linda wrote:

> ...and Ted is right that i am not real consistent with my beliefs

Well, yeah - that's kind of the inevitable result when someone decides
on what they want the answer to be without checking things out but then
seeks only info. that supports what they've already decided the answer
to be. It goes right along with your just coming down on air bags using
those chemicals without even finding out what led to their use in the
evolution of air bag technology - there could very well be valid reasons
for their use - benefits outweigh the problems until/unless something
better is figured out maybe.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Bill Putney wrote:
> linda wrote:
>
>> ...and Ted is right that i am not real consistent with my beliefs
>
>
> Well, yeah - that's kind of the inevitable result when someone decides
> on what they want the answer to be without checking things out but then
> seeks only info. that supports what they've already decided the answer
> to be. It goes right along with your just coming down on air bags using
> those chemicals without even finding out what led to their use in the
> evolution of air bag technology - there could very well be valid reasons
> for their use - benefits outweigh the problems until/unless something
> better is figured out maybe.


Bill, please look at my initial question again.. i never came down on on
airbags. i just asked had anyone ever heard of any problems associated
with the chemicals used as propellants.. i never gave my opinion one way
or another at first, then i got attacked, and i did do research. found
the same BS that everyone has been spouting off.. however, as stated in
a previous message in another topic, it does happen.... and because the
benefits outweigh the problems, (thereby admitting a problem) does not
make the issue any less serious. i am not an advocate for getting rid
of them, i am an advocate for getting warnings concerning the
possibilites. have you ever looked at the warning labels on stuff..
even stuff that treats hemorrhoids states "don't use orally"... now
someone somewhere must have used it orally to have someone put that
statement on there... just because the normal individual knows better,
and just because someone does not get hurt by the chemicals, does not
mean that others won't, haven't......

i am consistent in my belief that with every good there is some bad, and
that people need to know..

go ahead and give me crap about my writing, and my statements.. i am
used to it..

linda


> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Bill Putney wrote:
> linda wrote:
>
>> ...and Ted is right that i am not real consistent with my beliefs
>
>
> Well, yeah - that's kind of the inevitable result when someone decides
> on what they want the answer to be without checking things out but then
> seeks only info. that supports what they've already decided the answer
> to be. It goes right along with your just coming down on air bags using
> those chemicals without even finding out what led to their use in the
> evolution of air bag technology - there could very well be valid reasons
> for their use - benefits outweigh the problems until/unless something
> better is figured out maybe.


Bill, please look at my initial question again.. i never came down on on
airbags. i just asked had anyone ever heard of any problems associated
with the chemicals used as propellants.. i never gave my opinion one way
or another at first, then i got attacked, and i did do research. found
the same BS that everyone has been spouting off.. however, as stated in
a previous message in another topic, it does happen.... and because the
benefits outweigh the problems, (thereby admitting a problem) does not
make the issue any less serious. i am not an advocate for getting rid
of them, i am an advocate for getting warnings concerning the
possibilites. have you ever looked at the warning labels on stuff..
even stuff that treats hemorrhoids states "don't use orally"... now
someone somewhere must have used it orally to have someone put that
statement on there... just because the normal individual knows better,
and just because someone does not get hurt by the chemicals, does not
mean that others won't, haven't......

i am consistent in my belief that with every good there is some bad, and
that people need to know..

go ahead and give me crap about my writing, and my statements.. i am
used to it..

linda


> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---