I didn't say that, you did. However, I don't believe much of the "science" coming out of land grant universities which are funded by Monsanto, DowElanco, Ortho, etc...
If it makes you feel superior to call me such a thing, feel free.
Ah, no retort.
I'd add people with compassion to the long list of people who don't buy into the lies of the agchem industry.
What are yours?
We don't lump in together. I happen to know where Tom works and I'm glad he hasn't told you. However, I feel confident he knows what he's talking about. Me, you can call me whatever you like. I don't need a science background to be a homemaker and organic gardener. I'm retired, have been for 10 years and I'm only 47. So go back to you job, little man, and make your Frankenstein logic somehow fit into the universe.
Of course I can, but you don't believe anything other than your silly little man world of knowing.
It's already been done. You don't buy it. I don't buy your line, either. Agree to disagree. Now how 'bout that frappe of Roundup? Would you like it flavored or plain?
You must be joking.
I know many people with degrees who are social idiots. Literally.
You are starting to sound very creepy.
Oh, I am sure you do. But this is a *scientific* question, not a popularity contest. Or is your argument that "Roundup is toxic because I am the most popular person on the block."
Well, now that you mention it, that *does* seem to be the gist of y'alls argument.
As opposed to Tom's dragging it in as a topic and what paghat as been writing about forensic pathology?
Funny thing, that. It wasn't "creepy" when you guys decided to make and issue of it. It's only "creepy" when I request equal disclosure.
What kind of secrets are you guys hiding? *That* is "creepy."
billo
Joking? No, I'm not joking.
Dave
Well, thanks for filling us in on your ethics, but you still have not provided any of the information you think is so important.
You have gone to great lengths about the corrupt scientific establishment, your contempt for Pathologists, etc. You have shown us how important it is that the world know
*my* employer, *my* profession, and *my* credentials.But when I ask you the same questions, you run like a cockroach exposed to the light. Why is that?
Tell me, paghat, who is your employer?
Tell me, paghat, what are your credentials, other than your claimed and demonstrated skill at deceit?
And, of course, my challenges stand. One teensy, itsy-bitsy, scientific article in a peer reviewed journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed. One. Just one. Uno. Ichi. Un. Une. Ein. Um.
You get the idea.
Oh, and I'm still waiting on the "table salt" quote. Or a retraction. But I expect to wait. You don't have the ability to provide the former, and lack the integrity for the latter.
billo
posted in :
What a spaztard lizard. You may be abused, but you're not a language. And I was a medical editor, not a flunky copyeditor. Even if I were to copyedit it wouldn't be on UseNet -- roughdrafted at 100 words per minute, hit post. You may rewrite four times & your blatherings still don't make sense, but I can be totally wise even with typos, all in one swell foop. Plus, you wannabe writers trolling from misc.writing inevitably prove Mark Twain's dictum: "Who can spell can't write." Maybe if you can break your addiction to hanging out in misc.writing with people who have never learnred how, & so are always wondering why they've never been able to publish anything professionally, you might change your context sufficiently to finally learn the difference between those of us who do, & folks such as yourself who simply can't.
-paghat the ratgirl
And don't know shit about gardening.
"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how. To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet; one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules, any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"
Aldo Leopold
Hey! snipped-for-privacy@netscapeSPAM-ME-NOT.net (paghat)! It's been a long time! How ya been? Last time i saw you, you were posting in rec.gardens and wrote this:
I highly doubt this. You've displayed the ability to copy words from reports, but your ability to evaluate what they say is notably lacking.
I'll also note your reported lack of ethics.
No, you were no medical editor. You were a shill. A monkey who could type what she was told to type.
There's nothing to be proud of, there.
Bill,
You make a lot of references to the effects of Round-up on humans....and when Round-up is used as directed.
What about lizards?? Is spraying Round-up in the eyes of lizards using Round-up as directed? I would guess that would have to be the case as I don't know how to avoid it and I have not seen anything on the label about how to avoid it. I have seen references to Round-up stinging the eyes. I doubt spraying Round-up in the eyes is recommended.
I don't know how bad the sting to the eyes is. I certainly don't want to torture the little critters...they have no access to eye wash.
Also I have used a lot of Round-up after some rather extensive research that seemed to indicate this stuff was safe...binds to the soil bla bla. Now I think I may have killed a bunch of frogs and tadpoles. I used the stuff near one of my wildlife ponds. I did stay what I thought was a safe distance away from the ponds. However now I see no frogs and no tadpoles in the pond.
If your references to the safety of Round-up are specific to humans and specific to using as directed you may be leading some of us into a false sense of security with respect to our wildlife friends.
Is spraying Round-up in the eyes of lizards of no concern to you?
no.
