any hydro peeps here?

Page 2 of 5  


I gave citations and you give ad hominem attacks, you are sick.

You find the observations of the University of California and one of it's professors of no worth, nor the views of Penn State University? Huh?
You attacked me, not the evidence. Why don't you just admit that you are full of IT?
You asked for substantiation that plants must struggle to produce healthier food. I gave it. What part of the transaction do . . . aw, screw it, GFY.

--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You didn't answer the question(s), you neglected to proofread your report and your references; none of which adequately addressed your premise and you posted a cut and pasted underlined, disjointed, jumbled, juvenile writing reverting to your usual organic dogma.
Your still pathetic, little boy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

I await your pissing and moaning. -Billy
gunny, sorry I missed the humor in your response.

billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation are a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as well.
I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical platforms.
This is one of those frequent times you should have kept your mouth shut so as not to remove all doubt. ------- You didn't answer the question(s), you neglected to proofread your report and your references; none of which adequately addressed your premise and you posted a cut and pasted underlined, disjointed, jumbled, juvenile writing reverting to your usual organic dogma.
Your still pathetic, little boy.
--

Sorry, gunny, that you can't read, but that isn't my fault. Everything
is there to substantiate my assertions, except for he part where
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
childishly wrote: Now you can

So you want to continue arguing your ignorance by referencing your Internet abstract articles of papers you can't get, Amazon book reviews of books you don't buy and google references you don't read through?
billy, you whine like a little Valley Bitch about something you still fail to show is true, yet you cast dispersions on an article that gives you some of the specific details that you say you want to see. It also gives leads to the data source, so as you claim, you can further research the subject. (sure you will...)
I gave you the information you asked for. Poverty or not, it gave more specific detail than all your disjointed, underlined, BS crap did. As usual, your referencing a massive volume of BS is still going to equal BS. The onus is not on me to prove anything to you nor to play your silly ass little games. Your penchant for SALG and drunken diatribes are quite apparent.
You have a very bad habit of juvenile google researching and still you never thoroughly reading your cherry picked sources. It is thinly veiled information that you think illustrates your point and disregards anything that would contradict your "facts". But in case you missed the basic interrogatives my article gave I will include them here so you don't get confused again. Also, If you need a lesson in the basic interrogatives, let me know, I can recommend some remedial programs for you.
"Plant Research Technologies Inc., an independent analytical laboratory in San Jose, California," (The one you call an industry hack because you can't refute the study so you have to cast dispersions on it as a industry insider. As if Mitchell and the Organic Center don't have a connection!) stated that :
"Tomatoes (Patio Pride) demonstrated a mean increase of 50 percent in vitamin and mineral content. Of the 14 values tested, the hydroponics tomatoes showed increases in five and modest decreases of 25 to 30 percent in three. Sweet peppers (Gypsy) showed a mean increase of 150 percent - increases in nine of the 14 values tested and equal to soil-grown in the remaining five. The sweet peppers tested up to 300 percent higher in vitamins B2 and B3. A literature search including USDA, EPA and FDA publications, plus reports from university and private industry sources on the nutritional content of soil-grown crops was used in the study
Nutritional analysis included vitamins A, B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3 (niacin), B6 (pyridoxine), C and E. The plant analysis included nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, iron, aluminum, manganese, copper, boron and zinc.
The tomatoes were grown in an Aquafarm system and the peppers in an AeroFlo system both using hydroponic nutrients. The hydroponic produce was also tested for heavy metals and chemical residues on the EPA's priority list. None were detected."
Pretty specific details in there for a short article, billy. Quite opposite of the thin dogma you give in that load of BS you reference as proof.
This is specific, measurable information, something you so often fail to give in your quest for us heathens to see the organic light. Perhaps if you offer 72 virgins to work the 40 acres and a mule dream you also promise when on your organic soapbox.
What did your book author Pollan and your google scientific articles actually show? the definition of a Phenolic? the actual bioflavonoids you refer to? The quantified amounts? The exact conditions each were grown in?
No, none of those things, just more organic supposition to create subject hyperbole.
I find nothing to address any of the basic interrogatives, nothing. just references to references that suggest it MAY BE true. The reference that Mitchell's work is going to be reviewed by the UK's FSA seemed to be a good lead, yet it also failed to be conclusive as evidenced by the UK's FSA. So all you have is hyperbole.
