Regarding the issue of mustard agents, it was not mentioned about the skin blistering effects of the agent. Blisters the size of golf balls have been known to be an attribute of exposure to these agents. I used to work in a curio shop where one of the products we manufactured was called Scat-Away Powder. This was supposed to drive evil spirits away. It was a combination of talcum powder and mustard oil. I hated making the product because of the mustard oil, once you opened the container, the essence spread throughout the room so rapidly that you could not stand to be around for more than two minutes. It was a very persistent scent just like liquid mustard agents when used to contaminate terrain.
The article you are referring to: What makes mustard so mustardy?
That concentrated musard oil sounds terrible. But, as was correctly explained in the article, the active chemical in mustard oil and the chemical that makes up chemical weapons agent sulfur mustard (“mustard gas”) are chemically and physiologically distinct compounds.
Whenever I hear “mustard gas” I remember a Richard Pryor record (yes, record) where he portrays a drunken old man. “I had mustid gas woun’s all over mah body!”
Thank you very much for the interest in the article - Cecil likes to know that some of his peons actually have their scribblings read from time to time. It is true that mustard oils are an irritant that when concentrated can be rather nasty, and in fact this fact came into play when I was investigating a side-topic of whether or not it was even legal to sell mustard oil pure and/or for food use. I received so much conflicting information on that topic that I decided for the sake of column length not to really address that (and no one asked for info on it anyways…).
In any event, your experience with mustard oil is quite interesting and scary, which is probably one reason my favourite powder for getting rid of evil spirits is a nice hot vindaloo or habanero dust.
In respect to the highly interesting and well written article, and a connection to an earlier thread regarding citations:
Given that Una listed:
Can a set of citations get broader and better than this?
Due respect to Una, who did indeed provided a well written and informative article on the whole, I for one would appreciate the staff refraining from political editorials. While I happen to agree with the editorial comment at the end of the article about Iraq and WMDs, I think it is like government and religion — there should be a separation of science and politics simply because their is nothing scientific about political opinion. If the title is changed to Straight Dope Science and Political Advisory Board, that’s fine. Otherwise, please do not (ab)use your position in the form of a bully pulpit. Thanks.
I dunno, Lib… Cecil makes similar political potshots not unfrequently, and the Staff is expected to follow in Cecil’s footsteps, at least to some degree. Further, this particular potshot is factual, unlike, say, Cecil’s infamous “damnfool war” comment: We unambiguously looked for WMDs in Iraq, and we unambiguously did not find them. If it’s just the “science” in the title “Straight Dope Science Advisory Board” that strikes you as inappropriate, that’s always been too restrictive a title: We also have, for instance, Staff Reports on the interpretation of various songs. In other words, I thought that Una’s comment was perfectly fine.
Understood. Your point has merit and this is not the hill I want to die on. However, Una’s comment, aside from being irrelevant — it required a whole new paragraph introducing WMD’s as a segue — was not about whether there were factually any WMDs, but about the knowledge of them: “Would that we’d known the same about Iraq.” That is not at all factual, but is quite controversial. No one has established factually that the Bush administration had any more knowledge than Congress, which is, after all, charged with oversight responsibility of the agencies that provided the intelligence. In fact, Senator Clinton called Iraq’s capability to employ its alleged WMDs undisputed: “It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed.” — October 10, 2002. And even if it were factual, that doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea. It is a fact that the vast majority of Americans are theists, but that doesn’t mean that government should print “In God We Trust” on our money.
I agree. Let the government refrain from things religious.
But, since the SD is a private organization, it can do anything it damn-well pleases.
Cecil started it. How can we do anything but follow the master? (unless he suggests we try the Kool-Aid :eek: )
Please. This line was intended as a joke. The original version was
… but that was kind of lacking spice.
I’m not certain how to answer this.
The political comment in question was not mine but was added in editing. However, I did make another political comment on WMDs and mustard which was not included. I’m not sure if I should repeat it my version because I see no reason to pit one joke against the other when it comes down to choosing a throwaway line intended to convey either humour or mild snark which is supposed to attempt to mimic that of Cecil. But, FTR, my original comment was:
“…not only do you know why mustard has the bite it does, but you can feel safe that there’s no WMDs in your mustard jar. And all we know they must be somewhere…have you tried the ketchup?”