The anwer in part is a matter ov 'mutal to survive'...in other words the 'weeds' (ie in a different aspect, perhps us!), mutate to survive....whatever poison they through at us, we mutate to become immune. Thus (at an incresing increasing rate), the boffins are required, in the 'industrial food' paradym, to discover more and more potent poisons. The side effect of all this is that sensitivity is eroded....and eventually the whole senario implodes in to a 'great heat' or something. We have a closed loop of obbsessive/blind profit/exploitation going on fired up on RRCA (ritualistic racist child abuse). At some point this 'energy' breaks down, revealing other realities, more favourable realities, ones that many people have been closed to by RRCA etc. In other words you're still very pathetic 'westeners', but stay hopeful for reality change/liveration!
christian system is-a vam-pie-er.
Jah rastafar-I
King Amdo
What are
PEACE!
Yes I do. My claim is that Roundup is safe for humans when used as directed.
It is a different question. After we all agree that Roundup is safe for humans when used as directed, then we can start looking into its effects on lizards when used as directed.
billo
Except, of course, I never falsified data, and I never helped publish an article with falsified data.
In contrast to you.
billo
This continues to be a lie that paghat requires for her screeds.
My challenges stand:
I challenge you to produce this quote, or publish a retraction. You do not have the quote, so you cannot do the former. And you clearly have no integrity since you continue to publish this falsehood knowing it is false.
You do not do your case any good by publishing falsehoods that anybody using deja.com can see is a lie. If you cannot be trusted to tell the truth in this simple thing, how can anyone believe the rest of your screeds?
And, of course, my scientific challenge stands. Please provide *one* single article in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal claiming to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
You cannot. That is why your claims have mutated from the false claim that there is scientific proof that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed to your (slightly more honest) rejection of science altogether.
And, of course, since you and your friends make such a great deal out of who *I* work for and what *my* credentials are, why do you run and hide when I ask the same qustions of you?
Who do *you* work for, paghat?
What are *your* credentials?
Why do you run away when the disclosure and honesty you find so important is asked of you?
billo
Bill, your continuing haranguing is not leading credence to your side of the story.
Shut me up, then. Provide the reference.
Funny. You don't find that the antics of the anti-science crowd detracts from their credence, but asking for a reference *does.*
billo
Quite the contrary, Mr. Lehman. IMHO, Mr. Oliver's tenacity is pretty damn impressive. He's taken the most rabid, illogical, vicious ecofundamentalists in this newsgroup and essentially shown them to not only be breathtakingly mean-spirited, but also hypocritical as well. What's more, he's done it while faced with a torrent of ad hominem attacks, kooky archive and google snooping, and outright damnable lies about his credentials.
Personally, I admire anyone with the purist philosophy that leads to organic gardening. However I find the specious reams of appalling distortions concerning what exactly Mr. Oliver wrote sad and really disappointing-- especially since the Trinity largely responsible for the hateful barrage give really, really great advice and are passionate contributors to the newsgroup.
Just my $0.02,
Dave
FACES TWO FACES??? FACE TO FACE CONVERSATION"N CREADENCE CLEARWATER??? WHA? YAH?? OH YAH!!! SEE "C" YOU"C"!!!??? YUP??? "C"??? YOU KNOW??? WHO THAY ARE???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/?????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????/ ????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????>>>>
???/////>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.....
snipped-for-privacy@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in news:bi09av$hdb$ snipped-for-privacy@news1.radix.net:
That may be true and we should try to avoid that as well. But people are irrational, period. That is why they could be deceived by Monsanto and that is why they keep distrusting them after that, maybe longer than needed, but still...
If you read that in my words I think it's time to sit back and read it again. I did not say that.
I'm only saying there are other concerns beside the purely rational ones. If you do not allow for that the rest of your arguments will never be heard. Fact of life.
Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their trust. They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational) doubts.
And me :-). Btw. I'm not accusing you of conflict of interest; I just asked you to acknowledge that such things exist and to give us your opinion on it. Since you so intensely ignore that issue it is as if you deny it.
I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.
Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought and an unacceptable form of doing business, yes. We do not have to agree on that. However, if the sheer amount of historic lies by Monsanto does not even make you doubt the evidence, then you can not expect ppl to take you serious. This is just an observation I make, trying to explain why you didn't win any hearts.
I don't think Monsanto needs any demonizing by me, they are doing a rather good job themselves.
I'm really concerned. Monsanto is trying to use still underresearched GM- technology to get an edge that will pay out 10000-fold during the coming century. Of course they will use any means to get to that goal. They have en enormous apparatus in place to misinform all the officials and they don't even deny it. They have about the worst track-record possible regarding environmental issues. In this game, with huge, huge interests at stake, Roundup plays a central role. It would seem only logical that because of that alone there would be hardly any trustworthy evidence around.
If you refuse to acknowledge these simple facts you can not expect us to take your position seriously. To me this thread was an interesting attempt to get some more insight in this difficult issue. In weighing the evidence I tried to get a hold on the thought-processes behind them. I think the picture is complete by now.
Thanks anyway for the lively debate,
Ursa..
HomeOwnersHub website 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.