Re: Raw Egg Safety

[Guest guest]

So the game is that you can respond, but if I don't like what you

posted, I can't reply. Sorry - won't play that.

I'm not sure I comprehend how the term, " the way God made it " was not

religious in nature. If it isn't, please explain how it isn't. I

believe that it was intended to be religious, as I understand the

term. That does not necessarily imply denominational - but the

implication was that a divine being created this food the way that it

is, and that his has implications about the way that we as humans

should behave, regardless of any logical or scientific evidence that

may exist to the contrary.

I'm not sure what a 'silly tone' is - I don't think that the statement

had a silly tone, but I thought that it was silly, at least in the

context of this forum not being a religious one.

I know what the meaning of the statement was. However, in the context,

the meaning was that they 'appreciated' foods in their most natural

state, even if scientific evidence might show that it wasn't the most

nutritious to eat, or even if it was shown to be harmful. Why - well

because the big cheese created it in that form for us to eat.

> I don't want to start anything, but I feel the need to reply. " The

> statement in which God was evoked was silly " is nonsense. To use the

> term " the way God made it " does not necessarily imply a religious

> tone, or a silly tone for that matter. But, so what if it does. The

> meaning is clear. The writer simply meant that they appreciate foods

> in their most natural state. How is that silly?

>

> Anyway, please don't respond. I'm sorry for dragging out something

> that should be past, but I felt the need to say something

>

>

>

> Ken

>

>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hi All,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I consume raw egg yolks - mostly in dressings like

> mayonnaise. I have

> > > > > > a friend who is a bit hesitant due to salmonella fears - I

> am pretty

> > > > > > sure that the incidence of salmonella in eggs is pretty

> low -

> > > > > > especially in organic - pastured raised eggs - does anyone

> have any

> > > > > > advice, data or articles on this subject?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks for your help,

> > > > > > Sue

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> I know what the meaning of the statement was. However, in the context,

> the meaning was that they 'appreciated' foods in their most natural

> state, even if scientific evidence might show that it wasn't the most

> nutritious to eat, or even if it was shown to be harmful. Why - well

> because the big cheese created it in that form for us to eat.

And god or no, I think that's the real point. An egg is produced with

a white, and of course it starts out its existence raw, but the yolk

is the most nutritious part and should ideally be consumed raw, while

the white is best discarded and if consumed at all should really be

cooked. And then of course there's all the (traditional) processing

that must be done if grains and legumes and other foods from the

vegetable kingdom are to be consumed without suffering from phytic

acid and other antinutrients, and that's not to mention that pretty

much all our foods, animal AND vegetable, have been drastically

modified by selective breeding for thousands upon thousands of years

from their pre-human-intervention states which themselves were in a

continuing state of change anyway.

-

[Guest guest]

,

If the yolk is food for the growing chick... what happens to the

white in the egg?

--- In , Idol <Idol@...>

wrote:

>

> Gene-

>

> > I know what the meaning of the statement was. However, in the

context,

> > the meaning was that they 'appreciated' foods in their most

natural

> > state, even if scientific evidence might show that it wasn't the

most

> > nutritious to eat, or even if it was shown to be harmful. Why -

well

> > because the big cheese created it in that form for us to eat.

>

> And god or no, I think that's the real point. An egg is produced

with

> a white, and of course it starts out its existence raw, but the

yolk

> is the most nutritious part and should ideally be consumed raw,

while

> the white is best discarded and if consumed at all should really

be

> cooked. And then of course there's all the (traditional)

processing

> that must be done if grains and legumes and other foods from the

> vegetable kingdom are to be consumed without suffering from phytic

> acid and other antinutrients, and that's not to mention that

pretty

> much all our foods, animal AND vegetable, have been drastically

> modified by selective breeding for thousands upon thousands of

years

> from their pre-human-intervention states which themselves were in

a

> continuing state of change anyway.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

>And god or no, I think that's the real point. An egg is produced with

>a white, and of course it starts out its existence raw, but the yolk

>is the most nutritious part and should ideally be consumed raw, while

>the white is best discarded and if consumed at all should really be

>cooked. And then of course there's all the (traditional) processing

>that must be done if grains and legumes and other foods from the

>vegetable kingdom are to be consumed without suffering from phytic

>acid and other antinutrients, and that's not to mention that pretty

>much all our foods, animal AND vegetable, have been drastically

>modified by selective breeding for thousands upon thousands of years

>from their pre-human-intervention states which themselves were in a

>continuing state of change anyway.

