Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 3:07pm (EST+5) firstname.lastname@example.org (George) now claimeth
You _did_ read only what you want, didn't you? If the oil is, as
you, "crude and unrefined," which would be squashed only, rather than
extracted, it's peanut butter.
Oh yeah, I not only read it, I understood it too. Here's a
partial quote from that link:
"Is peanut oil dangerous?
Amazingly, people who are allergic to peanuts only rarely have reactions
to peanut oil which has been refined."
The operational word there as I see it is "rarely". Which does not
mean, or even imply, "impunity" as you phrased it. And, as I recall it,
the subject was peanut oil, not peanut butter.
So, are you saying you'd be willing to use peanut oil, of any type,
knowing that a person is allergic to peanuts, with the firm conviction
no harm would occur? Or would you tell the person before hand, and
expect him/her to trust you that no harm would come of it? Let's see a
show of hands, from just the eople here allergic to peanust: Would you
trust him that no harm would occur? Or would you go somewhere else to
I'll say this. If I was allergic to peanuts, I'd stay away from
peanut oil too - period - and I wouldn't care how many people said it
wouldn't hurt me.
When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small