombarded with This site is associated with the ex-attorney general of west Virginia. So far I have not found any inaccurate information on this site. On the other hand the ADA lied about the fact that amalgam gave off any Hg for 30 years. You be the judge. If in the future I find information form that site to be inaccurate obviously I would read the information with more caution. warnings > about the conspiracy of organized medicine and dentistry, yet the owners of > the toxicteeth web site run a company that serves to profit handily from > people buying into what they say on that web site. What company is that? It's a basically a volunteer effort run by amalgam victims and lawyers. > What company is that? It's a basically a volunteer effort > run by amalgam victims and lawyers. Check who owns the domain > > What company is that? It's a basically a volunteer effort > > run by amalgam victims and lawyers. > > Check who owns the domain A domain registration company?? what am i missing here? > > > What company is that? It's a basically a volunteer effort > > > run by amalgam victims and lawyers. > > > > Check who owns the domain > > A domain registration company?? what am i missing here? http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/results.jhtml;jsessionid=2IK4H2NDR42 B4CWMEAQCFEQ?whoistoken=0&_requestid=423870 Registrant Name:Jeff Clark Registrant Organization:CFS Nutrition I don't know anything about this company, but they are a company that sells products, apparently for profit, that go hand in hand with the topics on the toxicteeth site. Again, I am not saying this makes their message invalid, but there are some here who instantly call any information they disagree with into question when there are such conflicts of interest, yet when it is a web site that contains information they agree with, this is apparently not an issue. T > > A domain registration company?? what am i missing here? http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/results.jhtml;jsessionid=2IK4H2NDR42 B4CWMEAQCFEQ?whoistoken=0&_requestid=423870 > Registrant Name:Jeff Clark > Registrant Organization:CFS Nutrition > > I don't know anything about this company, but they are a company that sells > products, apparently for profit, that go hand in hand with the topics on the Jeff Clark is a self-described Am poisoning victim. After he discovered this if I recall correctly he did, as his own business venture go to work for CFS Nutrtion part time while working (I believe full time as an engineer) because some of their products like NAC can be helpful in Hg detoxification. You can read about his history and CFS on his website. I have no idea how much a domain name costs, but the info is being put up by amalgam victims not company reps. . Why should people volunteering their time such as Jeff Clark have to shoulder all the costs and their time while still recovering from AM poisoning. So far I have no indication that the posted information is incorrect and CFS nutrition would only benifit if they thought that amalgam toxicity would official be recognized as a national phenommena. Whatever their degree of involvement I think it is more out of confidence in the serious of the issue and some creative armtwisting from Jeffclark. This is just my guess. My interpretation of th > toxicteeth site. Again, I am not saying this makes their message invalid, > but there are some here who instantly call any information they disagree [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > T > Jeff Clark is a self-described Am poisoning victim. After > he discovered this if I recall correctly he did, as his own business [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is more out of confidence in the serious of the issue and some > creative armtwisting from Jeffclark. This is just my guess. I agree with what you say, and as I said, the connection shouldn't make the info automatically suspect....but the point I was trying to make was that a similar connection on the other side of the argument would be taken by some as evidence of conspiracy. This free pass being exclusively afforded to those one agrees with seems unreasonable and disingenuous. T > > Jeff Clark is a self-described Am poisoning victim. After > > he discovered this if I recall correctly he did, as his own business [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > T Let's see who is being disingenuous. You want to bet $1000 that the information posted is accurate? But you sit there calling me disingenuous. Let's see you practice the honesty you preach. >> > Jeff Clark is a self-described Am poisoning victim. After >> > he discovered this if I recall correctly he did, as his own [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > information posted is accurate? But you sit there calling me > disingenuous. Let's see you practice the honesty you preach. Simply unreal. LL/Jan > Let's see who is being disingenuous. You want to bet $1000 that the > information posted is accurate? But you sit there calling me > disingenuous. Let's see you practice the honesty you preach. Your reading skills need polishing. I wasn't calling YOU anything, nor did