Re: Roundup Unready

Page 6 of 8  


And that's the difference. You don't care if it's truth or lies. I do.

No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
billo said: "That's what comes from drawing conclusions from inconclusive studies. It's what comes from taking a limited study and pretending that it is definitive. Early results are commonly reversed by definitive studies. It's as common as dirt. But people who use these early results as if they were definitive do it because they have an agenda."
H. Kuska comment: billo again appears to be using a modified criteria: (this is the original one - "come up with a single scientific article that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed") to one where the scientific study must be "definitive". Unfortunately in science "definitive" is almost an impossible goal (in non simple yes/no situations). It is also a relative concept. What one group may consider for all practical purposes as "definitive" another group may not. For example, there is still a group that argues against the banning of DDT. You may have noticed that we use " 95 % Confidence Intervals". This means stasticially that the number can be thought of as being within that range with a 95 % confidence limit.
A large study is being done: "An ongoing study funded jointly by the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental Health and the EPA is tracking 90,000 herbicide applicators and their spouses to look for possible health effects of pesticides." (quote from the following July 2003 article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/11/health/main562737.shtmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/11/health/main562737.shtml ).
If you would like to read additional information about chemicals and birth defects you can do a Google search. A recommended site is the March of Dimes site: http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/4439.asp A specific page on that site of interest is: http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/681_9146.asp . The pertanent information is:
"Can pesticides harm an unborn baby? Pregnant women should avoid pesticides, whenever possible. There is no proof that exposure to pest-control products at levels commonly used at home pose a risk to the fetus. However, all insecticides are to some extent poisonous and some studies have suggested that high levels of exposure to pesticides may contribute to miscarriage, preterm delivery and birth defects. Certain pesticides and other chemicals, including PCBs, have weak, estrogen-like qualities called endocrine disrupters that some scientists suspect may affect development of the fetus's reproductive system.
A pregnant woman can reduce her exposure to pesticides by controlling pest problems with less toxic products such as boric acid (use the blue form available at hardware stores). If she must have her home or property treated with pesticides, a pregnant woman should: a.. Have someone else apply the chemicals and leave the area for the amount of time indicated on the package instructions. b.. Remove food, dishes and utensils from the area before the pesticide is applied. Afterwards, have someone open the windows and wash off all surfaces on which food is prepared. c.. Close all windows and turn off air conditioning, when pesticides are used outdoors, so fumes aren't drawn into the house. d.. Wear rubber gloves when gardening to prevent skin contact with pesticides." MedLine is the source of the latest scientific information for doctors. I post abstracts from it on general public internet boards. My policy has been to post them without comment. If the reader does not have the background to understand the abstract; and if is potentially applicable to their lifestyle (in this case pregnancy), I would hope that she would bring the abstract to the attention of their doctor.
The Minnesota study states "about 3.7 % of children born on an average day in the United States are said to have a birth defect". I do not know about your family, but in my family the pregnant woman have practiced the Precautionary Principle with regard to potential birth defect agents. If a pregnant woman decides to use Round-Up, according to the most recent information available (the 2002 Minnesota paper under consideration here - "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category."); she is increasing the odds of having of baby with a neurobehavioral birth defect. If she wants to waits for a "definitive" study, that is her choice; but according to the knowledge now available, she is running an increased risk. This is not simply an increased risk of a one time and it is over event, this is an increased risk of having brought into this world a child who may have a lifetime birth defect and a possible potential of being able to pass it along to future generations! About 15 years ago I read a very interesting book about birth defects and chemical exposure. Unfortunately I do not remember the title, only the subtitle - "Blame it all on Mother". After reading that book, I included information from it in my lectures about chemical safety - One of my favorate quotes went something like the following: it is a horrible thing when a war kills such and such many people, it is also horrible when a plague kills such and such many; but the real, "super" horrible event is if we somehow introduce something that ruins the gene pool or otherwise has an effect over multgenerations. A little background may be in order: Historically, we started out with brute force poisons. As our understanding of biology/botany increased, we were able to develop more specific poisons, i.e. ones that we "thought" would only affect a certain biological pathway; for example, one that only an insect had. Unfortunately, nature did not decide to make all fungi silicon based life forms and all insects calcium based life forms. Instead, we are finding out that many biological pathways are similar in different life forms. That said, I will now make what appears to be a very cold statement. Similar to what I just said about normal natural disasters, the poisons of the past could kill, say, a hundred people, or a thousand people, or even a million people; as far as the big picture is concerned - so what? These are just numbers in one dimension. With our new more sophisticated "poisons" we have to be concerned about affecting the gene pool. This is a two dimensional poison - today and future generations. A comparison more familiar to the public is to compare a biodegradable poison spill with a radioactive spill. Hopefully, the above will help the reader understand why some feel that it is even more important to be cautious with the newer chemicals than it was with the older "less sophisticated" ones - particularly when birth defects are involved. This is why many scientists (including myself) advocate the utilization of the "Precautionary Principle" for suspected birth defect chemicals. If you are not familar with this principle, please see: http://www.biotech-info.net/precautionary.html .
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billo said: > No, Henry. I am answering the question of why I bother with you.

