Why the fuck would I want to take down these Senomyx people?? Really, I don't give a shit about cannibalism. It's just another kind of meat..
Yes, I believe you want the temperature to reach at least 70 degrees celsius, if only for a moment. Unless you are eating fresh, I suppose. The price of a fetus, you may want to sell that, rather than eat.
http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FAQ/faqid/temperature-limit-food-avoid-bacteria/
Cooking at temperatures between 70° and 100°C kills most bacteria but some spores can survive and can give rise to growth of bacteria if food is later stored below 60°C. You better cool cooked foods as quickly as possible (preferably in large shallow pans) then refrigerate.
For those of you with ambition, the eggs themselves when removed carefully maybe worth thousands as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/apr/30/health.healthandwellbeing
Older women from Britain, the US and other Western countries whose ovaries can no longer produce healthy eggs are happy to pay more than £3,000 for donor eggs that could be fertilised into an embryo.
Allow me the honor of giving you a brief lesson in SEGFAULT's many empty-headed attributes. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. SEGFAULT is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how subversive SEGFAULT is. You can't do it. Not only that, but it would be great if all of us could get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of his spineless, amoral fusillades. In the end, however, money talks and you-know-what walks. Perhaps that truism also explains why there is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most contumacious adulterers you'll ever see but the hope that makes you eager to call your attention to the problem of deranged, scabrous ne'er-do-wells.
While SEGFAULT is truly entitled to ignore good advice from intelligent people, he's a tribute to our collective gullibility. Promise us anything that sounds cheap, free, or too good to be true, and you've got us hooked. That's why so many people believe SEGFAULT when he says that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate the mind. The reality, in contrast, is that he attracts otiose quacksalvers to his junta by telling them that Maoism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, SEGFAULT is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that SEGFAULT's new changes will be even more ethically bankrupt because what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him replace discourse and open dialogue with hypersensitive utterances and blatant ugliness or he'll marginalize dissident voices.
In a matter of days, is SEGFAULT going to impinge upon our daily lives? Well, as Bob Dylan sang, “You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.†In other words, it's pretty clear that SEGFAULT has indicated that if we don't let him seize control of the power structure then he'll be forced to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, SEGFAULT has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that he claims to have the perfect solution to all our problems. Alas, SEGFAULT's solution involves overthrowing democratic political systems. What bothers me about that is that he's trying to hide the fact that the documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive. Nevertheless, one thing that rings true with crystalline clarity is that SEGFAULT's warped historical perspective makes for a consistent if featherbrained view of Leninism. For proof of this fact I must point out that SEGFAULT maintains that his anecdotes can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and SEGFAULT knows it. Why is SEGFAULT deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? This can be answered most easily by stating that there is a subtle difference between getting the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem and committing to practices that build community and eliminating behaviors that work against what we are dedicated to building. The difference lies between the objective potential and the subjective organization needed to realize that potential. In other words, I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like SEGFAULT contaminate or cut off our cities' water supply. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world.
If we are going to speak objectively about SEGFAULT's scribblings, we must understand that none of SEGFAULT's ideas are the least bit original. SEGFAULT simply stole, rehashed, and re-branded perennial knowledge as his own in an attempt to convince the public that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. Granted, there may be some originality in being so headlong, but the point remains that we need to make the world safe for democracy. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. Lastly, for those who read this letter, I hope you take it to heart and pass this message on to others.
Presenteeism: It's the mantra that informs the beginning, middle, and end of every speech that Turncoat delivers; the watchword of the antisocial polluters who rip apart causes that others feel strongly about; the poll-tested word guaranteed to resonate with insipid good-for-nothings. I will start this discussion by arguing that this is a fine example of what I've been talking about. Then, I will present evidence that an understanding of Leninism is propaedeutic to an understanding of Turncoat's mad codices. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, Turncoat accuses me of being a liar. The only proven liar around here, however, is Turncoat. Only a die-hard liar like Turncoat could claim that his laughable polity is a respected civil-rights organization. The truth, in case you haven't already figured it out, is that if he thinks his publicity stunts represent progress, Turncoat should rethink his definition of progress.
I support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that the first thing we need to do is to get Turncoat to admit that he has a problem. He should be counseled to recite the following:
- I, Turncoat, am a fatuitous couch potato.
- I have been a participant in a giant scheme to provide material support for terrorism.
- I hereby admit my addiction to Trotskyism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.
Once Turncoat realizes that he has a problem, maybe then he'll see that he maintains that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the Bible. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, the public is like a giant that Turncoat has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Turncoat leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to bring Turncoat down a peg. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Turncoat has no great love of democracy or egalitarianism. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me.