I state the information wasn't accurate. YOU entered this discussion on your own and now assumed the position of victim. If you feel the disingenuous label applies to you, that is your choice. As for giving those you agree with a free pass, thanks for proving my point. Do you really want to assume the burden of proving that web site is 100% accurate? Or is your $1000 bet going to be you weaseling out by making me do the work? Since you opened your mouth, I'll take your bet, now prove your position. T > <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote in message > Your reading skills need polishing. I wasn't calling YOU > anything, nor did I > state the information wasn't accurate. YOU entered this discussion on your > own and now assumed the position of victim. If you feel the disingenuous > label applies to you, that is your choice. > > As for giving those you agree with a free pass, thanks for proving my point. I thought you just said that your comments didn't apply to me. > Do you really want to assume the burden of proving that web site is 100% > accurate? Lets take a few key points, such as: Was Chet Y fired from his post? Was the dental board subsequently sued for illegally taking over the fact sheet committe? Did the CDA bring in an "expert" to testify for amalgam? Did this or previous dental boards take any illegal action to stop distribution of a fact sheet and are many of the appointees holdovers from the previous pro-amalgam law defying dental board. Or is your $1000 bet going to be you weaseling out by making me do > the work? Since you opened your mouth, I'll take your bet, now prove your > position. It must be obvious to you that on key points you will lose the bet. Notice how Dr. Bill Combs is suddenly silent. If you want me to take your money I will. 3 key points, make it $2000. If you lose you have to donate the money to TT.net and as in survivor you will be forever banished from sci.med. Id also like to start a bet with Steve F that no amalgam ever loses more than 5% of its Hg nor can significant amounts be methylized. EASY money. Why didn't I think of this before? ClintZ wrote: >Lets take a few key points, such as: > >Was Chet Y fired from his post? If by "post" you mean his Board position, the answer is no. As "chair" of the two-person committee, he completed his committee work. His proposal was not acceptable to the larger board, which then appointed a larger committee, with a new chair. If he considers this a "firing," he has to remember that ALL such committees are merely temporary creations of the larger Board, and ALL such committee members might considered themselves "fired" when the specific committee work is done. By that reasoning, we should consider ALL the members of the larger committee to have "fired" themselves too -- as the committee work was finished a year ago. >Was the dental board subsequently sued for illegally >taking over the fact sheet committe? I don't know. Since the board has the full legal power to appoint committees, and to dismiss and reorganize its own creations (committees) as it sees fit, how can anyone claim that it "illegally took over" its own fully-owned committee? That would be nonsense. All temporary committees created by the Board are fully under the control of the Board anyway. Probably any lawsuit which is based solely upon a contention that a duly-appointed Board cannot reorganize its own committees is doomed to failure. Is this "lawsuit" going anywhere? What can you tell me about its current disposition? >Did the CDA bring in an "expert" to testify for amalgam? As far as I could tell at the public meeting, quite a number of groups brought in people to testify regarding the content of the DMFS. This included anti-amalgam groups. >Did this or previous dental boards take any illegal action to stop >distribution of a fact sheet No. This board worked harder and faster than any other previous board to produce and allow the distribution of a new DMFS. (An important note -- the Board does NOT distribute the fact sheet! Dentists have to print and pay for any fact sheets themselves, without a penny's worth of help from anyone. This is just another expensive, unfunded mandate from big government.) Previous boards worked more slowly and found it impossible to reconcile the positions of the different groups who fought endlessly over each proposed item of content in the first DMFS. No "illegal action" was taken as far as I remember. Is somebody claiming illegal action was taken? What action was that, and when? >and are many of the appointees holdovers >from the previous pro-amalgam law defying dental board. The previous dental board was NOT "law-defying" and was not "pro-amalgam." This statement alone casts grave doubt upon the credibility of the writer. And there can be no "holdovers" as the former Gov. Gray Davis had terminated the entire dental board, at the behest of one noisy anti-amalgam legislator who was a member of the governor's political party. All the members of the NEW board were later appointed by Gov. Davis. >It must be obvious to you that on key points you will lose the >bet. Notice how Dr. Bill Combs is suddenly