CLICK BELOW TO FULLY PROTECT YOUR COMPUTER AND SUPPORT TRUTH
MINERS Vipre Antivirus Premium does it all! Keeps
out ALL the bad stuff! If your
computer is running slow, it is probably infected with one or more of these
problems. Download the trial version and get instant relief from the
bad stuff. Purchase and register and get up-to-date, real time
FOLLOWING INFORMATION CAME TO ME DIRECTLY FROM JIM NEUGENT HIMSELF.
In 1999, Mr. Jim
Neugent DID indeed write a letter to ABC protesting the positive
depiction of gays in the TV show, "The Practice". Yes, he
did receive a nasty reply. However, there IS more to this
story. The reply Mr. Neugent received was NOT from executives at
ABC. Mr. Neugent's emailed letter went to the webmaster's
email address. An employee in the webmaster's office
created the nasty reply. After this message spread like wildfire
throughout the net, ABC found out about it through the tons of
irate mail they received, and found out who had sent the reply.
To give ABC some small credit, they did fire the person who sent
the message and did, eventually, send an apologetic letter to
Mr. Neugent, believing (with good reason) that the
inflammatory reply had been received from ABC, sent the message on to 10
or 12 of his friends. The message then took on a life of its own.
According to Mr. Neugent, later versions added even more inflammatory
language to the reply. The original reply is shown below. The
later additions are shown with brackets. I'm not sure why someone
felt the need to embellish the message. It was certainly bad enough
on its own.
After Mr. Neugent's letter began circulating on the web,
ABC was besieged with email regarding the awful message he had received.
ABC began sending out a generic apology to all who wrote. According
to Mr. Neugent, he also sent a copy to the ABC affiliate station in Little
Rock, Arkansas. He believes that the station must have contacted ABC
directly, because a few days later, he received a letter of apology from
Daren Benzi of ABC. While the letter did contain an apology, Mr.
Benzi continued to defend ABC's programming. This letter is also
After receiving the information that the writer had been
fired and the apology, Mr. Neugent tried to get another email message into
circulation with this corrected info, but to no avail. No one, it
seems, was interested.
Message as it now being
circulated on the web. Brackets show additions by unknown
source to original letter.
I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning
a program called "THE PRACTICE." One of the
lawyer's mother's decided she was gay and wanted her son to go to
court to help her get a marriage license to marry her
"partner." I sent the following letter to ABC
yesterday and really did not expect a reply. . . but I did get
one. My original message was:
ABC is obsessed (or should I say
abscessed) the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer
watch any of your attempts to convince the world that
homosexuality is OK. THE PRACTICE can be a fairly good show
but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You
picked the "dufus" of the office to be the one who was
against the idea of his mother being gay and made him look like a
whiner because he had convictions. This type of mentality
calls people like me a "gay basher." Read the
first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) to see what the
apostle Paul had to say about it. He and God and Jesus were
all "gay bashers." What if she'd fallen in love
with her cocker spaniel. . . is that an alternative lifestyle?
(By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.) Jim
Here is ABC's reply from the ABC
How about getting your nose out of
the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY
different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the Declaration
of Independence (what our nation is built on) where it says
"All Men are Created Equal" and try treating them that
way for a change? Or better yet, try thinking for
yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your [lame]*
crutch for your existence. [You are in the minority in this
country and your boycott will not affect us or our freedom of
*later additions to the
Webmaster employee's original message to Mr. Neugent.
My second response to ABC:
Thanks for your reply.
Evidently, I hit a nerve from your harsh reply. I will share
it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the
Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their
columns, and. . . I will be praying for you.
Here is the rest of the story:
ABC's generic reply to complainants:
I would like to send out this apology on
behalf of one of our ex-freelancers that worked with us in the Webmaster
Department. An email was sent out in response to Jim Neugent's mail
regarding his feeling offense towards an episode of "The
Practice." This person's response was by no means the views
shared by this organization, but of a personal opinion, and should not
have been sent out.
The sole purpose of the Webmaster is to fix
any problems that occur on the website and to help our users with any
technical difficulties that they may run into while using the site.
It is, by no means, to be used as a medium to express one's own personal
Again, our Webmaster Division wished to
apologize for any misgivings that this ex-freelancer may have caused and
thanks you for bringing this concern to our attention.
ABC Webmaster Division
Reply to Mr. Neugent from Daren A.
