Pampers are not an invention of the devil

[spindrifter]

From The Times
March 21, 2007

Tom Baldwin in Washington

The world’s biggest manufacturer of household and grooming products voiced hopes yesterday that an urban myth linking it to Satanism was being crushed after four men were ordered to pay almost $20 million (£10 million) in damages for spreading the rumour.

At the end of a 12-year legal case in Salt Lake City, Utah, a US District Court jury found against a group of distributors from a rival company who had left voicemail messages alleging that part of Procter & Gamble’s profits went to devil-worshipping cults.

<snip>

P&G eventually abandoned the old logo (which supposedly was a "deliberate mockery" of a heavenly symbol and other allegations that there was a mirror image of the “Mark of the Beast”--666 in the logo)
on everything except some of its buildings, but not before a new — and even more virulent — version of the urban myth emerged. This alleged that the corporation’s president had appeared on The Phil Donahue Show on March 1, 1994, to confirm that a large portion of his profits went to support the Church of Satan.

It went on to quote the P&G executive boasting to Mr Donahue that this would not hurt business because “there are not enough Christians in the United States to make a difference”. There have been repeated denials from P&G and TV companies that anybody from the corporation had appeared on such a show making such an extraordinary statement.

<more>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1545469.ece

[truedelphi]

1. Proctor and Gamble is for Satan and for death

Their household products poison everyone who buys them

[JuniperLea]

2. the truedelphi has spoken!

After all the vapors he/she's been smokin' :)

Sorry, couldn't resist... been reading about the Oracle of Delphi lately:)

[crikkett]

5. you could've at least kept up w the rhyme

The truedelphi has spoken

after all the vapors she's smokin'

the kind of spin

that her head is in

cant be swayed by some tv promotin'

[JuniperLea]

33. Killer! Love it! n/t

[truedelphi]

51. Okay Okay I surrender!

I have been pun-ished enough!

[JuniperLea]

57. Owwwwww!

That one hurt! hehehe!

[notadmblnd]

3. apparently they haven't learned that it is not spreading a rumor

if you ask it as a question. IIRC Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert told us that

[MadHound]

4. Pamper's may not be an invention of the devil, but it damn sure is hurting the enviroment

All those goddamn diapers filling up our country with shit and plastic. Let's cut the disposable diaper habit, and go back to biodegradable, reusable cloth diapers.

[southerncrone]

8. I agree we need to use the disposables responsibly, apply a high luxury tax.

I used cloth diapers w/my 2 kids. But did use the disposables when we were on the road, which was not that often, because traveling w/2 babies was not that much fun.

The 2 paths to ruination:
1) convenience
2) greed

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. When my kids were babies,

the environmentalists decided that there was more energy used to wash and dry cloth diapers than to manufacture and dispose of Pampers. Don't know if they still believe that or not. My kids are pretty old now.

[knitter4democracy]

36. That's been disproven.

Many of the figures forgot to add transportation of the oil and all. The newer figures that I found when I cloth diaperd my kids (they're four and six now) included the cotton pesticide issues, the transportation issues, and the cost of disposables was still higher.

[crikkett]

11. Great! and you can wash mine.

on edit: just kidding. I have no kids.

My little brother had to wear cloth diapers. Guess who got to wash them? Me.

Mothers, take note: putting too much babysitting duty on your older children will drastically reduce your chances of having grandchildren.

[southerncrone]

23. Inverse correlation between time babysitting siblings & # of children is proven!

Just kidding, I empathize w/you, I am my brother's second mother!

I did however have 2 kids, both while using birth control faithfully.
I would not trade them, nor the experience of motherhood for anything!
:)

[Kali]

14. be sure to fully count the costs - cloth sure use a lot of water.

[LeftyMom]

17. It takes more water to produce a disposable

And if you use a service or have an efficient washer at home, cloth has a clearer advantage.

[Kali]

24. Yes but that may be more available at the site of manufacture.

I used both - felt guilty using disposables then felt guilty for the rashes that happened so much faster with cloth. Fortunately we live in the boonies and nakedness was a third and far superior option a lot of the time :rofl:

[crispini]

32. You know, I lived in Thailand for two years,

and the naked baby was WAY common there, and I think, because of the heat, probably WAY better too. :P

[wtmusic]

21. And phosphates

It takes a lot of soap to get a diaper clean.

[LeftyMom]

26. Phosphates?

Jesus, use anything with those and your kid's ass would look like a mile of bad road. Gentle detergent, and not a lot of it. The trick is to pre-soak them (which doesn't take any more water, just more time hogging the washing machine) and then to get them really dry. Oh and (don't tell the granola moms, okay?) a little splash of bleach every few washes.

[left is right]

22. And, it's not just the washing of diapers

It's that diapers have to be washed in the hottest water available. And you also have to figure in the cost of doing crib sheets on a daily basis as well as having to change sleepers with almost every diaper change. Lots and lots of water used. My kids were pampers babies and I had to treat for diaper rash one time only--it was related to 1 child cutting 2 teeth at one time. My mom says that she treated diaper rash on a regular basis.

