Paul--
Some of us are so sensitized to goofy stuff in this newsgroup that we
over-react, sometimes without careful reading (I have done so myself,
recently). I agree you introduced the topic in a spirit of inquiry. I
am glad that it was not widely cross-posted so we don't have to deal
with REAL flamers (and a few ashes) flooding in from even kookier
newsgroups.
I, for one, have appreciated the response(s) pointing out the precise
quantitative implications of aspartame intake (e.g. the minuscule
amounts of methanol by product compared with amounts normally produced
in gut, amounts necessary for tissue damage, etc.).
F. LeFever
In <36A1E832.D069E90E at mindspring.com> Paul Rosete
<prosete at mindspring.com> writes:
>>Richard Norman wrote:
>>> So we are back to the Aspartame flames on this news group, are we?
>> We went through all this a few years ago.
>>[snip info on aspartame]
>>>> If you don't like the stuff, don't use it. But also don't spread
>> hysteria.
>>It was just a question; don't know why you interpreted it as a flame.
>Being new to the 'net, I guess I don't yet have the knack for writing
>posts so that readers like you don't interpret them as flames.
>>In my post I said I have a _fondness_ for Diet Cokes (this being the
>reason why my friend sent me a copy of her office e-mail). I'm not
sure
>why you interpreted this as not liking "the stuff." As for hysteria,
>again, how could I have worded my general question without referencing
the
>article? I believe I indicated that I was skeptical about its claim
and
>wanted to get some opinions from those who were versed in this issue,
or,
>at least, had some knowledge about it.
>>Next time, ignore my posts...or at least read them correctly.
>>--
>Paul Rosete <prosete at mindspring.com>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>For e-mail reply, please remove the X from <Xprosete>
>ThanXs!
>>