Benzi, ABC - April 14, 1999
Dear Mr. Neugent:
We apologize for the email message that was
sent to you with comments that reflect neither the view of ABC nor of its
executives. Viewer mail is traditionally handled by our Audience
Information department for responses.
Your message was inappropriately handled by
a programmer from ABC.com. I want to assure you that the response
that you received does not in any way reflect the views of ABC Television,
and most importantly is not at all consistent with the manner in which
KATV, our valued partner in Little Rock, would ever treat their
Unfortunately, as in any organization,
there are bound to be a few individuals that step out of line. To
that end, we completed a comprehensive investigation into the matter
earlier this afternoon. While the individual was deeply contrite and
wanted to apologize to you, we felt that his actions were reprehensible
and terminated him immediately.
Specifically in response to your original
concerns regarding the subject of homosexuality in our programming, the
ABC programming department has tried to treat such subjects in a sensitive
manner. We recognize that we are serving a large, diverse audience
with a wide range of attitudes towards all types of entertainment
programming. We believe that programs thoughtfully reflecting social
issues existing in our present society constitute proper television faire.
We appreciate your original comments and
take serious note of your thoughts on the potential direction of future
We are glad that you brought the email
incident to our attention. We truly regret that this happened, and
we hope you understand by our actions that we will not tolerate this kind
of behavior from any member of our staff.
Finally, I would like to once again add
that the response that you received should in no way be attributed to our
partner in Little Rock, KATV. Ad you well know, KATV has been the
news and public affairs leader in Little Rock for years, and will be for
many more. A finer, more committed television station does not
exist. I would not want their reputation to suffer in any way due to
Please accept our apologies and regrets.
Does Target NOT charitably support
veteran's groups but does support "gay and lesbian causes?" FALSE
The original message that began this uproar came from a man named Dick
Forrey from the Howard County Vietnam Veteran's in Indiana.
Mr. Forrey went to his local Target store to ask for financial sponsorship
for a traveling Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Wall exhibit. Individual
Target stores can give gift certificates to support area charities.
That is the same thing Walmart does. The store did offer the gift
certificate, but Mr. Forrey was interested only in a cash donation.
The store failed to tell him that the corporate office had a charitable
giving policy in the form of grants. Forrey finally found this out
and contacted the corporate office. In their correspondence to Mr.
Forrey, they outlined their corporate grant policy as being limited to the
following: "education, arts and family violence prevention."
It is possible that this project may have been considered as educational,
but Mr. Forrey decided not to even try for the grant and
sent off an email stating that, "Personally, I will NOT be buying
anything at Target Stores again. If the Vietnam Veteran does not meet
their area of giving then why should I as a Vietnam veteran, spend my hard
earned money in their stores?" It is very possible, considering
Target's support of the traveling Vietnam wall project (more on that
below), that the project would have qualified. It was Mr.
Forrey's decision not to go any further with the grant request and to put
out this email instead.
In his email, Mr. Forrey
correctly quoted Target's grant policy as being, "education, arts
and family violence prevention." In March 2003, someone
changed Mr. Forrey's words to read, "the arts, social actions, gay and
lesbian causes, and education." Not only does this message
misquote Mr. Forrey, it is a patently false misrepresentation of Target's
charitable grants policy. Target did not respond back to Mr. Forrey
that "veterans do not meet our area of giving." As you will later
see, it would be absurd for them to say such a thing since they are
corporate sponsors of the traveling Viet Nam memorial called "The Wall
I do want to say a couple
of personal words about Mr. Forrey's attitude towards Target. The
fact that Target restricts actual corporate giving to certain areas is not
at all unusual. You cannot imagine how many charitable requests are
received by even the smallest of companies on a daily basis. I
know, I used to be one of the people making those requests.
There's only so much of a pie to go around. The gift certificate
policy of Target is quite generous. There are always small needs at
special events that can be helped with these gift certificates. To
tell a corporation what it can and can't give is a little high-handed.
Even when I asked for a sponsorship, I was grateful if all I got was a
prize or certificate. At least the company wanted to help, even in a
small way. I realize that someone like Mr. Forrey is a volunteer
fund raiser, but even he should realize that not everyone can give and
that some will only be able to give certain things. This
strong-arm approach (give or else I'll make your name mud) is unwarranted.
Mr. Forrey had the opportunity to submit his project to the company for a
grant, just like everyone else. He was the one who decided that the
project did not fit their categories of giving, not Target.