H. Kuska reply: ??????? the Minnesota paper states: "Population and population access. In Minnesota, licensing for application of pesticides commercially or for application to one's own farmland requires periodic recertification by completion of a program of education and examination. Applicators are licensed to apply specific classes of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and/or fumigants)".
If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples . Also, please provide the exact quote in this paper that you feel makes the statement that the glyphosate was not used as directed.
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmmm. Let's see, can we think of any certified people who don't act exactly as directed. Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines.
All those reports of malpractice and practice errors by physicians, nurses, and medical technologists in hospitals must be lies, eh, Henry? After all, if going through an orientation session immunizes people from this kind of thing, then years of training and multiple rigorous exams must make it impossible!
And lawyers, they never cut corners either, do they? Or plumbers. Or carpenters. Or welders. Or funeral homes. Or restauranteurs. At least not licensed ones.
And god knows that there are no licensed drivers that ever break the law.
Henry, a good part of my living is investigating the messes caused by trained and licensed people who ignore the rules. There's nobody better than a trained and licensed Ordnance Disposal Expert to be found blowing up himself and his kids welding on a full propane tank.
Familiarity breeds contempt, and "experts" are some of the worst at cutting corners -- because they are good enough that they *can* often cut corners and get away with it.
My criteria for using things as directed is using things as directed.