"The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols."
OK, who, what, why, when, where, and how? What is meant by "significant", "otherwise sustainably"? Your references again fail to show any specifics, billy. It wold be nice to know the study he is refering to with such a claim.
And this one?
"The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made pesticides dont need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol pesticides".
OK, where is some proof to the hypothesize and again, where are the basic interrogatives? Do try to remember that the subject was hydroponics, not conventional, not organic... hydroponics, a subject you know little to nothing about.
Here is another quote from your reference of Pollan: " A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to support) MAY BE that the radically simplified soils in which chemically fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be."
"...seems to support" ..."MAY BE"? Real scientific info coming from a book writer guy worrying about the psychological rearing of a pig being killed for dinner. and what is this? "....as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be"?
Do you dare attempt to prove that tidbit of junk science with a MAYBE theory? MAYBE he is a popular writer but using Pollan as an authoritative source is hardly science.
Now, lets go to your google references you hide in that jumbled mess you posted and note this passage from those disjointed and redundant references:
"The findings add to a SMALL BODY OF LITERATURE showing higher levels of antioxidants in some organic produce, including research out of the UC-Davis showing higher levels of phenols in some berries." (Was this Mitchell's research of her research?)
AND THIS LITTLE REVEALING TIDBIT, ALSO FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES
"Building solid evidence confirming the benefits of organic fruits and vegetables over conventionally grown produce IS HAMPERED by wide variances in organic farming, ranging from soil and climate differences to variations in crops, seasons and farmer philosophies, said Diane Barrett, also a researcher with the UC-Davis department of food science and technology."
AND AGAIN FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES
"We need MORE controlled and real-life commercial studies, and we NEED BETTER collaboration between researchers to get a broader look at growing systems," said Barrett."
Did that fellow UC-Davis researcher infer Mitchell needs more controlled and real-life commercial studies? that solid evidence is hampered? that there is a small body of literature and that better research is needed?
Funny, the UK's FSA report this summer came to the very same conclusion. little scientific evidence to support the overly broad claim organic is better.
The controversial and peer reviewed UK's FSA report looked at the whole organic is better claim that you recite ad naseum. 1st review http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf
2nd review http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf
peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1
"Dr. Dangour, of the LSHTM's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: 'A SMAll NUMBER of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
ohh...A SMAll NUMBER...This really pissed off the Organic community which is still up in arms and as you often do, disparage his ancestry, his loyalty and his scientific knowledge. Shortly after, the French claim they had a study to prove it true and the Swedes one that supported the FSA.... Still a host of articles abound written from that FSA press release, many with the exact verbiage, depending on the ideological bent of the writer, few of any worth addressing the actual report contents.
It is a good bet there will be much further debate on all this but right now there is no one that has any real answers, just best guess and a bunch of the same myths you spout.
But due note your Dr. Mitchell's studies were in that FSA study. I am not knocking Mitchell's studies in the context of research, but you still have no real idea of what she is researching and what her findings actually are. What is the "significant difference you claim? Is is a PPM? is it 1 or perhaps 3 mmol kg 1 gram more? What specifically is the difference of what compound and how does it affect the plant and more importantly, humans?
So all very interesting, yet, again..... still absolutely NOTHING to do with Hydroponics, which BTW, I will still maintain does all that organic claims and even better; lower pesticides,better growth, higher yields, less pollution, less labor, less enviro footprint and does it all with the very chemical salts that you claim kills the earth and uses much less water. And yes, tastes as good as or better. BTW, If called for, I can control stress environments much easier and more precisely hydroponically than you could ever attempt to do organically.
"Multiple biotic and aboitic factors can influence levels of phenolics antioxidants in fruit and vegetables and it is important to consider these factors when sampling and compiling values." Dr. A. Mitchell
So without a recognized standard, data is all subjective. If subjective, how can one say it is an accurate comparison and therefore one is better. YOU don't get to change facts to suit your arguement.
Now STFU, go play your SLAG with someone else that doesn't know you better or someone that will put up with your drunken diatribes. There is no more audience for you to play hillbilly professor to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ad hominems and derision, that's all you got? LOL ;O)