Target was a major corporate sponsor
for the "Wall That
Heals" 2003 tour and many veterans organizations, including the
national chapter of Veterans
of Foreign Wars, have come to the company's defense over this issue.
(information gleaned from Break-The-Chain and Snopes- links shown below).
I have also found out about other veterans issues and groups that
Target supports. These include: Yankee Air Force Museum in Ypsilanti,
Michigan; Hays County Veterans in San Marcos, Texas; Kenny Nickelson
Memorial Foundation for Homeless Veterans in Manhattan Beach, California.
Finally, they are very supportive of the veterans and military reservists
working for them. A recent email lauded Sears for continuing
benefits for reservists, but Target does the same. The Reserve Officers
Association has recognized Target for these benefits.
In a message to me,
Target spokesperson Aimee Sands detailed their policy about the Toys For
Tots issue. "Target greatly respects the good work of the Toys
for Tots program and all the volunteers who make this program a success
every year. Target has a longstanding policy of no-solicitation by any
group or organization at our stores. This policy includes the use of our
store locations as collection or drop off sites for any type of activity.
The only organization that we currently allow to solicit at our stores
during the holiday season is the Salvation Army, due to our longstanding
relationship with this organization."
If we were to follow the
advice of this message, we could not shop at any department store, since
none of them, to my knowledge, are Toys For Tots collection centers.
In my area, the main collection center is at a bank with various churches
and other businesses participating. Not one department store is on
Finally, here are
Target's official words on the subject: "Target Corporation
wholeheartedly supports U.S. veterans, reservists and active duty
personnel. We are proud of our record and remain committed to continuing
support of veteransí organizations as part of our overall charitable
Did Target give the
Salvation Army the boot?
Versions of the previous message coming out in 2006 also accused Target of
booting the Salvation Army. This allegation is true. However,
for many years Target has had a policy of NOT allowing charity groups (or
any groups) to solicit in front of stores. They made an exception
for the Salvation Army. When Target decided not to have the
Salvation Army back in 2005, they pointed to their policy, but no real
explanation was given as to why they chose to break the policy all those
years before nor why they chose that year to boot them. This being
the case, Target was not exhibiting any anti-religious bias.
Is Target French-owned?
The first thing to do is to
define the word "owned." In a publicly traded company, all the
stockholders are the "owners." I suppose one could say that a
company was French owned if the majority of stockholders were from France.
If the company is owned by another company one would need to determine
where the owning company's base of operations is. However, just
because a company's base may be located in one country does not mean that
the company is of that origin. Again, the company may be publicly
traded. Finally, there are companies that are outright owned by a
country itself. An example would be Citgo, which is wholly owned by
the country of Venezuela.
Target Stores is owned by a company out of
Minneapolis that also owns Marshal Fields and Meryvn's. It began in 1902
as the Dayton Dry Goods Company out of Minneapolis. The company name was
changed to Dayton's in 1953. The first Target Store opens in 1962. In
1971, the company merges with J.L. Hudson, a Detroit company which owns
shopping centers and Mervyn's. They then became the Dayton-Hudson Company.
They acquired Marshal Field's in 1990. In 1996, the main focus of their
community giving becomes education. In 2000 they officially change their
name to Target Corporation. The HQ is still in Minneapolis. The company
does have publicly traded stocks, so persons residing in France could
certainly own stocks.
Is Petro Express
actually by Citgo by another name?
At the time of
this message (early 2006), the Petro Express chain was American owned and
headquarters was in Charlotte, NC. In 2007, Pantry, Inc. (Kangaroo)
bought Petro Express. Pantry is located Sanford, NC. Apparently,
someone had a grudge against the chain and started the email in 2006.
Petro Express had purchased some of their gas from Citgo
in the past. In late 2006 they decided not to purchase any more gas
from Citgo and to use only their name brand.
The original email was copied from an AFA Action Alert and
did not mention Petro Express. It was about boycotting Citgo. In
late 2006 someone added both Circle K and Petro Express and claimed that
Citgo stores were simply changing their name to these. Both
allegations were, and still are false.
Venezuela only owns the Citgo gas refinery. The
country doesn't own the gas stations with the Citgo name. Those are
franchised. However, any station could be selling gasoline refined and
purchased from Citgo.
coming out with new cans with the pledge to the American flag on them MINUS
the words "under God?"
original message that began in 2001 named Dr. Pepper as the culprit, and
although the majority of the information was wrong, there was some grain of
truth to it involving Dr. Pepper.