It was not a subject of the paper. Since it was not addressed, a scientist would not make unwarranted assumptions one way or the other. Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested.
This is another paper who's purpose was to generate hypotheses, not test them, and you tout this as a paper that tests the hypotheses.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, Henry. If you want to make a statement about whether or not something is being used as directed, you study whether or not something is being used as directed. This is not meaningless. And it is not hard. What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when it is not.
It would not be hard to test whether or not something is being used as directed. One might start with asking the quesition and finding out whether or not the respondents even claim that it is being used as directed. The second thing one might do is find out whether or not the respondents even actually *know* what the criteria are. The third is to physically look and see if the criteria are being met -- in the case of professional applicators, one can look in the barn and see if things are actually being stored correctly, look at the equipment and see if it is calibrated, look at residual levels in the workplace and see if spillages are correctly handled.
As an example of the second, consider the use of Daubert criteria in the courts. A few years ago, the Supreme Court changed the way scientific evidence was admitted into court. They set up some specific criteria and stated that the judges were to be the gatekeepers of what was and was not legally considered "science."
Now, using the Henry Psychic Method of assuming results, one would believe that federal and state judges, who have passed the boards, have massive experience, and have specific training would understand and correctly apply these criteria. However, when people actually set down and asked that question, the results were not what you would expect. In a questionnaire of judges, it turned out, for instance, while 88% agreed that "falsifiability" was an important criteria and that they used it regularly, only 6% knew what it meant; 91% felt that a known error rate was important, but only 4% knew what it meant; only 71% understood the concept of peer review.
If you want to know if someone is actually following a protocol or instructions, you test for it. You don't just assume it. It's not hard, Henry. It's done in medicine *all the time,* and the results of such studies show that it is important to test for it. And it's not a meaningless question to ask. Ipse dixit died years ago, perhaps not before you retired, but in today's world of inquiry it is by no means meaningless to actually ask if people are doing things as directed.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here are two examples of how it should be done.
The first study was a large randomized study of the Atkin's Diet, which found that the Atkins Diet resulted in good weight loss for those who stayed on it, but had a very high level of attrition. In other words, if one stayed with the original group it didn't work -- because few people stayed on the diet. It is important to actually test whether people "on the diet" actually are doing what they are supposed to do:
Foster, et al. A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity NEJM 348:2082-2090, 2003.
(begin excerpt)
A total of 49 subjects completed 3 months of the study (28 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 21 on the conventional diet), 42 subjects completed 6 months (24 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 18 on the conventional diet), and 37 subjects completed 12 months (20 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 17 on the conventional diet). The percentage of subjects who had dropped out of the study at 3, 6, and 12 months was higher in the group following the conventional diet (30, 40, and 43 percent, respectively) than in the group following the low-carbohydrate diet (15, 27, and 39 percent, respectively), but these differences were not statistically significant. Overall, 59 percent of subjects completed the study, and 88 percent of those who completed the six-month assessment completed the full study. When the analysis included data on subjects who completed the study and data obtained at the time of the last follow-up visit for those who did not complete the study, the pattern of weight loss was similar to that obtained when the base-line values were carried forward in the case of missing data. Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight than the subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (P=0.002) and 6 months (P=0.03), but the difference in weight loss was not statistically significant at 12 months (P=0.27)
(end excerpt)
See, Henry, you don't just assume that because someone has received instructions that they follow them. You ask the question, and compare those who do and do not follow directions.
In this study, compliance was measured for studying the efficacy of a birth control pill:
F. D. Anderson, H Hait. A multicenter, randomized study of an extended cycle oral contraceptive. Contraception Volume 68, Issue 2 , August 2003, Pages 89-96
(begin excerpt)
3.2. Compliance
There were two measurements of compliance, which were evaluated by assessing patient diary data as to whether or not a patient took her OC pill every day. Pill compliance within each extended or conventional cycle was determined by observing if the patient missed 2 consecutive days of pill-taking and, if so, the patient was considered to be noncompliant for that cycle. Overall, study compliance was determined by counting the percentage of total days in the 1-year study when the patient took the designated pill for a given day. Overall compliance of <80% would exclude a patient altogether from the Pearl Index calculation. Otherwise, noncompliance within a particular cycle would exclude that cycle only from the Pearl Index. For the life-table calculation, only the overall compliance criterion was used to exclude "noncompliant" patients from the cumulative pregnancy rate calculation, since exclusion of individual cycles from the patient's total would lead to a noncontinuous, intermittently truncated time frame.
The overall treatment compliance rate in each of the study groups was very high with 95.4% of extended cycle regimen patients and 93.4% of conventional regimen patients assessed as compliant. A total of 22 (4.8%) extended cycle regimen patients and nine (4.0%) conventional regimen patients were discontinued from the study due to noncompliance. The number of clinically significant protocol deviations was minimal and no protocol deviations were used to exclude any patients from the analysis of efficacy or safety. Most protocol deviations were related to inclusion/exclusion criteria at study enrollment and were not observed during the active study interval.
(end excerpt)
Now, I know, Henry, that you do consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless," but when studying the effects of therapy -- or the toxicity in adverse effects -- recognizing that one can both measure and separate compliant from noncompliant groups is important. In the case of looking at pesticide/herbicide toxicity when used as directed, that means actually looking at whether or not it is used as directed.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It seems to me that the article referred by Mr. Kuska noted an increased risk of birth defects when glycophospate was used in combination with other pesticides and there has been some debate about how common this is in the real world, (whatever the real world is). However, most pesticides are persistent in the environment and end up being stored in the fat of animals higher up on the food chain, including humans. Most, if not all, of us are still carrying residues of DDT used long ago in North America, (and still being used in South America) - as well as residues of pesticides currently approved. So none of us on the planet are "pesticide free" - although it would be hard to say whether the amounts present in our blood stream (released whenever fat is burned for energy) would be at a level sufficient to activate the increased risk from glycophospate found in this study of agricultural workers. I guess my point is that "safe when used as directed" is not quite as straightforward a statement as it might appear, because we are living in a complex world now of chemical interactions not conceived of even 100 years ago, when plants were either poisonous or not, or water was either potable or not........ One need only look at the literature on prescription drug interactions, as well as drug/food, drug/herb interactions, to realize that life is seldom as simple as those statements that appear on labels. On balance, I'd say that many of the chemicals and drugs discoverd in the past century have vastly improved our lives, but that's not the same as saying that they are risk-free - and some which were miracles in their time have created nightmares later, as in the supermicrobes now resisitant to practically everything in the medical arsenal. I think many here are reacting not so much to Round Up as being the baddest chemical on the block, but rather to the notion that it is wise to place all of one's faith in a miracle chemical - because the history of the past century has not borne out that trust.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly right, and distrusting anyone who _is_ that faithfull.
Ursa..
--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ mailto: snipped-for-privacy@iname.com \ *-*-* *
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, it is not impractical in the real world. It is standard of practice in medicine, epidemiology, and allied health fields.