I find it odd that my throwaway comments, either on their own or after editing, are the ones that generate the most griping (such as the numerous gripes about the word “lesbian”, for some odd reason). I guess to that end maybe I should stop doing them, and omit any crude attempts at humour in Staff Reports I start after this date.
Stick to your guns. I long ago found out that you’re playing to a limited, specialized, intelligent audience when you do a Staff Report.
Write the report to please yourself. If what gets criticized is the unimportant parts, then, what-the- hey!, somebody other than a specialist read it!! We should all be so lucky. 
You’re absolutely correct, Lib. I think you should demand an immediate refund of the price you paid to read that article.
I confess to mucking with Una’s WMD joke, exercising an editor’s timeless right to meddle in matters better left alone. As a rule it can be assumed that anything you like in a Staff Report was put in by the author, whereas all the objectionable parts were put in by me.
Well, of course. Obviously, no one reads the Straight Dope column for the humor or the attitude of the writers. They want just the facts, as dry, insipid, and boring as some of the posters on these message boards. Opinions are obviously completely unwelcome, which explains why the column and its style have been popular for over thirty years now.
(And yes, there have been comments in columns that I’ve taken offense to, but in my defense I would never presume to tell anybody not to put them in there.)
Ed, I think it is possible to be funny or snarky without bringing in politics, religion, race, or other things people have deeply personal feelings about. I realize that the particular opinion you expressed in this instance is very popular here, and I spend a lot of time myself bashing this tyrannical administration myself, although not in any official capacity. Obviously, I’m the first to say that this is your board and you can do as you please, and I understand the personal need you might feel to express yourself editorially. But you can, as you do every day, be humorous without taking potshots at half the country and some of your members.
I didn’t intend to hurt your feelings or make you angry, and I apologize for that. I wouldn’t encourage you to abandon crude attempts at humor. Humor is good. It just isn’t necessary to poke fun at other people, including some Dopers, via the principles they hold in good faith.
Are you sure about this? It seems to be that most humor is based on making fun of something that could offend. Could you offer some examples of humor that doesn’t have the potential to offend?
I don’t know. I’ve never heard that theory before. It seems to me rather like an Adlerian pseudoscientific assertion. No matter what example I give, you can find, or claim to find, some offense. But it seems to me that no one in our esteemed company at Straight Dope should be surprised by something known to ordinary people for centuries: politics and religion are topics about which people are sensitive. I doubt seriously whether we enlightened folk would write funny quips about fat black homosexuals, for example, understanding, as we do, that it might not go over so well with some of our members. In fact, it would be banned in the BBQ Pit as “hate speech”. Like I said, my intention is not to fight a war here or to make Una feel bad, but that doesn’t stop people from bringing up things like whether it is factually based, what is the intelligence of its readers, or whether a joke about a chicken crossing the road might offend a PETA activist. This is just a matter of simple common sense, and if the choir wants to bleat it away as fair game because they enjoyed it, then it only makes my point: it is being used a bully pulpit to express a popular political opinion. No sweat.
[Moderator bell] ::: DING! DING! DING! ::::: [/Moderator bell]
This is a thread for commenting on Una’s Staff Report on Mustard Gas.
A general discussion of what kind of snide remarks, jokes, humor, snarky comments, cursing, or other forms of artistic expression are, or are not, appropriate for a Staff Report would make a fine thread … somewhere else.
I guess, since, it’s related to Staff Reports, I’ll allow you to open a new thread in this forum about what material you think it’s OK to be included in Staff Reports. Liberal, since you started this, let me know if you’d like to do this. Or, I could split off the current posts that are about that topic, and start the separate thread for you.
Please note, of course, that your opinions have no legal or ethical binding, and are worth only what weight each individual member of the SDSAB puts on them.
Now, back to mustard gas.
Digressions about Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with mustard gas will be dealt with harshly.
Well thanks for the gratuitous ad-hominem. Baaaa!
I’m afraid I’ve kind of lost the “common sense” portion of your assertion though. If I understand you correctly, humor is good (even if it offends) as long as ithe offense isn’t based on some “protected” class of beliefs? Okay, so we’ve got politics, religion, and race so far. Care to complete the list?
Mods, based on Lib’s response, I’ll create a new thread if needed. Don’t want to clog this one up any more than necessary.
BTW, Una and Ed as someone who wasn’t offended and who loves the humor (whatever variety) found at the Dope, I thought Una’s original phrasing was funnier.