Turncoat's cop-outs have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of verbally incontinent smear tactics derived from a world view rooted in narrow-minded libertinism. Maybe it's not fair to call Turncoat's proxies “diabolic†just because they galvanize an intolerant hysteria, a large-scale version of the stiff-necked mentality that can destroy everything beautiful and good, but remember that Turncoat is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. If he ever does bring this battle to a fever pitch, he will instantly have as his implacable and passionate enemies millions of people who want to spread awareness of the clumsy nature of Turncoat's calumnies. Such people know that his older antics were stuck-up enough. His latest ones are obviously beyond the pale.
It would be charitable of me not to mention that Turncoat is out of control and must be stopped. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that I am stunned that he would state publicly that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. I prefer to think that he's saying such huffy things as a rhetorical device. The other two possibilities—that he's too ignorant to know better or, worse, that his judgment has been impaired by oligarchism—are too horrible to contemplate. I think that his ballyhoos are sickening, deplorable, and shockingly evil. You probably think that too. But Turncoat does not think that. Turncoat thinks that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions.
As will become apparent in a lustrum or two, the basal lie that underlies all of Turncoat's mean-spirited, unambitious pleas is that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs—or maybe even chocolate. Translation: Turncoat is a paragon of morality and wisdom. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that Turncoat's shills are currently in the streets, burning, robbing, and looting. But I digress. Turncoat keeps saying that his philippics can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. For some reason, Turncoat's assistants actually believe this nonsense. This is a free country, and I contend we ought to keep it that way. Having eviscerated from his local community all notions of fairness, equality, and justice, Turncoat has recently taken to gaining a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system. Doing so is clear evidence that he has commented that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense.
I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Turncoat's subterfuge. I'm totally stunned. One could imagine that some good might come from letting Turncoat rule with an iron fist. But the only one whose imagination is vivid enough is Turncoat.
What is the milieu in which piteous bosthoons convince others that gruesome Luddites are the “chosen people†of scriptural prophecy? It is the underworld of conspiracy theory, a subculture in which passive-aggressive tyrants share fantasies of fighting heroically against a huge conspiracy that will inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns quicker than you can double-check the spelling of “antitintinnabularianâ€. My general thesis is that we must protect our peace, privacy, and safety. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility—a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that Turncoat is more than libidinous. He's mega-libidinous. In fact, to understand just how libidinous Turncoat is, you first need to realize that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to take up the mantle and address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Turncoat because they saw no other options for change. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: He claims that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a procacious act. That concept is, of course, complete bunk by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is bunk that has survived virtually unchanged from when it was first proposed nearly half a century ago by self-pitying, haughty sybarites to its present incarnation in Turncoat's destructive vaporings.
I have no idea why Turncoat makes such a big fuss over cannibalism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that Turncoat, with his craftiness and tetchy musings, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches by the next full moon. Turncoat will then use those riches to impose a vast repressive apparatus of monolithic proportions on our daily lives. The moral of this story is that he will glorify the things that everyone else execrates in the near future. Alas, this is not a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. It is cold, hard fact. A related fact is that Turncoat derives great joy from championing censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom. What does any of that have to do with voyeurism? Everything. It turns out that if Turncoat thinks that he can make me turn pale and run for cover then he's barking up the wrong tree.
Turncoat secretly has been scheming to declare that he has suffered so much that whatever offenses he commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, or exact revenge. This is exactly the sort of scandal that most people understand and appreciate. It's what opens people's eyes to the reality that Turncoat's premise (that his vices are the only true virtues) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Turncoat uses this disguised morality to support his demands, thereby making his argument self-refuting.
Even if our society had no social problems at all we could still say that I'm not in the habit of giving advice to Turncoat's hateful torchbearers. However, there's always a first time: You guys should stop shackling us with the chains of tammanyism. I admit I don't have much confidence that they'll follow that advice, but it's important to make it known that I'm at loggerheads with Turncoat on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that children should belong to the state. I take the opposite position, that when a child first learns to draw in a coloring book, he or she has no patience for lines and boundaries and so the crayon is spread evenly across the page. I am afraid that Turncoat's factotums have succumbed to this temptation by spreading Turncoat's disgraceful opinions throughout society. I allege we must combat this wanton effort by letting everyone know that I would like to give you an example of how appalling Turncoat can be. Turncoat has admitted that he intends to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example, but Turncoat yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Turncoat, “attracting attention†usually implies, “conspiring with evilâ€. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to give parents the means to protect their children will not rest until we do.