As you have stated many times, 100% of anything is impossible to achieve. That, however, is not a reason to abandon all attempts at rigor. In fact, it is both possible and practical to measure compliance. Your claim of "risk" of losing a license is a red herring; such problems arise commonly in population-based observational studies -- particularly those involving illegal drug use and other risky behaviors. It turns out that people are pretty responsive in blinded studies when the methods are explained. Certainly any interview-based method will *underestimate* the degree of noncompliance, but an interview- or visit- based study that measures compliance and finds low compliance will be more meaningful because of that underestimation.
In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant has *no* basis in the "real world," as demonstrated by *all* studies that do look at compliance.

You can speculate all you want. However, until you test a hypothesis, it remains speculation.

Ah, once again, the Psychic Science Network strikes again.

No, it does not meet *many* criteria for making the cognitive leap that this demonstrates any kind of threat to humans by Roundup when used as directed. Indeed, if you drink 1% glyphosate as your sole source of fluids for a long enough period of time, I would expect *you* to have some enzymatic abnormalities.
You never did read that Ames chapter, did you? I didn't think you would. I'm sorry there's not an abstract, but you might just pass your hands over it; you might catch some vibes.

In the "real world" of medicine, Henry, an obstetrician who based his or her advice on the basis of a single observational study that had low statistical power and did not address the cohort to which the patient belonged would be committing malpractice. It's that kind kind of reasoning that pushed estrogens on menopausal women in order to "protect" them from heart disease.
Studies designed to generate hypotheses and studies designed to test hypotheses are different.
The studies you have mentioned are descriptive studies. In evidence-based medicine, these are the lowest class of studies (Class III in some taxonomies and class IV in others) and should not be used for modifying practice. They are, instead, used to generate hypotheses that in turn are tested by higher class studies that involve randomization, blinding, and controlling for things like compliance.
That's why the Ontario study you trotted out as claiming to demonstrate that Roundup was dangerous to humans when used as directed was explicit in the kind of study it was:
"Because the farmers used many different pesticides during the study and our sample size was limited, findings may be unreliable, particularly for multiple pesticide interactions. Because pesticide products were reported primarily by the farm applicator or husband, differential recall of pesticide exposure by the mother is not likely to be a problem in this study; however, some nondifferential recall of pesticide and spontaneous abortion is likely. Because the analyses were designed to generate, not test, hypotheses, and multiple comparisons were conducted, results should be interpreted with care and tested in other studies."
I know you didn't read this because you believe that you only need to read abstracts and what the authors say in the actual article is unimportant, but this *is* important. The authors aren't saying "we did a bad study." The authors are saying "we did a class IV study, and a Class II or Class I study should be done to see if this means anything."