In 2001, DR. PEPPER, not PEPSI,
put out a limited edition patriotic can. It had a picture of the statue of
Liberty with the words, "ONE NATION . . . INDIVISIBLE"
That's all it said.
Suddenly, the American Family Association had
Christians up in arms, claiming that the company had posted the Pledge of
Allegiance on cans minus the words, "UNDER GOD."
Without benefit of seeing the actual can,
many people wrote angry letters to Dr. Pepper. The company replied to people
that in choosing only those three words, it had not been their intention to
offend anyone. The email that later started as a result of all this claimed
that Dr. Pepper said the opposite. It claimed (just as the message does),
that they had purposely left out the two words in order not to offend
anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Eventually, someone changed the company name
to Pepsi (probably some rabid Coke fan). In retaliation, someone also got a
version going that changed the name to Coke. However, the Pepsi version is
the one that has stuck.
Starbucks/Oscar Meyer/Whatever Co.
Wont' support American military personnel or won't send goods to them
2004, Sgt. Howard Wright was talking to some buddies. One of them
claimed that he heard that some Marines wanted some Starbucks coffee, so
they wrote Starbucks to ask for some to be sent to where they were deployed.
Supposedly, Starbucks wrote back and said that they didn't support the war
nor anyone in it and would not send their coffee. Sgt. Wright became angered
and sent the information along by email. Unfortunately for Sgt. Wright, that
was false story. However, once you send out an email like that, it will take
on a life of it's own. Sgt. Wright, upon learning that it was false, tried
to set the record straight and directly contacted hoax debunking sights
(including this one), but, as in the case of Jim Neugent vs. ABC, no one was
much interested in a nice truth. The nasty lie will continue on and
After I first posted this information, I heard
directly from both
Starbucks employees and Starbucks partners on this one and they say it's a
bunch of baloney. I've also heard from military personnel who are enjoying
their coffee thanks to the Starbucks partners program.
Of course, this had all
the red flags associated with a hoax.
Note that the information is given to the writer
second hand: "some marines (what marines?) wrote to Starbucks . . ." "Starbucks
wrote back. . . " (show the letter and who wrote it). Was it written by a
manager of an individual store who, while having a right to an opinion, has
no rights to speak for the company? Was it written by the Corporation with
a signature by someone authorized to speak for the company? Always ask:
when, where, why, who. Who were these Marines? Who authorized the letter?
What EXACTLY (exact quote) did the letter say? This doesn't meet the W's
Let's look at a couple of other points:
(1) Starbucks is a publicly owned company with a Board of Directors, not
privately owned. If this were true, all of the people on the Board would
have to agree that (a) they don't support the war in Iraq (b) they won't
send any coffee to military personnel as a result. At that point, the
stockholders can rebel. The stockholders own the company.
(2) Starbucks, like other companies, has a
corporate giving policy in writing. It dictates what they can and can't give
to. Many companies limit areas of giving. You have to understand that there
is only so much of a pie to go around. Their policy on this issue is this:
they do not send coffee directly overseas to military personnel, but have
Starbuck's partners do this. You will see their corporate giving policy
outlined in their statement below. Following is Starbuck's reply to me
on this issue.
Thank you for taking the time to contact
Starbucks regarding coffee donations to those serving in our armed forces.
Starbucks has the deepest respect and
admiration for U.S. military personnel. We are extremely grateful to the men
and women who serve stateside or overseas. We sincerely appreciate that they
are willing to risk their lives to protect Americans and our values of
freedom and democracy. While Starbucks as a company cannot directly donate
to military personnel, many of our partners (employees) show their support
by donating coffee.
partners receive one pound of free coffee each week as an employee benefit
(known as "partner mark-out"). Many of our partners have elected to send
their weekly mark-out of coffee to members of the military or military
families, and related organizations. Our partners have collected and shipped
numerous pounds of Starbucks coffee overseas.
As an example of this generosity, our
partners in our Atascadero, California store sent their weekly mark out
coffee to troops in Afghanistan so they are able to enjoy a little piece of
home. Our customer relations department in Seattle donated hundreds of
pounds of coffee to the sailors in the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group.
These are just a few examples of our partners supporting the troops. We
recognize and appreciate the very personal connection that customers have
with us and how they might miss their Starbucks Experience while overseas.
Finally, I would like to take this
opportunity to clarify Starbucks' policy regarding charitable contributions.
