Random News Stories

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Apparently the existance or future of Netflix will be determined this coming week. I know I wouldn't miss them at all...

[Frank Cox]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/skittl...aims-1.5989678

Skittles are toxic, U.S. lawsuit claims

Mars Inc has been sued by a consumer who claims that Skittles candies are unfit to eat because they contain a known toxin that the company had pledged six years ago to phase out.

In a proposed class action filed on Thursday in the Oakland, California federal court, Jenile Thames accused Mars of endangering unsuspecting Skittles eaters by using "heightened levels" of titanium dioxide, or TiO2, as a food additive.

The lawsuit also said titanium dioxide will be banned in the European Union next month after a food safety regulator there deemed it unsafe because of "genotoxicity," or the ability to change DNA.

"A reasonable consumer would expect that can be safely purchased and consumed as marketed and sold," the complaint said. "However, the products are not safe."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.

Mars did not immediately respond on Friday to requests for comment.

The McLean, Virginia-based company, which is private, had pledged in February 2016 to remove artificial colours from its food products over the next five years.

In October 2016, it confirmed that titanium dioxide was among the colourants being removed, according to the non-profit Center for Food Safety, citing an email from Mars.

According to the lawsuit, titanium dioxide is used in paint, adhesives, plastics and roofing materials, and can cause DNA, brain and organ damage, and well as injuries in the liver and kidneys.

Thames, of San Leandro, California, said he bought Skittles at a local QuikStop in April, and would not have done so had he known their contents.

He said checking the label would not have helped because the ingredients on Skittles' bright-red packages are hard to read.

The case is Thames v Mars Inc, U.S. district court, Northern District of California, No. 22-04145.

[Leo Enticknap]

So much so that the British government (in the form of its nationalized healthcare service) now offers official advice on how to stick a foreign object up your bum: "The NHS advises that anyone exploring anal play do so safely ... " !

They could do a public information film about that, on the lines of this one...

[Randy Stankey]

With cases of objects getting stuck in rectum rising in Britain researchers have speculated increasing use of internet porn and access to sex toys, may be to blame.

The real cause is that people who live in places or in social groups that sexually repress people, they have no socially acceptable way of expressing themselves.

That causes people to do things in secret that they would never do, otherwise.

If that guy had been able to say something, to somebody he trusts:

"Hey, I hear that some people like it when..."

The other person might have been able to reply, "Yes, I heard that too but you'd better be careful or you'll end up in the hospital!"

This whole thing never would have happened. Instead you've got people running off and doing weird things in secret. Then, when something weird happens, it ends up in the newspapers and the person gets publicly shamed.

Yeah, we can watch movies and TV shows where dozens of people are mowed down by machine gun fire but video about a big-breasted woman in a leather bodysuit, shoving a dildo up a guys bum is taboo.

That's why stuff like this happens!

[Leo Enticknap]

I bet the porno flick Ms. Duffany was busted for playing didn't include this (from the Daily Wail - where else?!):

Doctors pull out a WATER BOTTLE from constipated Iranian man's bum after 50-year-old's clueless wife took him to hospital

An Iranian man needed a seven-and-half inch (19cm) water bottle yanked out of his anus.

The constipated 50-year-old, who wasn't named, was so scared of his wife's reaction he delayed seeking help for three days.

She had taken him to hospital because she was concerned about his lack of eating, abdominal pain and inability to go to the toilet.

But the man didn't tell doctors that it was because he had a 250ml bottle inside him. It was only spotted when he was sent for a CT scan.

Writing in the journal Clinical Case Reports, they said he didn't want to reveal he had inserted the object inside himself due to 'embarrassment and fear of his wife'.

He had pushed the bottom of the bottle in first, so he would be able to pull it out by gripping the top.

But he was unable to extract the item, leaving the plastic bottle lodged deep inside his large intestine.

Medics at the Imam Khomeini Hospital in Sari did not say if the man explained why he had shoved the bottle inside him.

Although, they noted sexual gratification was usually behind such insertions.

The man, who had a history of depression, was immediately rushed for surgery and given anaesthesia to knock him out and relax his sphincter.

Surgeons then 'carefully and slowly' dragged the bottle back out of his anus. There was no rupture or bleeding.

Follow-up tests found no evidence the bottle had caused him any internal injuries, or perforation to his lower intestine.

Objects inserted into the rectum can potentially perforate the bowel, which can be deadly if material from the digestive tract seeps out.

But after three more days in hospital the man was discharged and also referred to a psychiatric clinic.

One month after his ordeal, the man reportedly has suffered no further problems or had any trouble with his bowel movements.

Discussing the issue of rectal insertions generally, the medics noted that most cases where men get objects stuck inside their rectums are men between the ages of 30 and 40.