A "real world" recommendation to avoid all chemicals and all "fumes" is not all that practical, nor is it based on real science. There is a difference between saying "assume everything is bad and stay away from everything when you're pregnant," which is a standard, though pretty useless, admonition, and claiming that "Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed."
It is probably true that there are specific cohorts for whom Roundup, like virtually everything from peanuts to chocolate, poses a risk, that does not generalize to humans in general, though. If and when that cohort is identified, and the risk demonstrated, then that cohort should stay away from hanging around crop dusters filled with Roundup. That does not imply by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that cohort.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
billo said " In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"
H. Kuska reply: I made no such assumption. I have emphasized "real world". How can you come to that conclusion when I later in the same reply stated: "We live in an imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 % utilization observation)."?
billo said: " It is probably true that there are specific cohorts for whom Roundup, like virtually everything from peanuts to chocolate, poses a risk, that does not generalize to humans in general, though. If and when that cohort is identified, and the risk demonstrated, then that cohort should stay away from hanging around crop dusters filled with Roundup. That does not imply by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that cohort."
H. Kuska reply: note that billow said: "That does not imply by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that cohort."
H.Kuska reply: Thank you. I agree with you that a study of birth defects does not apply to those that it does not apply to (i.e. men and non-pregnant woman). The reported facts are: "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category." Earlier you have commented on the possibile ambiguity of an O.R. below 2. This is 3.6! My point is that "Stastically" it does apply to the group being studied. It appears that your original criteria needs another modification something along the line that you are asking people to produce a study that applies to everybody except any sugroup of anybody where it is dangerous. That sounds like a very safe challenge to make.
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
billo, you are wasting my time. Your own answers contradict your own statements. This is what you previously said: "In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant has". Now you attempt to "change the goal posts" by stating ": "That means you assume that the group is essentially all compliant." Notice first the use of "*all*" and then "essentially all" - I did not say either statement as you then admit when you then say: " Sure, you don't claim 100% but you *assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%. Tell me, Henry, what level of compliance do you *assume?* 99%? 90%?"
H. Kuska reply: the reader can easilly use his/her browsers "find" command to search where I state that: "*assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%. you ". You then say: "Tell me Henry......." - I explained to you that this was a "real world" study that indicates the risk in the real world. One does not *assume* any particular number as it has no bearing on a "real world" situation. ---------------------------------------
billo then states: "You really don't understand the difference between an observational study to create hypotheses and a study that tests hypotheses, do you?"
H. Kuska reply: the introduction tells us what the study is about. It concludes with: "The present cross-sectional study was undertaken to provide more detailed information regarding the reproductive health of pesticide applicators and their families."
Notice the "more detailed", this is a follow up study to one discussed earlier in the introduction.
I feel that I have said enough about my understanding/experience that conclusions in complicated matters in science are almost always tentative (i.e. hypotheses). I am sorry that your understanding/experience does not allow you to accept this statement. ----------------------------------------- From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypotheses 2 entries found for hypotheses.
hypothesis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hypotheses (-sz)
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.
-----------------------------------------
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what you state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. I also insist that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between professionals : "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of water, no doubt"; "Indeed when comparing one group that eats red beans and arsenic and with a group that eats red beans, and the first group has an increased death rate, Henry is convinced that means that red beans are poisonous."; "You may think they're lying,"; "I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying"; "And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother to read the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading."; " No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an article states."; "Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines"; "Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not tested."; "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; "Now, using the Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,"; "Now, I know, Henry, that you do consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; "In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; .... I could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss things at a formal professional level.
Henry Kuska, retired snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
H. Kuska reply to billo. So you continue with statements like: "Henry, you stop acting like a supercilious ass" - (coupon 1 used up) and terms like "bullshit", - (coupon 2 used up - you cannot say that I did not make it clear that: "I also insist that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between professionals ".
H. Kuska comment to billo concerning the second part of hisr reply: things that you quote as being said to you were actually stated to the general reader. Lets start with the first one that you cite. This is what you just said: "Henry, you don't start a conversation with a professional by telling him he doesn't know what a scientist is. You don't put in that bullshit like "if you are unfamilar with the structure of scientific abstracts". H. Kuska reply: I did a browser find to see where it occured. This is the start of the actual post: " --------------------------------------------------------------- Message 103 in thread From: Henry Kuska ( snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.com) Subject: Re: Roundup Unready
View this article only Newsgroups: rec.gardens Date: 2003-09-01 09:08:05 PST
Another recent refereed scientific article, (if you are unfamilar with the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory sentence and the final conclusion sentences, also note the affiliation of the authors, I have also provided the link to the journal web page...."-------------------------------------------H. Kuska comment: Nothing in this post states that this post was addressed to someone named "BILLO".---------------------------------------------- H. Kuska comment: Then you state as your second example: "If the referees (reviewers) > and editor agree that the choice of research is meaningful, and that their > procedure is sound, it gets published. If anyone feels that it is not, > he/she can publish their own paper and the review process will judge the > validity of their "points"," when I explicity stated I didn't have a problem