We are able to donate to nonprofit organizations that are designated as
public charities under Section 501(c) (3) of the IRS Code, and are extended
to public libraries and schools. Over the years, Starbucks has built many
enduring relationships with nonprofit organizations that are aligned with
our focus areas of charitable giving. The U.S. military or individual
military personnel do not qualify as a public charity.
Thank you again for writing and ask you to
accept our deepest appreciation to servicemen and women and hope you remain
a valued Starbucks customer.
In 2007 someone changed the name of the company from
Starbucks to Oscar Meyer and had the troops wanting hot dogs! The rest
of the message was exactly the same, word for word.
Hershey PA Chocolate plant moving to Mexico?
plant is not closing nor is Hershey's moving to Mexico. It is opening a
plant in Mexico, but the U.S. will not be the market for the products
Hershey's plants that are closing include all Canadian
operations, Oakdale, CA, Naugatuck, CT & Reading, PA (not Hershey, PA).
They don't have operations in Canada anymore either.
The Hershey, PA plant was cutting 10% of its workforce in
2007, shutting down Oakdale, CA, Naugatuck, CT & Reading, PA. They
were cutting about 900 jobs among 3 plants in Hershey, PA. It was
reducing the different lines it produces by a third. This was partly due to
change in American eating habits.
The issue in 2010
is a new deal with the union. More jobs will probably be lost if the
deal is struck. As of June 2010 their is a tentative deal awaiting
vote by the union which will affect the Hershey, PA plants.
announce that they would begin to mostly use South American beef?
The message that
began circulating in 2002 not only claims that McDonalds announced this, but
that the original message was sent by the Texas Cattle Feeders Association.
The Texas Cattle Feeders Association has
denied any involvement in this
At the time the
message came out McDonald's was importing small quantities of beef (1%) from
two other high beef producing nations: Australia and New Zealand, not South
America. It was somewhat cheaper, but the issue was that there simply isn't
enough production of lean beef in the US to satisfy all the demand. In the
message it is claimed that McDonalds said that there wasn't enough U.S.
beef, not lean beef. Further, standards are HIGHER in those 2 countries and
there is less grain fed beef. This results in less antibiotics being
needed. The grain fed beef fattens faster, but they don't naturally eat
grain, so the antibiotics are needed to fight off infections. These are
blamed for several childhood health issues. I already try to find cheese
listed where the milk is coming from animals given no antibiotics. The
grain fed beef is still somewhat more expensive.
So, far from putting the public at risk, the addition of
Australian & New Zealand beef is actually a slight improvement. Further,
you'd have to avoid ALL the rest of the fast food joints as well. McDonald
says that all foreign beef used is USDA approved and inspected. Burger
King has been using beef from Australia and New Zealand for years prior to
this and Taco Bell, Wendy's and Carls Jr. use up to 50% foreign beef.
McDonald's claims to be the biggest purchaser of beef in the U.S. as it uses
over one billion pounds per year.
I've noticed that that in the natural beef section of the
grocery stores, much of the grain fed beef is shown as being from Australia.
American cattle ranchers have been taking notice and more and more beef is
being raised without grain and without antibiotics. When the majority of
cattle are raised like this, the price for American beef will come down.
That will make it competitive with Australia.
Dispelling Coke Use Mythology
Ah, Coke mythology! Actually, nearly
everyone of these items has been debunked.
In many states the highway
patrol carries two gallons of Coke in the trunk to remove blood
from the highway after a car accident.FALSE.
No one who has investigated this message has been able to locate
any highway patrol unit that carries Coke for blood removal. As
one research said, "Plain water would be as effective and less
costly for cleaning pavement." It would certainly leave a nice
sticky mess on the pavement that would have to be rinsed off
with - you guessed it - WATER. Just use water in the first
place! If anyone ever finds a highway patrol unit spending money
on Coke and claiming it's for blood removal, turn 'em in and
tell them to buy their Cokes with their own money.
You can put a T-bone steak in
a bowl of coke and it will be gone in two days.
FALSE. Try the experiment yourself. Loads of people
have. It does not work. The steak will get very mushy from the
liquid and it will tenderize. It won't dissolve.
To clean a toilet: Pour a can
of Coca-Cola into the toilet bowl...Let the "real thing" sit for
one hour, then flush clean.FALSE. Coke
will be a poor china cleaner. The only cleaning properties in
Coke is the carbonic acid (which will cause a bit of foaming)
and the small amount of citric acid (a known cleaner helper).
