Remember chemtrails?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Back to the original thought...what IS inexcusable is a person making
policy
without properly researching the facts. That's justification for firing,
if
you ask me. It's one thing to forgive someone for stumbling through their
job in a fog. It's another entirely to allow them the opportunity to
continue doing so.

The paralegal said she was fooled by Internet sites devoted to dihydrogen
monoxide. Why? Originally they were researching material for banning
Styrofoam containers because these contaminate the creek. How would anyone
come up with the DHMO sites just researching Styrofoam containers?

It sounds more to me like the paralegal was fed up with the anal-retentive
city council and included the bit about dihydrogen monoxide in a deliberate
attempt to embarrass them.