Keeping in mind that quantities of any grains are a relatively new

addition to the human diet. -Allan

[Guest guest]

It should be easy to look up the instance of salmonella online. In

factory eggs, it used to be quite low, one in every 20,000 to 30,000

factory eggs when I looked it up 17 years ago . . . . Considering that

the highest risk eggs go to food service establishments, and other

factories, your chances of getting it from factory eggs are slim, with

pastured eggs nearly none. IIRC there is actually a strain of salmonella

found in the factory eggs, which isn't even harbored in the pastured

eggs. S. enterococcus? S. enteronomemorius? I have eaten raw eggs my

entire life (usually yolks), factory farmed or pastured, and never had a

problem.

If your friend has good flora, I can't see how a little salmonella will

take her down much, anyway. I have drunk 2 tablespoons of raw factory

farmed turkey breast blood/liquid by accident, and all I got was a bit of

the runs.

Desh

[Guest guest]

I just read this on another group. the avidin in raw egg whites is removed if

the egg is

fertilized. anyone heard this?

>

> -

>

> > , maybe avidin in eggs evolved to help reduce the number of egg

> > predators. From what you are saying, it should tend to cause

> > declining health in predators that eat a large number of eggs, unless

> > the predator has evolved ways to deal with the avidin.

>

> Yes, very likely. I found this article on the pesticidal effects of

> avidin awhile ago. <http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/aug00/egg0800.htm

> > It concerns the creation of avidin-producing corn to fight off

> insects, which is its own separate nightmare, but here's a highlight.

>

> >> Biotin—a common vitamin—is essential for insect growth and

> >> development. Avidin restricts the availability of biotin, so the

> >> insect stops developing and dies. Avidin may have a similar role in

> >> chicken egg whites—to protect chicken embryos from disease-causing

> >> organisms that require biotin to grow.

>

> And another.

>

> >> When kernels of avidin corn were infested with Angoumois grain

> >> moths or maize weevils, most of the larvae died inside kernels that

> >> contained at least 20 parts per million of avidin. Cornmeal

> >> obtained from the avidin corn was resistant to all common U.S.

> >> storage pests. Meal with more than 100 ppm avidin killed larvae of

> >> lesser grain borers, red flour beetles, confused flour beetles,

> >> sawtoothed grain beetles, flat grain beetles, warehouse beetles,

> >> Indianmeal moths, and Mediterranean flour moths.

>

>

> > Is it safe to assume that there is little or no avidin in the yolk?

>

> Yup. There's lots of biotin in the yolk, and avidin in the yolk would

> bind it and render it unavailable to the chick.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carolyn-

> I just read this on another group. the avidin in raw egg whites is

> removed if the egg is

> fertilized. anyone heard this?

It presumably would be broken down or otherwise deactivated

*eventually*, but when consuming a fertilized egg, the chick has

barely even begun to begin to develop, and it (and the yolk) are still

in abundant need of the protective chemicals in the white, so while I

have no hard data on the subject, I expect it's overwhelmingly likely

that all or virtually all of the avidin is still intact in a

fertilized egg and ready to bind to biotin.

-

[Guest guest]

--- Carolyn wrote:

> > I just read this on another group. the avidin in raw egg whites is

> > removed if the egg is

> > fertilized. anyone heard this?

>

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> It presumably would be broken down or otherwise deactivated

> *eventually*, but when consuming a fertilized egg, the chick has

> barely even begun to begin to develop, and it (and the yolk) are

> still in abundant need of the protective chemicals in the white, so

> while I have no hard data on the subject, I expect it's

> overwhelmingly likely that all or virtually all of the avidin is

> still intact in a fertilized egg and ready to bind to biotin.