They added that items such as light bulbs, bottles, truncheons, body spray cans, and turkey basters had all been previously reported as being found lodged in patient's backsides.

NHS doctors are no stranger to dealing with similar incidents, with data analysis last year finding about 400 'foreign' objects are pulled from English anuses each year.

This was estimated to cost the taxpayer roughly £340,000 a year for things like drugs for performing procedures, and the manpower of NHS staff.

People most commonly shove objects into their rectum for sexual pleasure.

This is partly to do with the number of nerves in the anus making it highly sensitive, and for men it can also stimulate the prostate, an erogenous part of the male reproductive system.

For women it can also indirectly stimulate parts of the vagina.

With cases of objects getting stuck in rectum rising in Britain researchers have speculated increasing use of internet porn and access to sex toys, may be to blame.

The NHS advises that anyone exploring anal play do so safely and use an object with a flared base to prevent it from getting lost inside.

Other reasons for inserting objects into rectums, such as attempting to self-treat constipation or due to psychological disorders, have also been recorded.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Wow! Thanks Jim for all the info on that... Very interesting stuff and the complete article too. The investigating Sargent's last name fits the scheme of things perfectly!

[Jim Cassedy]

☞ Accidental Post- Moderator Please Delete !
("sometimes the mouse is quicker than the mind")

[Jim Cassedy]

Not sure what this was all about... There must be more to the story...

YES, Mark- - there IS more to the story.
That old news clip only showed the first paragraph.
Now, (to quote the late Paul Harvey) "Here's the rest of the story" :
ProjectionistArrest.jpg

I can't seem to pin down the exact date of the news clip, but there's circumstantial evidence
that places it in the 1969-1971 time frame. The "New Follies Theater" on 16th St @ Valencia,
was under construction and partially collapsed during the 1906 SF Earthquake. It eventually
opened in late 1907 as "The 16th St Theater". It was initially a vaudeville house, but after a
change of management and the addition of film shows around 1913, the name was changed
to "The Victoria Theater" and it operated under that name for many years, showing mainly
2nd & 3rd run movies, until 1964 when it changed to a policy of 'burlesque & girlie shows'.
and became "The New Follies" theater that's mentioned in the newspaper story;

An Undated Photo From Some Time In The 1960's
Victoria_1.jpg

The Valencia Side Of The Building - When It Was Still The New Follies
Victoria_2.jpg

The Building Still Stands, And Has Changed Its' Name Back To "The Victoria Theater" It's Been
Mostly Restored (Even Those Old Ads Painted On the Building Have Been Re-Done & Saved!)
In Fact, This Entire Block Looks Almost Exactly The Same Now, As It Did In The Late 1900's .
I Used To Pass This Place Ofen On My Way To Work At Dolby's Screening Room Nearby On Potrero St
Victoria_3.jpg

It operated as a soft-core porno flick & "girlie show" venue until 1976. It was almost demolished before before
being saved & restored by a couple of investors and re-opening in 1978. It's currently a "rental house' that hosts
a variety of live local stage & film events. (although I've heard the projection facilities there are somewhat
lacking. Last month they were hosting a film festival & had some sort of a major break-down, causing them to
move several of the programs to other theaters, including one I work at : "The New Mission" (built 1916) )

[ Photos from SF Public Library Online Collection / Historical Info from various sources, many of them
quoting material provided by SF Theater History Expert Jack Tillmany. ]

> Bonus Trivia: The Victoria was one of several San Francisco Theaters that held special performances
for the benefit of widows & orphans of The Titanic disaster in 1912. (I wonder if "Titanic" ever played here?)

[Marcel Birgelen]

I've flown Ryanair before that incident quite a few times without any major incident, but around that incident, I was mostly done with them because of the many shenanigans, like charging absurd amounts of overage for a few pounds extra luggage or charging you like 5 to 10 times the cost of the actual ticket for making changes to a booking. I decided that Ryanair wasn't really suitable for business travel and if you counted for all those little extra costs and frustrations, there was already little motivation to do business with them.

I guess ever since, many other airlines adopted similar practices in order to compete with the low cost carriers. Still. of all the low cost carriers around here in Europe, they're probably the most customer hostile and are seemingly proud of it and customers are still "digging it" as long as it's "cheap"...

[Leo Enticknap]

My last Ryanair experience was in 2001, visiting Trier, for which, ironically "Frankfurt Hahn" airport (as Ryanair called it) was ideally situated (much less so if one is actually trying to get to Frankfurt, which is about two hours' bus ride away). It was ridiculously cheap, including the car rental at Hahn for the short drive into Trier. I guess I must have gotten lucky, because both flights were on time, nothing got caught in any control surfaces, and I'm still here to tell the tale (but not in the form of whining to the Daily Mail that I had to sleep on the floor of an airport terminal for three nights). The only real reason I didn't fly with them between then and when I emigrated is that Ryanair didn't go anywhere I needed to go when I needed to go there.