--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."
and in another message again writes:
"Now you can GFY ;O) ."
Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact he cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and derision, that's all you got? LOL ;O)"
Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks to go fuck themself everytime he is proved wrong! How mentally myopic you remain, billy. Still, I note you do not refute the FSA study contridicting your claim nor your absurd references that you gave to support them. So, I can assume you have no further proof to offer, well, any real proof that is. In the future do proofread your work, check your references well, stop cherry picking and above all, forgo the Billy Mayes Marketing techniques.
Yet, I am glad you attempt at least one of Segan's "Fine Art of Boloney Detection" concepts that I showed you, now if you can only grasp some of his others and actually apply them to support your positions.
I do hope you will continue your learning; instead of your usual peusdointellectual cherry picking and quoting half truths followed by your Romper Room theatrics. Good luck with that.
Just remember, billy; Who, what, why, when, were and how. Learn em, and as well refer to Segan's principles often: http://tinyurl.com/y29s4o
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Blah, blah, blah, I thought we were talking about nutrients in plants, which is why you choose the praise of a company (I noticed you left out their url [http:hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/) that prides itself on working with biotech companies, to minimize the favorable reports from the University of California at Davis, and others.
I can see that you are a true believer, and that you have no control over your need to protect your fantasy, I wish you luck.
--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Have you sobered up from your all night binge yet, billy? When you do, go back and "notice" I gave you that url on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:30 AM so you must not have noticed very much, perhaps because you were again Drunk While Typing.
I realize it may be after you graduate the 7th grade this next year, but when you can comprehend the thread, try to address the contradictions I outlined from your jumbled, disjointed references you erroneously believe shows that organic is better.
Just for fun, here is yet another refutation of your claim from one of the very UC-Davis PhDs in that jumbled up mess you cite as proof?
" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane Barrett, Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively say that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there were signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product, And (sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes. But neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there was no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the organic and conventionally grown products"
IFT Media Relations, Chicago, Il
But lets stay on your claim of organic superiority and address the most exhaustive study todate, the UK's FSA study completed this summer( 2009) that says "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
1st review http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf
2nd review http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf
peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1
You can try to refute the study, billy, but you can't with any real scientific evidence, just observational selection
inferences from the many pro-organo organizations. But you wouldn't want to quote an "industry hack " that have may have a hidden agenda or praise as you so often infer the chem folks do, would you?
Just saying something is true is a lot different than actually proving it. You fail at proving you claims a lot.
Again, the BS trademark political commentaries are snipped.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who are these people, and when where these studies made?

Who are these people, and when where these studies made?

"In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies, conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed."
So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants, making them a target for noxious insects.
"No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed."
What 8 nutrient categories? Do they include bioflavonoids?

Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about. Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding wanker.
--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I spend some time today to review these links again and still find you can't fault the conclusions. You will, like so many of your belief have already, whine and cry foul, but the proof is pretty soild. So stop teabagging and read it.
The UK's FSA independent study completed this summer( 2009) states : "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

you didn't read the link, did you?

Again, you didn't read the link, did you?

"In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies, conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed."

making them a target for noxious insects.
You messed this one up also. Is this a quote from the link above it? No, so separate the two and give a reference to your lead-in of your absurd hypothesis; "chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants, making them a target for noxious insects"

I can see now you are really confused, mostly because you haven't read or have you? Stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS and READ.
I did note that you screwed this last part up as much as you did the first bit of jumbled crap you refer to as "citations". Suffice it to say that the statement; " chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants, making them a target for noxious insects" is a complete misstatement of fact in whatever you are attempting . Pure supposition. No one said "leaves", no one said "noxious insects", except you. We were also discussing hydroponics, so to assume that excess nitrogen in a plant invites pests in hydroponic food is a bit out there. I asked you for information on your absurd claim and you dare to compare conventional and organic produce with your jumbled up mess including Pollan quotes and links to UC-Davis. Your links as usual, showed inconsistencies and half-truths. I gave you the latest information conducted by FSA that included such information as you hold to prove your point. The conclusion is the same as Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis, echoed earlier; Any claim that organic produce is somehow nutritionally superior is inconclusive.
Again, I also said I wasn't going to do your work for you. You must actually read the studies to know what they say. Only then can you attempt to refute them. You haven't done that so far. Only when you do can you forward your faulty premises. Right now you are just cherry picking your facts and mostly using quotes out of context, as usual. You need to quote your so called "facts" correctly.
How funny your use of " bleeding wanker" ? Is this your faux pas attempt at being British? Worldly, perhaps? Yet, how apropos as you will see, or perhaps as you already did?
Good to see you using the basic interrogatives as I recommended, but you wouldn't have had to if you would have actually READ the links. At the minimum, everything you ask is on the first pages as well as the who, what, why,when, where and how the study was conducted. If in a hurry, just read the executive summaries or abstracts as you usually do.
But this one time I gave you the entire study in PDF form, as well as the second review and the American peer review so you can't pretend it is of no significance. The complete protocol to include the fact that " relevant subject experts and external bodies were alerted to the review process and the availability of the review protocol." and that "A draft of the final report was reviewed and approved by the independent review panel". So either you can't read or you won't read? which is it? Your comprehension will be another issue.
Personally, I believe it was too kind in that the protocol was overly broad. One thing the organic comparisons do not do is give a base soil analysis to include pH. and then explain what nutrients they have available for use in their soil bank. There is a big difference in chicken manure, cow manure, alfalfa etc. What inorganic materials did they use? in what amounts, and how frequently. I do find fault with the control (or lack of) in most of "experiments" and studies so far. Your "research", thus the facts used to confirm your beliefs are mostly flawed and vastly over stated. You have no standard protocol to make comparisons as this show.
I am sure you can see the disparity that can be. So lets see an equal side by side where all things are the same as possible, then give realistic explainations for the varients. Hasn't been done to date as Br Barrett indicates.
I realize balanced scientific papers are not on the Fringe Organic Industry Insider's recommended reading list, but this FSA study is going to cause you considerable consternation if you continue to claim such superiority. Go review the study design, search strategy, pub selection, etc. 50 years!
The concept of sustainable agriculture using organic materials is a good and noble one, but it not the panacea you have so falsely claimed and badger people about. You continue to preach apples, all the while showing oranges as this latest study shows.
Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior. So you want to quit now and move on because you nor your fan club can adequately address this one.
-- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh? whadda ya talking about now?
--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:>