,

Balut is popular in Southeast Asia - an egg with a " nearly-developed

embryo inside that is boiled and eaten in the shell " :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut

But then you might as well let it grow up and eat chicken ?

[Guest guest]

-

> Balut is popular in Southeast Asia - an egg with a " nearly-developed

> embryo inside that is boiled and eaten in the shell " :

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut

Yeah, it's big in the Philippines. But at that point, I'd imagine

that the avidin is gone.

> But then you might as well let it grow up and eat chicken ?

Haven't tried it myself, so I don't know, but I've heard balut tastes

like chicken (what doesn't?) so maybe. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

Allyn,

> I eat raw eggs as well. I have read some info somewhere about raw eggs

> (don't remember where or when) but the chance of salmonella is very low. I

> think Mercola had some info on it a few years back but he feels you should

> not eat the whites. I feel it is the way God made the egg so why should I

> have to separate it. Just my opinion.

This seems every bit analogous to saying that God made the banana with

a peel so I don't see why I should have to take it off before I eat

it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ken,

> I don't want to start anything, but I feel the need to reply. " The

> statement in which God was evoked was silly " is nonsense. To use the

> term " the way God made it " does not necessarily imply a religious

> tone, or a silly tone for that matter. But, so what if it does. The

> meaning is clear. The writer simply meant that they appreciate foods

> in their most natural state. How is that silly?

It's not the statement you quote that's silly. It's the way in which

it was applied. It completely left out the fact that God actually

made the egg with a shell. And he certainly didn't make it attached

to a frying pan. So is this how we should eat eggs? Bite into it

raw, shell and all? If the basic line of reasoning is carried out

without major selectivity, the silliness becomes pretty apparent.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> If the yolk is food for the growing chick... what happens to the

> white in the egg?

I've always wondered if the avidin gets neutralized when the chick

grows, like the phytates do when seesd sprout.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Game? Of course you can reply. How could I stop you? I simply

wanted to make my statement, which I have. I'll add that instead of

saying that " the big cheese made it that way " , you could also say that

we've evolved to best make use of it in that form. Does it really

matter? I guess I just see it as a matter of semantics, and

you...well I guess you read more into it than I do.

Ken

--- In , Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>

wrote:

>

>

> So the game is that you can respond, but if I don't like what you

> posted, I can't reply. Sorry - won't play that.

>

> I'm not sure I comprehend how the term, " the way God made it " was not

> religious in nature. If it isn't, please explain how it isn't. I

> believe that it was intended to be religious, as I understand the

> term. That does not necessarily imply denominational - but the

> implication was that a divine being created this food the way that it

> is, and that his has implications about the way that we as humans

> should behave, regardless of any logical or scientific evidence that

> may exist to the contrary.

>

> I'm not sure what a 'silly tone' is - I don't think that the statement

> had a silly tone, but I thought that it was silly, at least in the

> context of this forum not being a religious one.

>

> I know what the meaning of the statement was. However, in the context,

> the meaning was that they 'appreciated' foods in their most natural

> state, even if scientific evidence might show that it wasn't the most

> nutritious to eat, or even if it was shown to be harmful. Why - well

> because the big cheese created it in that form for us to eat.

>

>

>

> > I don't want to start anything, but I feel the need to reply. " The

> > statement in which God was evoked was silly " is nonsense. To use the

> > term " the way God made it " does not necessarily imply a religious

> > tone, or a silly tone for that matter. But, so what if it does. The

> > meaning is clear. The writer simply meant that they appreciate foods

> > in their most natural state. How is that silly?

> >

> > Anyway, please don't respond. I'm sorry for dragging out something

> > that should be past, but I felt the need to say something

> >

> >

> >

> > Ken

> >

[Guest guest]

Well my reason tells me god put the egg yolk with the white in a shell

to grow up to be a chicken, not for some primates to come along and

crack it open and slurp it up...It was made the way it was to develop

into life.

What we do with it is already going against its original purpose, so

regardless of whether we eat the yolk seperate or with the white, its

in my opinion that its already going against what the egg was

originally intended for by god.

