Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

arikara

(5,562 posts)

25. Poo tops woo in profitability

Reply to Jim Lane (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:12 PM

Sep 2013

870 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the megabillions the poo companies bring in.

If homeopathy spent the money the poosters spend on drug pushing... er... advertising... they'd make considerably more. Something tells me we wouldn't have to watch smiling tv people expound for 2 minutes on all the drastic side effects of homeopathy either.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Peer-reviewed study proves: Poo stinkier than Woo [View all] Berlum Sep 2013 OP

"Woo" has been the new meme here on DU... Cooley Hurd Sep 2013 #1

Yup. It's a way of dismissing things without giving them due consideration Berlum Sep 2013 #3

Rove took "The Prince" to heart... Cooley Hurd Sep 2013 #4

Yep. Just like "emo" was a few months back. Must be interns making this stuff up. n/t n2doc Sep 2013 #6

I missed "Emo"! Cooley Hurd Sep 2013 #8

If you regard 2005 as 'new' muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #17

It's been used to an expanded degree as of late... Cooley Hurd Sep 2013 #21

LOL what an excellent term leftstreet Sep 2013 #2

Yup. laundry_queen Sep 2013 #5

yes it is...We have Ratheon, Lockhead Martin, GE, Johnson and Johnson, etc all "contributing" adirondacker Sep 2013 #16

exactly. laundry_queen Sep 2013 #22

Speaking of poo jsr Sep 2013 #7

Scientific American: "Corporate Control Over GMO Research" Berlum Sep 2013 #9

Honest Independent Science Berlum Sep 2013 #10

Thanks! I'm going to borrow this. pnwmom Sep 2013 #12

Thanks for the article! nt pnwmom Sep 2013 #11

"Climate change dictates that we need biotechnology." Precisely Sep 2013 #13

You're wrong on one point -- woo can be profitable, too. Jim Lane Sep 2013 #20

It can be but orders of magnitude count here. nt laundry_queen Sep 2013 #23

Poo tops woo in profitability arikara Sep 2013 #25

Many of the alternatives that are Poo-Pooed Precisely Sep 2013 #28

Frankenflies Precisely Sep 2013 #14

From somebody that believes in chemtrails. mathematic Sep 2013 #15

I have no use for beliefs Berlum Sep 2013 #18

Nobody on DU is dumb enough to believe in chemtrails. zappaman Sep 2013 #30

Woo is a corporately coined term? progressoid Sep 2013 #19

Yeah, that's bullshit. sagat Sep 2013 #34

how about if I don't believe either. liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #24

I think you meant "Pee Review." Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #26

Love this! K , R and bookmarked. n/t Smarmie Doofus Sep 2013 #27

Thank you! I am bookmarking to use during the next invasion of DU by corporate trolls. nt Zorra Sep 2013 #29

10...9...8...7... Berlum Sep 2013 #31

I've noticed something on this site. If you are not anti-GMO you are bullied, insulted, liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #32

Nah. You have it backwards. The GMO Mutant Corps are occultly shoving GMO crud down our throats Berlum Sep 2013 #35

Yeah, we here at DU certainly want to be the forerunners in promoting junk science... etherealtruth Sep 2013 #33

The OP juxtaposes Woo with Poo - it endorses neither Berlum Sep 2013 #36

Nope etherealtruth Sep 2013 #37

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Peer-reviewed study prove...»Reply #25