silent. Wrong again. - dentaldoc > ClintZ wrote: > > >Was Chet Y fired from his post? > If by "post" you mean his Board position, the answer is no. > > As "chair" of the two-person committee, he completed his committee > work. His proposal was not acceptable to the larger board, which then > appointed a larger committee, with a new chair. Well, it seems to me that if the committe objected to Chets scientific statements on amalgam and wanted to promote a different , more amalgam friendly version they would also do the same thing. Why was the fact sheet "unacceptable", I would definitely like to see a copy of it. > If he considers this a "firing," he has to remember that ALL such > committees are merely temporary creations of the larger Board, and ALL > such committee members might considered themselves "fired" when the > specific committee work is done. He seems to imply that he was given no notice that his work was "unacceptable". Also the implication is that an alternate fact sheet "suddenly" appeared with no scientific basis for rejecting his sheet. > By that reasoning, we should consider ALL the members of the larger > committee to have "fired" themselves too -- as the committee work was > finished a year ago. I don't really know what is typical or lawful when it comes to state committes. Usually though congress does take the recommendations of it's subcommittes. It doesn't reject say the findings of a certain commitee on and appoint a new one until the committe produces the desire result. Key here is WHY the board rejected Chets sheet. If it is because they didn't "like" what was on it that is a political not a scientific motive. > >Was the dental board subsequently sued for illegally > >taking over the fact sheet committe? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (committees) as it sees fit, how can anyone claim that it "illegally > took over" its own fully-owned committee? On the link it implies that what the board did is illegal. It said something about a quorum law. > That would be nonsense. All temporary committees created by the Board > are fully under the control of the Board anyway. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > failure. Is this "lawsuit" going anywhere? What can you tell me about > its current disposition? Just what I see on the link. > >Did the CDA bring in an "expert" to testify for amalgam? > > As far as I could tell at the public meeting, quite a number of groups > brought in people to testify regarding the content of the DMFS. This > included anti-amalgam groups. Kind of odd to have members of a profession taking testimony from their own professional organization in the form of expert testimony and claiming no influence, especially, since that organization probably is not legally bound to make it's board testimony accurate and is giving it's opinion. I assume this supposedly "separate" entity is also free to consult with lawyers before giving its "testimony" on what the fact sheet should say and identify itself as the "offical organization for dental professioinals". Can't the dentists on the board form thier own committes and do their own scientific investigation? Having over half the committee dental professionals isn't enough? Suppose the board had NO dentists? I think Chet was also concerned that the "expert" brought in by the CDA had no published papers and this kind of testimony would be difficult to admit if the dentist on the board had bring him in themselves. > >Did this or previous dental boards take any illegal action to stop > >distribution of a fact sheet [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This board worked harder and faster than any other previous board to > produce and allow the distribution of a new DMFS. Well when was the first board fired. Now how long until the new fact sheet came out a couple years? How come it takes years to publish a fact sheet? > (An important note -- the Board does NOT distribute the fact sheet! > Dentists have to print and pay for any fact sheets themselves, without > a penny's worth of help from anyone. This is just another expensive, > unfunded mandate from big government.) Unfunded Mandate. Spending a few dollars to warn a pregnant mother that amalgam can expose her and her child to Hg is just an expensive mandate from "Big government" > Previous boards worked more slowly and found it impossible to reconcile > the positions of the different groups who fought endlessly over each > proposed item of content in the first DMFS. No "illegal action" was > taken as far as I remember. Is somebody claiming illegal action was > taken? What action was that, and when? The claim on TT.net is that the previous dental board had not complied with law (prop 65) and had refused for many year to publish a fact sheet on amalgam that complied with the law. Or it may have been that no fact sheet at all was published that listed amalgam. > >and are many of the appointees holdovers > >from the previous pro-amalgam law defying dental board. > > The previous dental board was NOT "law-defying" and was not > "pro-amalgam." This statement alone casts grave doubt upon the > credibility of the