-

>

> Allyn,

>

> > I eat raw eggs as well. I have read some info somewhere about raw

eggs

> > (don't remember where or when) but the chance of salmonella is

very low. I

> > think Mercola had some info on it a few years back but he feels

you should

> > not eat the whites. I feel it is the way God made the egg so why

should I

> > have to separate it. Just my opinion.

>

> This seems every bit analogous to saying that God made the banana with

> a peel so I don't see why I should have to take it off before I eat

> it.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Well, you couldn't stop me, but you said, " please don't respond " . I'm

not sure what the purpose of that would be, other than (to the best of

your ability) to preclude me from responding. Perhaps you meant, 'how

do you think the Giants will do this year? " .

Actually, I don't see it as a matter of 'just' semantics... and

have addressed pretty much the same issue in their particular

styles, which most people find less annoying than mine. Please don't

respond.

> Game? Of course you can reply. How could I stop you? I simply

> wanted to make my statement, which I have. I'll add that instead of

> saying that " the big cheese made it that way " , you could also say that

> we've evolved to best make use of it in that form. Does it really

> matter? I guess I just see it as a matter of semantics, and

> you...well I guess you read more into it than I do.

>

> Ken

>

>

> >

> >

> > So the game is that you can respond, but if I don't like what you

> > posted, I can't reply. Sorry - won't play that.

> >

> > I'm not sure I comprehend how the term, " the way God made it " was

> not

> > religious in nature. If it isn't, please explain how it isn't. I

> > believe that it was intended to be religious, as I understand the

> > term. That does not necessarily imply denominational - but the

> > implication was that a divine being created this food the way that

> it

> > is, and that his has implications about the way that we as humans

> > should behave, regardless of any logical or scientific evidence that

> > may exist to the contrary.

> >

> > I'm not sure what a 'silly tone' is - I don't think that the

> statement

> > had a silly tone, but I thought that it was silly, at least in the

> > context of this forum not being a religious one.

> >

> > I know what the meaning of the statement was. However, in the

> context,

> > the meaning was that they 'appreciated' foods in their most natural

> > state, even if scientific evidence might show that it wasn't the

> most

> > nutritious to eat, or even if it was shown to be harmful. Why - well

> > because the big cheese created it in that form for us to eat.

> >

> >

> >

> > > I don't want to start anything, but I feel the need to reply. " The

> > > statement in which God was evoked was silly " is nonsense. To use

> the

> > > term " the way God made it " does not necessarily imply a religious

> > > tone, or a silly tone for that matter. But, so what if it does.

> The

> > > meaning is clear. The writer simply meant that they appreciate

> foods

> > > in their most natural state. How is that silly?

> > >

> > > Anyway, please don't respond. I'm sorry for dragging out something

> > > that should be past, but I felt the need to say something

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Ken

> > >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I've always wondered if the avidin gets neutralized when the chick

> grows, like the phytates do when seesd sprout.

I'd think that's the most likely scenario, though I suppose it's

possible that the developing chick consumes and utilizes all the

biotin in the yolk before getting to the white, at which point maybe

the white would be harmless to it.

-

[Guest guest]

I have been " watching " all the " comments " today over my " silly " statement

and I am sorry I said what I did. Not because I don't mean what I said but

because as I had mentioned this would be blown out of proportion and

discussed and torn apart and I personally think this is all ridiculous!

This group used to be very interesting and there was lots of information to

be had but it appears to me that in the last couple months people are too

busy dissecting and tearing apart things people say and I don't think it has

been a good turn for this group. I used to be very involved in discussions

on this group but I find it now has come to just nit picking.

I don't care whether anyone thinks god made the egg or if you should eat it

with or without the yolk, eat the damn egg any way you want but stop this

nonsense of tearing apart everything someone says.

I am not going to respond to anymore comments about the egg.

Maybe you people are all way too bored or something but after several years

of being on this group and enjoying it I find I will put it on digest and

glance at it once in awhile and hope things change.