However, the carmel coloring and sugar will not be helpful.
Besides, since when does a liquid adhere to the sides of the
bowl? It doesn't. Anyone can tell you that carmel coloring
stains. You'd do better with plain baking soda or clear, sugar
free soda water. This has also been tried with poor results.
The citric acid in Coke
removes stains from vitreous china.SAME.
To remove rust spots from
chrome car bumpers: Rub the bumper with a crumpled-up piece of
Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil dipped in Coca-Cola. Dip the
aluminum in any liquid, or again, in baking soda charged water.
Better than leaving yourself with a sticky mess.
To clean corrosion from car
battery terminals: Pour a can of Coca-Cola over the terminals to
bubble away the corrosion.Same to same.
It's the soda, so any form of foaming soda will work. Again,
better than leaving yourself with a sticky mess to clean up.
To loosen a rusted bolt:
Applying a cloth soaked in Coca-Cola to the rusted bolt for
several minutes.Same to same. However,
further down I provide a link by a young lady who thought she'd
try these things as an experiment. She says that numbers
3 - 7 don't work at all.
To bake a moist ham: Empty a
can of Coca-Cola into the baking pan; wrap the ham in aluminum
foil, and bake. Thirty minutes before the ham is finished,
remove the foil, allowing the drippings to mix with the Coke for
a sumptuous brown gravy.Of course Coke is great
for ham. The soda and citric acid help in tenderizing,
while the sugar and flavorings penetrate the ham and make it
taste good. In Texas, we used Dr. Pepper instead.
We also used it for roast and for brisket. I thought this
anti-coke missive was supposed to be dissing Coke, but here is a
To remove grease from clothes: Empty a can of coke into a
load of greasy clothes, add detergent, And run through a regular
cycle. The Coca-Cola will help loosen grease stains. It will
also clean road haze from your windshield.
about to put a can of sugared, carmel colored liquid in MY wash.
Again, the young lady said it didn't work (I didn't think it
would). Why leave yourself with sticky clothes that have to be
washed again in - you guessed it - WATER! She
did say that the windshield idea worked, but that her windshield
was then all sticky. Ah, sugar! Use windex or a good windshield
The PH in the phosphorus is
actually higher than stated. It won't dissolve a nail (been
tried). Lemon juice is far more acidic. Even OJ contains more
phosphoric acid than Coke.
Trucks carrying sodas often have
to carry haz-mat warnings, but not because the spillage of Coke
could be hazardous. The same would be true of beer, champagne,
plain soda water, etc., because in all of those, the carbonation
is kept in under pressure. You know what happens if a soda can
bursts or the champagne cork blows off! Yes, there certainly
could be danger.
Coke doesn't use the soda to
clean truck engines. They'd have to be crazy to pour all that
corn syrup over an engine! What they'd end up with is a sticky
engine that will commence to smoking. Next time you see a
delivery truck, ask the driver. It's not a good idea anyway to
wash an engine unless itís done by a professional.
The disintegrating tooth idea
wouldn't fare any better than the meat or the nail. If Coke
can't eat away at a steak, how's it going to do so with a tooth?
It's the cumulative effect of the sugars that promote tooth
decay and help to wear away enamel. Also, the message claims that Coke is a good cleaner for toilets
and china. If it would eat away a tooth, why would it be good
for any kind of enamel finish? After the soda cleans it and the soda goes flat, all that will
be left is corn syrup, flavorings and colorings. The corn syrup
will make the tooth sticky and the colorings will discolor it.
That's all. Soda is a good cleaner, but not corn syrup.
I use baking soda and vinegar for cleaning quite often.
As to the idea that we're getting
aluminum from drinking soda, how come in all these umpteen years
that vegetables and everything else under the sun have been
canned in aluminum, the writer isn't wondering why we aren't
getting aluminum from that? If they're really concerned, they
could buy soda only in plastic or glass containers. Would that
solve the problem? No, because they'll be yelling about the
plastic. There are plenty of unscientific messages
floating around the internet about plastics.
If sugar is the cause of
arthritis, then just about everyone should have it. Lot's of my
friends guzzle sugar and sodas and don't have it. It is
certainly one the catalysts for diabetes.
When you order from Amazon, support Truth
Miners by clicking this link first
Truth Miners is run by, owned by, written by and maintained by Cathy Holden -
all articles, unless noted, are written by me. Ask for reprint permission