We are still the on fact you haven't read any of the FSA's study, much less the ones you have falsely claimed is some kinda proof . Personally I think you are pretending and know you can't refute them, kinda like you did with the Ironite fiasco when you were making "factual" claims on a product that sold out 2 years prior or when you accused Sherwin of lying when he said he contacted Dr. Swartz.
So here we are yet again, talking about you not checking your cut and paste "facts". Your research skills are juvenile at best, billy. Next time you want to play big man on campus, you better have your facts right.
You looking for a quick exit, are ya?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gunner wrote:

WTF has this flame war got to do with growing marijuana?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sometime in the recent past Rusty Trombone posted this:

These two have crossed galaxies to continue the war. See "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" Star Trek season III episode #70 http://tr.im/Cif7
Two sides of the same coin, tossed together to argue minutiae across the sands of time. Their hate evolved faster than reason, one from the tribe of Organites and the other from the tribe of Chemferts. Why they fight has long been lost to each and now all they have left is the hate. Tossing aside all those who make attempts at reason as if they were a common foe, interlopers beware.
--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So eloquently philosophical, yet so pretentious and distorted. You act like a little Philistine from the Organites camp. You have never stood up to counter any thing in that camp so far, have ya? So your attempt to wax philosophical with empty fluffy words from someone in the back of the crowd that never stood up on an issue is certainly suspect. It does sounds very Solomanistic, though!
If you have viable comments on anything I've said to date, spit them out. As for of billy's disjointed claims or if you actually cared to support billy's claim by refuting the FSA study, I would like to hear them too. Better late than never. Don"t like those?..., pick one of his other BS statements to address, be you pro or con.
Seems you been waiting a while to say something seeming so profound there Wilson? I recall the last attempt was your argument on "citation" wasn't it? Again stemming from a billy rant. Funny, you didn't weigh-in on any "billyfacts" in his using PAN to allude the sky is falling all the while using the FED's pesticide database which said quite the contrary....some BS about "lemmings and status quo" & eating pesticides. Oh and that the definitions in your on-line dictionary are better than my desk dictionary. So, any allusion to some grand neutrality and arguing what is minutiae is a bit subjective for you, isn't it?
As for "the tribe of Chemferts", Wilson? No, do not play this little triviality trick and attempt to brand me with your BS wording to justify your cute little diatribe or dismiss this as an "either/or". To say chemical salts kill soil, earthworms or soil organisms is to deny the fact plants use these very chemical salts for their nutrients. I can go line by line with many of the other organic "opinions" your camp has proffered here but your organo statements are largely opinions, maybe good, but mostly without fact. I will challenge lies, half-truths and dogma. But what have you done? Not much as I can see but these little pearls great wisdom.
You just snipe safely from the back of the crowd, pulling a Glen Beck. Make the issues some kinda of simple "either/ or" in some lame attempt to give cover for action and further your organic dogma.
Now I am guilty of "wrestling the pig" and certainly of jousting with windmills in fighting self-righteousness. But I will be the first to say that, but someone, sometime or other, has to speak out on stupidity and lies.
"It is the worst form of arrogance to believe yourself to be so right that you are justified in lying to others in order to get them to share your belief." http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p5
It is the same pattern everytime w/ billy, some wild ass allegation, then some superficial cherry picked statement from some industry insider group all the while attempting to discredit fact as biased, then when he can't even dispute the factual statements from his own "citations". Lil billy attempts bullying and certain of this group such as you, condones it. How pathetic that is, but much worse is the duplicity exhibited by your lack of action and pretentious scolding me after the fact.
To challenge such stupidity does not make one from the "tribe of chemferts", but in my book you sure speak volumes for those that timidly condone such affronts on intelligence with their silence. Still, its not an "either/or" issue Wilson, as much as you want to trivialize it.
Beside if you don't like reading this and for what ever reason you couldn't weigh in on any salient points, why did you continue to read it ? Are you somehow indignant that someone took away your freewill & made you read all this?
After all it is your dogma and one has the right to believe what ever, just not the right to tell lies about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Um, Gunner? I'm pretty sure Wilson was being humorous. It made me laugh.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:

To afford you the respect that you didn't give me, I leave your eloquence un-snipped. I find snipping is a selfish thing, one something does to others, but never to self. I have actually followed some of your links and thoroughly enjoyed the hydro tour of the lettuce operation on YouTube. That said, I'll leave it up to your readers to decide whether you are Bele or Lokai, as my point was made. You don't know where I stand, but you assume. I don't bore easily nor quickly, but the 'Billy / Gunner / Billy / Gunner' ad nauseum does bring me to tears as in 'bored to.'
Continue, glad you enjoyed this little diversion - I can tell. You may have sniffed out my affection for organics, it is a self-sustaining system unlike the cycle of the man-sustained chemically-fortified agronomy you defend. You can hardly do harm with organics. If you approach it like a cookbook, you can still grow good vegetables, but if instead, like a good chef, you take the time to learn the interplay of the ingredients with time, heat & spice, great things are achieved. No urea, no herbicide, no pesticide. Just an incredibly healthy soil environment which overgrows the pests encountered, the weeds that try to invade, and leaves just a bit of the mystery to life and its processes.
No, rather take up the sword and swing it about touting how safe it all is, to discard all ontological considerations claiming profoundly that Man can conquer it all. And we can, almost! So praise the 14 bottom plow and the square miles put under it, the mono-culture that supports nothing but itself, the reliance on 'Roundup resistant' GM plants while sitting back and claiming that no ill comes from this mentality.
Who do you shill for Gunner? Rhetorical question of course, because your arguments fall on deaf ears. And I know you'll blast me for this one, but I don't need to read the studies or the reports to know the agenda they serve. You dismiss and I dismiss. We are both dismissed. Class adjourned.
--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My hat is off and a very deep bow....
This is the best rebuttal and reply I have had the pleasure to read in a long time.
Thank you, Wilson.
Charlie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<Charlie> wrote in message wrote in message " ...And I know you'll blast me for this one, but I don't need to read the studies or the reports to know the agenda they serve. You dismiss and I dismiss. We are both dismissed. Class adjourned."
Very sophomoric and close-minded, yet, Charlie still writes :

" This is the best rebuttal and reply I have had the pleasure to read in a long time." "Thank you, Wilson."

Glaring in its absence....STILL nothing of substance given to support your shaman.
BTW Charlie, yes your rec.gardens.organic newsgroup is "Deader than a Hammer......SAD" as you so note. As to why? Personally I think it is the requisite sermons and proselytizing your tribe tends to do. Maybe the decline is because of the "teabags" the tribe is leaving to mark the trail back to camp, or perhaps its the "little red book" the tribe passes out at the advocacy group meetings? This outlines your only M.O. so far.
Regardless of why Charlie, all your Shaman has got is lots of Faulty Analogy, then fringe talk, followed by Ad Hominem attacks. All the while, the lynch mob hangs back, hoping to snipe one in there when no one is looking as demonstrated here
As for this great pearl of wisdom you posted in your organic newsgroup:
...", but for those who are new, or want to learn something new, aren't we beholden to correct ignorance and false information when we encounter it, re: sheldon, re: things garden re:monsanto worshippers (credit to phorbin)...different perspectives are what we offer. Charlie"
A perspective is much different than fact and yes, we are beholden. "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity._ MLK Jr.
I still hold hope for your shaman. The lynch mob? not so much nowadays.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Isn't this an Ad Hominem? /rhetorical/*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.