Please don't respond to this message or try to nitpick it or tear it into

miniscule little pieces or dissect it down to the smallest detail. It

really is not that important.

Allyn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Masterjohn

Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:21 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Raw Egg Safety

Allyn,

> I eat raw eggs as well. I have read some info somewhere about raw eggs

> (don't remember where or when) but the chance of salmonella is very low. I

> think Mercola had some info on it a few years back but he feels you should

> not eat the whites. I feel it is the way God made the egg so why should I

> have to separate it. Just my opinion.

This seems every bit analogous to saying that God made the banana with

a peel so I don't see why I should have to take it off before I eat

it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Below is an article I found on the avidin issue.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/11/13/eggs-part-two.aspx

*Revised Recommendations For Raw Egg Whites *

Earlier this summer, I posted an article that suggested that one should not

eat raw egg whites. This is the traditional nutritional dogma as raw egg

whites contain a glycoprotein called avidin that is very effective at

binding biotin, one of the B vitamins. The concern is that this can lead to

a biotin deficiency. The simple solution is to cook the egg whites as this

completely deactivates the avidin.

The problem is that it also completely deactivates nearly every other

protein in the egg white. While you will still obtain nutritional benefits

from consuming cooked egg whites, from a nutritional perspective it would

seem far better to consume them uncooked.

Since making the recommendation in July, I have more carefully studied this

issue. Two groups brought me to back this: pet owners who feed their pets

raw foods and Aajonus Vonderplanitz, who wrote the raw food book We Want to

Live <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1889356778/optimalwellnessc>.

Both feel quite strongly that raw eggs are just fine to eat.

After my recent studies it became clear that the egg's design carefully

compensated for this issue.

It put tons of biotin in the egg yolk. Egg yolks have one of the highest

concentrations of biotin found in nature. So it is likely that you will not

have a biotin deficiency if you consume the whole raw egg, yolk and white.

It is also clear, however, that if you only consume raw egg whites, you are

nearly guaranteed to develop a biotin deficiency unless you take a biotin

supplement.

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Irene <irene10@...> wrote:

> I believe cassava is one of those things that is very toxic is its

> natural

> state and must be " processed " before eating. That is where they get

> tapioca.

> Irene

>

>

> At 02:17 PM 4/10/08, you wrote:

>

> >But, the fact is that you don't....it really isn't possible. And in some

> >cases, it might be true that foods might be better for you in a slightly

> >altered form - after all, all animals aren't the same, and how can you

> >discern whether God made a particular food exactly as it is for people,

> or

> >maybe for warthogs?

> >

> >--------- Re: Raw Egg Safety

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Have no science to back me up but I've been eating one raw egg

> almost

> > > > every day for the past 5 or 6 years. My free range chickens, my

> eggs,

> > > > no problem.

> > > >

> > > > Belinda

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi All,

> > > > >

> > > > > I consume raw egg yolks - mostly in dressings like mayonnaise. I

> have

> > > > > a friend who is a bit hesitant due to salmonella fears - I am

> pretty

> > > > > sure that the incidence of salmonella in eggs is pretty low -

> > > > > especially in organic - pastured raised eggs - does anyone have

> any

> > > > > advice, data or articles on this subject?

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks for your help,

> > > > > Sue

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

But you're acting as if it's very important...

> I have been " watching " all the " comments " today over my " silly "

> statement

> and I am sorry I said what I did. Not because I don't mean what I

> said but

> because as I had mentioned this would be blown out of proportion and

> discussed and torn apart and I personally think this is all

> ridiculous!

> This group used to be very interesting and there was lots of

> information to

> be had but it appears to me that in the last couple months people

> are too

> busy dissecting and tearing apart things people say and I don't

> think it has

> been a good turn for this group. I used to be very involved in

> discussions

> on this group but I find it now has come to just nit picking.

> I don't care whether anyone thinks god made the egg or if you should

> eat it

> with or without the yolk, eat the damn egg any way you want but stop

> this

> nonsense of tearing apart everything someone says.

>

> I am not going to respond to anymore comments about the egg.