[LeftyMom]

27. You do? I cloth diapered and never ran into that problem.

They make really good absorbent cloth diapers these days.

[knitter4democracy]

38. Same here. I had more leaks and rashes with disposables.

The new covers are much better, too.

[LeftyMom]

41. In terms of performance, I'd take a Fuzzi Bunz over Pampers any day.

Heck, I'd rather have a basic nylon cover and some diaper service quality prefolds.

The really cool thing was that when my son was out of diapers, I gave all of his a good washing, threw all the ratty ones in the rag bucket and then bagged up the nice ones and gave them to another mom. It makes me feel good that they're still being put to use, I hate waste.

[knitter4democracy]

45. I used a service, and it was really nice.

I used my own covers, and I was able to use them from kid to kid until they were big enough to stay in some of the sizes until the covers just wore out.

Every time I put a disposable on my babies, their skin went beet-red and broke out in a horrible rash that went away when we got back home and had clean dipes.

[LeftyMom]

47. All the kids in my family are allergic.

LK'd get horrible rashes in disposables, so we used cloth even when traveling. Other than the one time we took a walk and I forgot to pack the diaper bag, and he came home with his butt wrapped up in his Dad's undershirt and a Safeway bag :eyes: we never had any problems. Even flying cross-country it wasn't a big deal at all.

[knitter4democracy]

48. Oh, I took cloth everywhere.

A couple times, though, when on the road, we ran out of clean dipes and had a four hour drive home left, so we stopped and got disposables, one time each kid. Both reacted horribly. That's when I started washing the dipes right before we left to make sure I had enough for the trip home.

[LeftyMom]

49. That's what we'd do too.

Thankfully, I found one of those big land's end diaper bags at a thrift store once, and that thing fit enough diapers for a weekend trip, or enough diapers for a day, plus a change of clothes and a snack.

[youthere]

53. I used cloth with my kids and we didn't have a rash problem.

Three kids..all fabric butted...no rash.

[wtmusic]

15. According to the Sierra Club it's a tossup

"At first, cloth versus disposables seems like a no-brainer. Who wants to pile disposable diapers in the landfill when you could be using the same few diapers over and over? But all that washing takes a lot of energy and water, whether done at home or through a diaper service. A heap of studies funded both by cloth-diaper services and disposable-diaper manufacturers have produced no definitive answer about which is better for the environment. It’s a wash."

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200301/ecoquiz.asp

[MadHound]

18. Be that as it may, disposables still use up unreplaceable resources,

Such as the oil that is going to create all that plastic, not to mention the energy needed to create those things. And again, disposables are around for thousands and thousands of years, whereas cloth degrades away.

Still seems like a no-brainer to me:shrug:

[wtmusic]

20. There isn't all that much plastic in them

less than a plastic grocery bag. Most of it is paper fibers which, though unrecyclable, decompose quickly.

[knitter4democracy]

46. The gel is an oil-based compound.

The paper fibers are mixed with other oil-based products. It's not so much the plastic as it is the other petroleum-based things in there.

Although, to be fair, if a parent needs to use disposables (some child-care places will not use cloth, some kids don't do well with cloth, etc.), then they should. Parenting is hard enough without us all attacking each other.

[karynnj]

50. I remember hearing that years ago when my now 21 year old was in diapers

I wonder if that is still true with wash machines being more water and energy efficient. I know diapers have changed a lot too. (With my last child, now 16, some dieaper claimed to degrade faster - that would be the other issue. Also what happens to those plastics that absorb huge amount of water?)

[cgrindley]

40. Screw that

Back in 1994, I had infant twins and a one-year-old in diapers. There is no way on earth that I was going to wash shitty diapers.Washing the shit out of diapers is gross and disgusting and I wasn't about to do it. If my using disposable diapers has contributed to the eventual destruction of the earth, good. I feel no guilt whatsoever and would do it again in a heartbeat. If some stupid hippy has a problem with disposable diapers, then I suggest that they build a god damn time machine, head back to 1994, and wash my children's diapers for me.

[Clark2008]

44. OK - and that would require us to use more water washing

the things.

Trust me, you go through them at a much faster rate than the disposibles.

I used both with my son and plan to with my daughter.

[southerncrone]

6. This PG/Satanism thing goes back to the '70's; it's nothing new.

It was the beginning of smear your competition if you can't beat them. The Republicans took note of that, & have been successfully employing the tactic since.

In the '70's it actually increased their business, because people were intrigued by the claim. Then it just sort of died.

I don't remember the CEO making such claims on Donahue in '94, but surely someone could confirm whether that actually happened.

[Canuckistanian]

19. The CEO was never on

There have been denials from the network that any such appearance was made.

Ah, just read Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/procter.asp

[mikelewis]

7. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world...

...He didn't exist.

