Comments | news: V-Gifts, All Around

news

V-Gifts, All Around

Aug 16, 2007 16:55

As the summer (in our hemisphere) draws to a close, many of you are busy getting ready for back to school or whatever the change of season brings. We've got some brand new v-gifts that we hope will make you smile. Thanks to everybody who's helped us with their time, ideas and feedback on LJ policy. If you're interested in following along, you'll ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

Do No Harm Clause? maidenmorticia August 17 2007, 04:21:12 UTC

Dear LJ,

In the TOS you promise not to harm us. And funny, you're now pushing a drink which has "extra caffeine" in it. Do you know how much caffeine harms the body? Check out the sections on overuse & caffeine intoxication. This is especially shocking given that most LJers are impressionable youths. Rather than pushing (or taking money to push) something as unhealthy and harmful as a drink with extra caffeine in it, perhaps you should find something less physically harmful to your members.

It's also not lost on me that Pepsi Co. has been heavily criticised by human rights organisations for a number of business choices over the years, including for having supported the repressive regime in Myanmar/Burma. Again, that kind of action does harm to the people of Myanmar... and should any of them be your customers, you're indirectly harming them. While they did pull out of Myanmar, true, just think of all the countries where you can buy a Pepsi where gov'ts are engaged in the killing of innocent civilians or forcing their young people into the army where they then get forced to fight other people's wars. Again... more harm caused to your users worldwide.

Sigh... Nice try, but I don't need any P-gifts, thanks.

As for a brain in a jar... you make my brain hurt & therefore, I could use one in ajar.

Xo M.

Re: Do No Harm Clause? catvincent August 17 2007, 07:46:17 UTC

Plus PepsiMax is full of aspartame, which was originally created as a neurotoxin for the Pentagon and has been linked to many childhood ailments. Not tin-hattery - go look it up.

Re: Do No Harm Clause? delusionalangel August 17 2007, 09:02:35 UTC

Indeed, aspartame = evil. I stopped drinking diet drinks that have aspartame in them (which is most now) because of all of the reports that aspartame side effects are similar to MS symptoms. As someone with MS, I'd rather not end up with any more MS like "symptoms".

Re: Do No Harm Clause? theclamsman August 17 2007, 10:09:37 UTC

Aspartame gives me headaches. Splenda (which isn't natural either) does the same. They're both chemicals.

Say NO to artificial sweeteners! Organic cane sugar/honey/fruit juices, yes!

Re: Do No Harm Clause? maidenmorticia August 17 2007, 11:46:42 UTC

Yeah, they are all evil.

*agreed*

Re: Do No Harm Clause? custom_magnum August 19 2007, 20:49:43 UTC

You serious here about the MS symptoms things. Damn, makes me glad my mother made me and the family switch from Soda period to Ice Tea. She doesn't need anything else aggravating her MS.

Re: Do No Harm Clause? maidenmorticia August 17 2007, 11:45:59 UTC

Indeed, you are right. I personally don't need to look it up, but I didn't look up Max's ingridents before making my comment (my bad, but it was late!), so I wasn't aware of the aspartame. Anyhoo, for anyone who's not aware of the evils of Aspartame, there's this!

Re: Do No Harm Clause? annetangent August 19 2007, 20:57:20 UTC

http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/antpoison.asp
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Re: Do No Harm Clause? catvincent August 19 2007, 21:06:14 UTC

Snopes is not infallible, or definitive.

Re: Do No Harm Clause? annetangent August 19 2007, 21:13:18 UTC

and your sources are. got it.

Re: Do No Harm Clause? catvincent August 19 2007, 21:15:57 UTC

My source is an actual neurochemist...

Re: Do No Harm Clause? annetangent August 19 2007, 21:17:41 UTC

in other words, some guy you know?

Re: Do No Harm Clause? catvincent August 19 2007, 21:23:04 UTC

In other words my wife, who holds a degree in Neroendocrinology from the University of Bristol.

Are you picking a fight just for the hell of it or do you actually have any clear proof that aspartame is harmless - other than quoting a Snopes bit which only refutes an email hoax about *some* symptoms and conditions?

If not, then I'm unsure as to the point of this.

Re: Do No Harm Clause? annetangent August 19 2007, 21:30:18 UTC

I'm saying that there is no proof that it was developed as anything more than a artificial sweetener and that the sources cited by snopes (such as the FDA, MIT, the American Council on Science and Health, Time Magazine, et cetera) agree that it fine to have. What evidence do you have other than your wife?

Re: Do No Harm Clause? catvincent August 19 2007, 21:41:48 UTC

Fair question.

I grant you most of my sources on the background are online. It's the combination of that plus the opinion of neurochemists who aren't actually employed by the food industry which led to my opinion.

A good starter for the connection between aspartame and military applications is here:
http://www.rense.com/general67/rum.htm

At the end of the day one has to make an educated guess. Mine leans towards avoiding the stuff wherever I can.

Re: Do No Harm Clause? annetangent August 19 2007, 21:45:52 UTC

Understandable. And I do know that migraines are linked to it (my mom stopped drinking diet coke and hers disappeared). I'm just wary of the tendency of people to claim links where there are none (e.g. antiperspirant causes cancer). I really have no problem with wanting to avoid things where there's a chance of risk.

Back to all threads