???? Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Vicanna Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Lots of pseudo-scientists and sociologists (a.k.a> losers) desperately vying for their anonymous> peers' inconsequential approval, too. > > Kudos to those who've lead them so easily up the> garden path. No, really.This could be applied to 90% of threads on here surely? Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630821 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJKillaQueen Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Really insightful addition to the debate Vicanna...no, really...calling anyone retarded is also really insightful.....no really it is............glass houses...stones. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630824 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicanna Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Apologies to all the retards out there. 'Losers' would've been more apropos given the circumstances. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630825 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicanna Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Having said that, whoever's replied with any of the naive conviction of DJKillerQueen to such an obvious wind-uo is a complete mong. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630826 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Medic Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Does anything think there should be showering facilities on buses/trains? Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630829 Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcam Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I'm with the anti-make up on public transport faction but I'm with DJKQ as far as her assessment of this Vicanna individual goes. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630833 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicanna Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Save your breath, edcam. After all, stick and stones may break my bones but lippy on the 176 will never hurt me. Shame we can't say the same about you, eh. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630835 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJKillaQueen Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 You need to address your choice of adjectives Vicanna....being deliberately offensive is not clever. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630839 Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcam Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Nope - doesn't hurt me. I do find your use of the words "retarded" and "mong" tell me pretty much all I need to know about you. That and the "Urban Exploration" *sniggers*.... Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630840 Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Bob* Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 It's 'UrbEx', actually. Now please excuse me, I have to go and WashUp. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630853 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyageur Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 *Bob* Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> It's 'UrbEx', actually. > > Now please excuse me, I have to go and WashUp.And I am being a CoPo tonight.(Couch Potato - natch). Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630854 Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Bob* Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Couch potato? Not my style. There's a dilapidated red telephone box at the bottom of Upland Road with two panes of glass fallen out and a faint whiff of stale urine.Assuming the wife's washed my camo utility trousers and I can find my Argos headtorch - it's game on. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630856 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TE44 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 dg No it is not the same misinformed belief system, the banning of additives in cosmetics and the continueingscientific studys on ingredients like the phthatates,are a real concern and it has been recognised what dangers liewith some of these chemicals, hence the banning.I am aware of louises view but the belief there are toxins so strong they are a publichealth issue is a reality. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630858 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJKillaQueen Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 No it's not a reality...look at the report I posted. It's full of recognised medical bodies disproving those kinds of claims.Just on phthatates alone the report says.....The Campaign?s most recent report, Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance, claims that perfume manufacturers use ?secret? ingredients that are not safe for use in their fragrances. Specifically, the report argues that the cosmetic industry is using a chemical ?cocktail? of phthalates and other compounds that, when inhaled or absorbed through the skin, can stunt genital development and is linked to sperm and hormonal damage.Furthermore, these groups argue most of the ?complex mix of clandestine compounds? has never beentested by the FDA, the International Fragrance Association, or ?any other publicly accountable institution.?The charges that phthalates are a health risk have been completely and directly refuted by experts. Every regulatory agency and science panel that has ever studied the data has concluded there is no evidence that phthalates are an endocrine disrupter or safety risk. This includes the National Toxicology Program at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the European Union?s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety, Cosmetic Ingredient Review, and Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.There is no evidence...and data and evidence is what counts...that supports your 'reality'. If there were evidence I would support your view. And what's truly unforgiveable is that those making the claims can provide no damning evidence either, which is just bad science, and designed to fool the public into thinking there's a problem when there isn't. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630869 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TE44 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Do you think the banning of ppb was done without scientific study. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630872 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyageur Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 There are a number of things that could end up sending me and others near me to our grave. I am confident that my twice daily application of moisturiser and once daily application of make-up isn't one of them :)Long live the painted ladies! Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630873 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyageur Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Voyageur Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> There are a number of things that could end up> sending me and others near me to our graves. I am> confident that my twice daily application of> moisturiser and once daily application of make-up> isn't one of them :)> > Long live the painted ladies! Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630874 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJKillaQueen Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 The report reinforces it's view as follows.....Dose and the degree of exposure.Most of us are familiar with the basic foundation of toxicology, that ?the dose makes the poison.? The Swiss Renaissance chemist Paracelsus laid out the principle back in the 16th century: ?All substances are poisonous, there is none which is not a poison; the right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy.?Yet one of the key approaches of the anti-chemical campaigners?with which the media too often goes along?isto completely disregard the amount of exposure or dose when reporting on the risks of chemicals. The cosmetic preservative parabens, for example, is said by the Campaign and other environmental groups to be linked to breast cancer and hormone dysfunction. Yet scientists have refuted the claims, arguing that concentrations of parabens in personal care products?ranging from 0.01 percent to 0.3 percent are too small to have an adverse effect, and are at levels in our bodies much lower than naturally produced estrogens.THAT's why I believe the science over bad science and wild claims. A chemical naturally produced by the body in higher quantities can not possibly be harmful if present in lower quantities in cosmetics. That's just common sense.You might want to give the report a read TE44 and find some credible conflicting science if you want to to disagree with it. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630876 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 DJKillaQueen Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> No it's not a reality...look at the report I> posted. It's full of recognised medical bodies> disproving those kinds of claims.Ah so that makes it ok does it DJKQ? > > There is no evidence...and data and evidence is> what counts...why is it? how is it? Are you up on all the latest data from science around the world? not all of it is published into the public forum so we are only guessing and/or relying on CURRENT published data. > the claims can provide no damning evidence either,> which is just bad science, and designed to fool> the public into thinking there's a problem when> there isn't.The claims might not be able to supply this damning evidence you ask for DJKQ, but numerous people are put at risk, potentially (apparently there is no published evidence, I disagree) from unknown chemicals which could in a small space create and or enhance existing conditions. What about asthma? We just do not know. I'm glad some other people are finally coming out in full support of my views on here. I spent a rather chilly afternoon in Dulwich Park munching on an ice cream thinking about all of this and whether I had overstepped the mark in my countering DJKQ and her argument. I've now read through recent posts and come to the conclusion I'm more mind made up on this topic than ever. I know I'm right. Louisa. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630878 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicanna Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Looks like I've got under *Bob*'s skin. Disabled kid(s)? Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630879 Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleBen Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Vicanna Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Looks like I've got under *Bob*'s skin. Disabled> kid(s)?I have no idea but I suspect it's your derogatory language that is causing offence. That and your laughable UrbEx Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630880 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 http://www.healthfoodemporium.com/index_dangerous-ingredients.phpI've had a read up on this and the mention of environmental cancers, is quite a frightening link. I did not want to post this earlier because people will try to rip it apart, but if medical and scientific studies currently unpublished back up any such claims then certain cosmetics could be hazardous to lots of people. Less than half a century ago people were working with asbestos unmasked until it was found that it could cause untold numbers of health problems.Louisa. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630881 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TE44 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/phthalates/phthalates.htm Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630886 Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyDeliah Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Huguenot Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Isn't this discussion really about taboos?> > The threat of deadly makeup and homicidal leather> jackets may well be technically 'true' but the> risk is so vanishingly small that there has never> been a documented case to support these ornate> theories.> > It's certainly not big enough to justify the> visceral overreaction of some individuals to such> 'gross' women.> > So isn't this protest really about 'gross' women> upsetting the natural order and threatening the> very fabric of society?> > The fact that the protestors on this thread> regularly find themselves on other threads voicing> traditionalist, conservative, reactionary opinions> would seem to support this?> > The challenge with public makeup is that it> reveals the design and application behind a> woman's outward appearance. It's a statement of> independence - a rejection of the idea that women> are somehow naturally demure, feminine and> retiring 'pretty little things' in favour of more> complex motivations and machinations.> > So these protestations are perhaps the last gasp> of Victorian traditionalists resentful of female> equality?> > For 'gross women putting on makeup in public'> instead read 'women should know their place'.10/10 Totally agree Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630889 Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Bob* Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Vicanna Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Looks like I've got under *Bob*'s skin. Disabled> kid(s)?Oops.. You've overcooked it (again). And so soon too! Pity. Link to comment https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/30711-gross-women/page/9/#findComment-630892 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now