Remember chemtrails?

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Don't tell AP that - it just hit the Verizon site news this morning.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ey/8185305.htm

This is a perfect example of why certain people should be banned from any
role in policy-making whatsoever. Not knowing what water is? Inexcusable
ignorance.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
This is a perfect example of why certain people should be banned from any
role in policy-making whatsoever. Not knowing what water is? Inexcusable
ignorance.

Many people, even those with college educations, do not understand that for
most chemical compounds, the name actually means something. They see
"dihydrogen monoxide", and it sounds like every other noxious chemical
they've ever heard of. It doesn't occur to them to look at the individual
parts of the name. Nor would they necessarily recognize two hydrogens and
one oxygen as water (even though they almost certainly have heard of "H2O").

This is a sad fact of human existence. Most people stumble through life in
a fog. It's pointless to call it "inexcusable ignorance"...it's one of the
few constants in the world. I wish things were different, but wishing it
won't make it so. Just think what we as humans could accomplish if the
entire human race applied the same sort of intelligence and critical
thinking that the handful of people who have really made a difference
throughout history have.

On the bright side, just look at what we've accomplished with so many idiots
running around. That's testament, IMHO, to the robustness and adaptability
of humanity. I think in the long run, we'll be okay, even if we take the
five steps forward, four steps back approach.

Back to the original thought...what IS inexcusable is a person making policy
without properly researching the facts. That's justification for firing, if
you ask me. It's one thing to forgive someone for stumbling through their
job in a fog. It's another entirely to allow them the opportunity to
continue doing so.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Back to the original thought...what IS inexcusable is a person making
policy
without properly researching the facts. That's justification for firing,
if
you ask me. It's one thing to forgive someone for stumbling through their
job in a fog. It's another entirely to allow them the opportunity to
continue doing so.

The paralegal said she was fooled by Internet sites devoted to dihydrogen
monoxide. Why? Originally they were researching material for banning
Styrofoam containers because these contaminate the creek. How would anyone
come up with the DHMO sites just researching Styrofoam containers?

It sounds more to me like the paralegal was fed up with the anal-retentive
city council and included the bit about dihydrogen monoxide in a deliberate
attempt to embarrass them.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
[...] How would anyone
come up with the DHMO sites just researching Styrofoam containers?

Because one of the classic Internet hoax emails specifically mentions DHMO
used in the production of styrofoam.

I'm not excusing the behavior, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, nor
do I think there needs to be any more complex an explanation than that given
by the paralegal.

Pete

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
It sounds more to me like the paralegal was fed up with the anal-retentive
city council and included the bit about dihydrogen monoxide in a
deliberate
attempt to embarrass them.

I don't think embarrassing them would take a deliberate act.