Verbal Kint
Usual Suspects

[IDemo]

9. They are worn by possessed astronauts

[porphyrian]

12. We shall cradle the poop of the innocent! - n/t

[Initech]

16. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[mr_hat]

13. Recycle them, jeez. Ain't hard

to just wring the piss out of the blue stuff.

[southerncrone]

25. Ok, your elected Blue Stuff Wringer!

;)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

28. Their old logo had 13 stars and a crescent moon man.

So the Amway folks said it was satanic because they tend to be right wing jesus freaks.
This has gone on for decades and I'm glad P&G got a favorable judgment.

[crikkett]

29. how is 13 stars and a crescent moon man satanic?

I just don't get it.

[Hekate]

30. It's not satanic, but the gullible sure are moronic.I'm glad P&G prevailed. nt

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

54. Yes, it probably originated with Amway

Snopes says origin is unknown but I am willing to pin it on Amway. They are bad news on so many levels.

[alphafemale]

31. What next? A back-masking revival?

:eyes:

But, there was fun to be had with that particular hysteria when I was a teen.

Since the horrified adults and "church leaders" couldn't really tell what was being said in the songs forward...never mind backward.

Other teens and I invented all sorts of horrifying graphic sex, satan, zombie baby scenarios.

And it kept the morality cops off the track of what we were really up to. :evilgrin:

[blondeatlast]

34. Can it be done with digital music? Those were the days, indeed...

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

37. One of my favorites was on an old Overkill record

The message at the end of it went something like,"Why are you spinning your record backwards? You're going to fuck up your needle,asshole!"

It can easily be done digitally.My friend uses all kinds of demented messages,forward and backwards,when he records,but the only reason I know what he's saying is because he told me.I have no way to actually play a CD backwards at a slow enough speed to decipher it.I'd have to have the original sound files and the right software to reverse them.

Though I wouldn't put that kind of effort past some of these people. :crazy:

[blondeatlast]

39. Love it, LOVE it!

:rofl:

[alphafemale]

61. Some of the intentional back-masking messages were hilarious.

But there was still the power of suggestion that made people think there was something there, when there wasn't, that fueled much of the mania too.

The P&G thing from the OP has been around since at least the 70's.

Once there was even a rumor that the P&G CEO had gone on Phil Donahue (a big talk show host at that time) and admitted to being a devil worshiper or some such.

On edit. Re-read OP and saw the Donahue reference.

Interesting that fundie nutjobs have changed the date of P&G CEO appearance, because I first heard this rumor decades ago.

[alphafemale]

60. It got near hysteria for awhile with the fundies. Record burnings...

And there was a joke or toon at the time of one of the "burnings" where there was a pile of records and a church elder about to set torch spots something among the pile and holds up a Lawrence Welk or Tammy Faye Baker or Elvis...can't remember which precisely, and asks "Wait a minute, how'd this in here?"

[treestar]

42. I actually heard that once

A kid who was a fundie at my school played a Led Zeppelin record backward and you could hear Robert Plant screeching that he lived with Satan. Could that have been just because I was expecting it?

[alphafemale]

59. I think people were imagining things at first, but then fun was had.

There was quite a kick for awhile.

[Done]

35. Satan must have manipulated the court.

That sneaky bastard.

[noonwitch]

43. Pampers aren't evil, but tampons are "Satan's dirty fingers"

according to Landover Baptist, that is.

[truedelphi]

52. Next time you use a bit of Downy in your wash - think of this

Ingredients found in fabric softeners
Here is a list of *just some* of the chemicals found in fabric
softeners and dryer sheets:

Benzyl acetate: Linked to pancreatic cancer

Benzyl Alcohol: Upper respiratory tract irritant

Ethanol: On the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Hazardous
Waste list and can cause central nervous system disorders

Limonene: Known carcinogen

A-Terpineol: Can cause respiratory problems, including fatal
edema, and central nervous system damage

Ethyl Acetate: A narcotic on the EPA's Hazardous Waste list

Camphor: Causes central nervous system disorders

Chloroform: Neurotoxic, anesthetic and carcinogenic

Linalool: A narcotic that causes central nervous system disorders

Pentane: A chemical known to be harmful if inhaled

[mopinko]

55. amazing how persistant bs is.

jesus. how long has it been since phil was even on the air? (not counting the msnbc show)

[DrunkenMaster]

56. P&G Engage In Terrible, Needless Animal Testing

for their cosmetics and cleaners. There is just very simply no f**king reason why this needs to be done in this day and age: most reasonable companies have moved to cruelty-free ethics but P&G stands strong behind their torture, so as far as I'm concerned, they are pretty damn demonic.

[truedelphi]

58. Animals suffer - so do the toddlers who die of SIDS (and their parents) after

lying face down in the toxins the P & G products label as "safe"

We have created a whole "lie your kid on his back in a totally unnatural position" Campaign in order to allow the chemical disposers to sell us stuff that should go to the SuperFund sites.