wording had to be approved by the editor and the referees. The editor of a > scientific journal is normally one of the top scientists in the field and > the referees are also a select group chosen for their contributions to the field."-------------------------------------------------> H. Kuska comments: Note the use of "If anyone" and "I would like to remind the reader"Again no mention of "billo". I have tried to make it very clear when I was replying to you, billo.I do not have time to track and respond to stuff this this - coupon 3 used up.I am sorry but you have used up your "coupons".Good by.Henry Kuska, snipped-for-privacy@neo.rr.comhttp://home.neo.rr.com/kuska /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you killfile him you'll miss him on other topics for which he's not loony. Besides, even the loony stuff can be amusing. Personally I only read about one in ten of his posts on this topic (after the first week) because he got too trolly & redundant & stopped even trying to make sense, but do see a bit more than I bother to open & read when he gets quoted by others whose responses I read more wholeheartedly. I wouldn't go so far as to killfile because in other threads he can be totally of interest.
-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Another sock puppet. Pathetic. You really are a stunning coward, Tom.
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

He
No shillo, the same ip address, you egocentric gardening failure. Do you know the definition of sock puppet? Are you so incredibly inept that you assume anyone else can't mask their identity? Can you identify newsreaders? Oh but that would require reading the message header and in your little world of shills would qualify as stalking! Putz!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You do get testy when you get caught, don't you?
billo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17 Sep 2003 01:48:36 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Caught?
Shillo you ignorant egocentric. Now be a good little asshole and learn to use your news reader. Notice I posted from the same computer and responded to both Pam and Paghat refering to a thread where I was clearly identified. I'll happily call you the arrogant egotistical asshole you are without a nom de plume. God bless the person that incouraged you to practise medicine on dead souls, we all feel much safer!
justanotherfan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The post was NOT from another domain and any idiot could see that. Since the domain and IP were not masked please let me know how I posted anonymously? Previous threads and interchanges with Paghat clearly identified me. I have no reason to fear or hide from a Monsanto shill!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Apparently you know as much about usenet as you do about gardening and roundup. Another arrogant Phd, living the life of a gardening shill.
Now please point out the anonymous IP I used?
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:07:57 -0700, "Just another fan"

NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.108.40.241 X-Complaints-To: snipped-for-privacy@cox.net X-Trace: fed1read04 1063764864 68.108.40.241 (Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:14:24 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:14:24 EDT Organization: Cox Communications Xref: east.cox.net rec.gardens:354565 X-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:14:24 EDT (news1.west.cox.net)
On 17 Sep 2003 01:48:36 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.