>

> Maybe you people are all way too bored or something but after

> several years

> of being on this group and enjoying it I find I will put it on

> digest and

> glance at it once in awhile and hope things change.

>

> Please don't respond to this message or try to nitpick it or tear it

> into

> miniscule little pieces or dissect it down to the smallest detail. It

> really is not that important.

>

> Allyn

>

> From:

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Chris

> Masterjohn

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:21 PM

>

> Subject: Re: Re: Raw Egg Safety

>

> Allyn,

>

> > I eat raw eggs as well. I have read some info somewhere about raw

> eggs

> > (don't remember where or when) but the chance of salmonella is

> very low. I

> > think Mercola had some info on it a few years back but he feels

> you should

> > not eat the whites. I feel it is the way God made the egg so why

> should I

> > have to separate it. Just my opinion.

>

> This seems every bit analogous to saying that God made the banana with

> a peel so I don't see why I should have to take it off before I eat

> it.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

I believe cassava is one of those things that is very toxic is its natural

state and must be " processed " before eating. That is where they get tapioca.

Irene

At 02:17 PM 4/10/08, you wrote:

>But, the fact is that you don't....it really isn't possible. And in some

>cases, it might be true that foods might be better for you in a slightly

>altered form - after all, all animals aren't the same, and how can you

>discern whether God made a particular food exactly as it is for people, or

>maybe for warthogs?

>

>--------- Re: Raw Egg Safety

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Have no science to back me up but I've been eating one raw egg almost

> > > every day for the past 5 or 6 years. My free range chickens, my eggs,

> > > no problem.

> > >

> > > Belinda

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Hi All,

> > > >

> > > > I consume raw egg yolks - mostly in dressings like mayonnaise. I have

> > > > a friend who is a bit hesitant due to salmonella fears - I am pretty

> > > > sure that the incidence of salmonella in eggs is pretty low -

> > > > especially in organic - pastured raised eggs - does anyone have any

> > > > advice, data or articles on this subject?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for your help,

> > > > Sue

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Jeez, Gene, who cares?

> But you're acting as if it's very important...

-

[Guest guest]

Rashad-

> After my recent studies it became clear that the egg's design

> carefully

> compensated for this issue.

>

> It put tons of biotin in the egg yolk. Egg yolks have one of the

> highest

> concentrations of biotin found in nature. So it is likely that you

> will not

> have a biotin deficiency if you consume the whole raw egg, yolk and

> white.

> It is also clear, however, that if you only consume raw egg whites,

> you are

> nearly guaranteed to develop a biotin deficiency unless you take a

> biotin

> supplement.

Unfortunately, I think Mercola's all wet on this issue. Avidin is not

completely deactivated by cooking, and while there is a good deal of

biotin in the yolk, each molecule of avidin can bind FOUR molecules of

biotin. Furthermore, raw yolks have trypsin inhibitors, and trypsin

is a major enzyme required for successful protein digestion.

-

[Guest guest]

One more question, no make that two..

Would it be ok to eat the yolk at one time and the whites at another?

If not, do I just throw the whites away or scamble them up for the dogs?

Just hate to waste what looks like perfectly good food.....

>

> Chris-

>

> > I've always wondered if the avidin gets neutralized when the chick

> > grows, like the phytates do when seesd sprout.

>

> I'd think that's the most likely scenario, though I suppose it's

> possible that the developing chick consumes and utilizes all the

> biotin in the yolk before getting to the white, at which point maybe

> the white would be harmless to it.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Would it be ok to eat the yolk at one time and the whites at another?

> If not, do I just throw the whites away or scamble them up for the dogs?

> Just hate to waste what looks like perfectly good food.....

Being that dogs are not equivalent to garbage ;-) I wouldn't give them to

the dogs if they are truly harmful to eat alone as suggested. They will

be just as harmful to your dogs, although I'm sure your garbage pail will

not be harmed.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Obviously it annoyed me enough to post, and I have no idea whether

anybody else does, so I guess your statement is rhetorical

> Jeez, Gene, who cares?

>

> > But you're acting as if it's very important...

>

> -

>

>