writer. So the previous dental board had published a fact sheet that complied with the law in a timely manner? Why was the board disbanded and why was it sued if it did nothing wrong? > And there can be no "holdovers" as the former Gov. Gray Davis had > terminated the entire dental board, at the behest of one noisy > anti-amalgam legislator who was a member of the governor's political > party. Obviously I was not there. The link implies that Gov Davis reappointed many of the same members, the only difference being a few appointes such a Chet Yokoyama to appease this legislator. Therefore, this "new" board would not be a fresh "new", "neutral" and completely objective board as you implied before. Especially since the same members would be responsible for the current circumstances of the dental board. Maybe this is incorrect but lets be clear, and not get caught up with the term holdover. Where any of the same members from the fired board on the new board? > All the members of the NEW board were later appointed by Gov. Davis. Where they the same members that had been on the last dental board? > Lets take a few key points, such as: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > ever loses more than 5% of its Hg nor can significant amounts > be methylized. EASY money. Why didn't I think of this before? I made general comment about web sites like toxicteeth, not any one specific story. Your reply to my comments was... "You want to bet $1000 that the information posted is accurate?" As I wrote, if you want to take up the task of proving to me and others that these web sites are 100% accurate, I'll take that bet. I'll remind you, for what is either the third or 4th time, I did not question the validity of the information, my comment was only that these web sites seem to be accepted as truth despite the fact many are sponsored by companies or individuals who stand to profit from the views they espouse. If I linked to a site that was allegedly a volunteer group of concerned citizens FOR amalgam, and you found the web site was actually owned by a company that made or profited from the results, you would be 100% correct in being somewhat suspect of the motivation behind these "volunteers". All I am asking is why that is not a concern here?. A few years ago I pointed out that a similar relationship existed between IAOMT and its director, who happened to be president of a company that stood to profit from the information reported by the IAOMT. T > I linked to a site that was allegedly a volunteer group of concerned > citizens FOR amalgam, and you found the web site was actually owned by a > company that made or profited from the results, you would be 100% correct in > being somewhat suspect of the motivation behind these "volunteers". All I am > asking is why that is not a concern here?. The people associated with the site have been involved in the anti-amalgam movement and are "victims" themselves for many years since the site was put up. I actually talked with Freya Koss briefly at the DC dental hearings. Jeff clark also was an anti-amalgam advocate and self described amalgam victim long before working with CFS. When I personally see the people associated with the site and their commitment to the issue in real life I personally consider it to be a grass roots effort where the participants just don't want to get victimized again by doing 1000's of hours of volunteer work for free and then still be shamelessly derided by dental professionals anyway who would point to the fact that no one was sponsering them as "proof" that there was no science and consequently no profit in the issue. If the articles published where not from grass roots activists, including the ex-attoney general of west virginia and where from unknown company representatives then people would be more concerned. As for Free passess, you obvioulsy don't get it, because I gave a "free pass" to my dentist. That was the biggest mistake of my life and I only criticize the dental profession now when they have dutifilly earned my distrust. That will not cause me to cynically question the honesty of hard-working activists however, who continue to publish accurate information on their site even as the ADA and dentally run FDA dental and NIDCR CONTINUE to lie about the safety of amalgam on a scale that boggles the mind. >> <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > ever loses more than 5% of its Hg nor can significant amounts > be methylized. EASY money. Why didn't I think of this before? RIGHT ON Clinton. These dentists have lied for so long, they are pathetic. Bill Combs is noted for becoming silent when he can't answer questions. LL/Jan >> Let's see who is being disingenuous. You want to bet $1000 that the >> information posted is accurate? But you sit there calling me [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > T YOU have that backwards. YOU used the word disingenuous. Now, WHO did you mean, and it is YOU who proves it. LL/Jan >> Let's see who is being disingenuous. You want to bet $1000 that the >> information posted is accurate? But you sit there calling me [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > own and now assumed the position of victim. If you feel the disingenuous > label applies to you, that is your choice. Here is what you said: I am not saying this instantly makes the information wrong, but it is a bit disingenuous to only fault those you disagree with for being part of a conspiracy, when arguments that support "your" side are often put forth by people with equally suspect motivation. ( I see a *you* and a *your*) Now, Tony, you are weaseling, the meaning of your statement is clear. Ll/Jan > As for giving those you agree with a free pass, thanks for proving my > point. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > T Is Jeff Clark related to Hulda? Fawks >> > > What company is that? It's a basically a volunteer effort >> > > run by amalgam victims and lawyers. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > T You don't know anything about Jeff Clark. You should, I have posted about him. Take a good look. http://www.cfsn.com/maz/ LL/Jan >> Coming from toxicteeth, what would you expect them to say >> considering they did not ban amalgam outright? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the toxicteeth web site run a company that serves to profit handily from > people buying into what they say on that web site. Tony, Tony, Tony, they are NOT doing it for any monetary gain!!!!! > I am not saying this instantly makes the information wrong, but it is a > bit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > T Their motivation is VERY clear. Why oh why are you dentists hanging on to this mercury when you KNOW it let off vapors which harm people and it ruining our environment. YOU have no concerns for your very own kids and their future!!!!! LL/Jan That's why I remind readers that I haven't placed an amalgam for over 20 years, but I still don't fall for all the toxic teeth crap. I'm about as unbiased as you could find. I have no financial interest in supporting amalgam use. I have a very limited financial interest in being anti-amalgam in that I could make more money by hinting at amalgam toxicity, but I don't sell snake oil. Anyone that puts extreme effort into being anti-amalgam is either a little spacey or selling something (or both). Fawks > What I don't get about organizations like this is that those who post links > to them and/or similar sites are willing to ignore the incestuous [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > T > That's why I remind readers that I haven't placed an amalgam for over 20 > years, but I still don't fall for all the toxic teeth crap. It is NOT crap. It is PROVEN that amalgams left off vapors and the harm done! > I'm about as unbiased as you could find. I have no financial interest > in supporting amalgam use. I have a very limited financial interest in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fawks The EPA is spacey and selling something. Fawks is well into denial, cares NOT about the harm to people nor the environment. http://www.mercurypolicy.org/ Read the entire page Fawks, learn something. Read this: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7743/7743.pdf http://www.mercurypolicy.org/exposure/documents/model_state_leg.pdf And then,,,,,,,,,,,,,STOP L Y I N G!!!!!! LL/Jan >> What I don't get about organizations like this is that those who post >> links [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> T > > That's why I remind readers that I haven't placed an amalgam for over 20 > > years, but I still don't fall for all the toxic teeth crap. > > It is NOT crap. It is PROVEN that amalgams left off vapors and the harm > done! What has not been PROVEN is whether some day I will be able to write a complete sentence that makes sense! > > I'm about as unbiased as you could find. I have no financial interest > > in supporting amalgam use. I have a very limited financial interest in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The EPA is spacey and selling something. Fawks is well into denial, cares > NOT about the harm to people nor the environment. Did I say the EPA is spacey? I meant NASA. NASA is spacey. The EPA must be selling something! They must have a website where they sell pro-amalgam coffee cups or something. so there. LL > http://www.mercurypolicy.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >> > >> T >> > That's why I remind readers that I haven't placed an amalgam for over >> > 20 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What has not been PROVEN is whether some day I will be able to write a > complete sentence that makes sense! Well, no beverage was in my mouth when I opened this post. So no new keyboard is owed to me just yet. Let's give her an either/or option. Complete sentences were always a challenge to her, making sense............ carabelli > What has not been PROVEN is whether some day I will be able to write a > complete sentence that makes sense! > Did I say the EPA is spacey? I meant NASA. NASA is spacey. The EPA must > be selling something! They must have a website where they sell > pro-amalgam coffee cups or something. so there. > > LL Too funny for words. Fawks |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.