I'm with you on the height issue, being 199cm tall and with disproportionately long legs. For flights of 1-2 hours or less I can put up with Ryanair/Southwest seat pitches, but longer than that I have to bite the bullet and pay extra for an exit row seat, or else I'm aching all over for days afterwards.

Not sure what this was all about... There must be more to the story...

The more I'd like to know is what the "allegedly obscene film" was. Given the "lady projectionist" description, I'm guessing that this report is from the 1960s at the absolute latest, and likely earlier.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Ryanair's MO is to apply the principle that no publicity is bad publicity. The airline's high profile CEO, Michael O'Leary, has in the past made public comments advocating charging passengers extra to use the restroom on planes, boasting that they have the smallest legally permissible seat pitch, and that he doesn't hire "aerosexuals" as pilots.

My last flight ever on an Ryanair plane took place more than 10 years ago. I saw some piece that looked like a rubber band sticking out between the aileron and the outer flaps, something that most definitely isn't supposed to be there during flight. I told a stewardess and she bluntly told me, that if there would've been anything wrong with the plane, the captain would surely not take off with it and I should not not dare to start a panic. Keep in mind that this was a spot that was possibly not visible from the cockpit and probably also not from below, so it may easily have overlooked during one of those breakneck go-arounds Ryanair usually stages.

I guess, out of principle, I should've left the plane right there, but the urge to get home, after countless of delays was bigger, so I kept silent... We made our way to the runway and the piece actually fell-off during take-off, probably landing on the tarmac.

It was clear to me that the left aileron was stuck and just after take-off the captain called that we would be returning to the airport, due to a "minor control problem" with the aircraft. After we got back on the ground, I went back to that same stewardess. I only looked her in the eyes, left the goddamn plane, bought a ticket for another flight on an other airplane and have since never ever flown with Ryanair and don't plan on flying with them ever again.

In the end, Ryanair is mostly false-advertising anyway. They try to hide additional costs wherever they can and try to upsell you overpriced stuff whenever possible. They mislabel their destinations, like "Barcelona" (which is in Girona) or "Brussels South" (which is in Charleroi), but the truth is, you're often more than 2 hours away from the actual center of that city.

Like I indicated, I haven't flown with them for ages, but most of their staff usually looked tired, overworked and was generally just rude. For someone like me, with quite some long legs, their seats always have been a horror show, with literally NO place to put them. And dare to try to sleep on their flights, because you'll be awoken regularly by advertizements for their lottery blaring through the speakers at maximum volume. Yeah, there is cattle that gets a better experience during transport than you get with Ryanair...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Not sure what this was all about... There must be more to the story...

[Leo Enticknap]

Ryanair's MO is to apply the principle that no publicity is bad publicity. The airline's high profile CEO, Michael O'Leary, has in the past made public comments advocating charging passengers extra to use the restroom on planes, boasting that they have the smallest legally permissible seat pitch, and that he doesn't hire "aerosexuals" as pilots.

If I had to guess, I would agree with Marcel. Relatives who work in civil aviation tell me that airlines sorely resent being made responsible for checking that passengers are legally entitled to enter the country they're flying to, and subjected to heavy fines if they get it wrong: the airline industry's position is that this is a job for national governments, not them. So a publicity stunt designed to draw attention to this is just the sort of thing that Ryanair would do, and mixing in a little of the race card with that (as you point out, the Afrikaans language is strongly associated with Apartheid in popular culture; in some ways unfairly) would simply make it that much more effective, from Ryanair's perspective.

[Frank Cox]

It's my understanding that Afrikaans is a language spoken mostly by white South Africans. So maybe this is a back-door way of saying that we don't want any of those pesky black people riding on our planes?

[Leo Enticknap]

Yes; governments essentially try to pass the costs of immigration enforcement on to airlines, by, as you say, fining them up the wazoo if they land someone who is not legally eligible to enter, and requiring the airline to fly them out again. It's just possible that Ryanair came up with this stunt as a form of protest against that, but I suspect it's just Ryanair being Ryanair.

As for the biometric angle, if the system is corrupt enough that an official can be paid off to program a legitimate chipped passport with phony details, then that solves that problem. Although several generations earlier and long before biometric chips existed, that is the premise of Frederick Forsyth's novel The Odessa File: a low-level processing official in a passport-issuing center identified a weak spot in the bureaucratic process and was able to steal genuine, but blank passports, which were then used to help ex-Nazi war criminals escape from Germany.

And as for Ryanair, I suppose a linguistically skilled Afrikaaner could answer the questionnaire in Irish Gaelic, and ask the gate agent to verify that (s)he understood the answers, just to prove that Ryanair really is an Irish airline!