Re: Roundup Unready

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List

formatting link
the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.

Reply to
dr-solo
Loading thread data ...

Well, no. First, you assume that someone is either "pro-Roundup" or "anti-Roundup." Many people are neither. Second, particularly for academia and government, if someone funds a large study, there better damn well be a publication at the end of the tunnel or there won't be any more funding. Nobody is going to spike a large multicenter study on Roundup because of the results. Third, I have no problem with people "emphasizing" one thing or another. I have a problem with people saying that articles say things they don't say. I have problems with people saying a study proves ill effects in humans when the authors explicitly state they aren't even testing it. I have a problem with people trotting out studies on cells and claiming that proves a danger when the authors themselves note that such an inference cannot be made. That's not "emphasizing." That's deceit.

I am not "pro-Roundup." I am anti-deceit.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

Today John Smith discusses the performance of New York Yankee and Boston Red Sox with you, and you claim John Smith thinks there are only two baseball teams in MLB?

This observation is wrong on your part. I only stated what pro-Roundup people will likely do and what anti-Roundup people will likely do. This does not imply I believe no one fits in the "neither pro-Roundup nor anti-Roundup" category.

That is right. I think someone else has already pointed out this issue, and I do not remember anyone objecting to that view.

And unfortunately, the organizations/corporations/individuals who are likely to fund such studies are also those which tend to have a prejudice on either "Roundup is safe" or "Roundup is dangerous". The organizations/corporations/individuals who are more impartial might take less interest to fund such studies -- they might see farther about *ALL* pesticides.

In that case, next time when you write "up to now Roundup is not found dangerous for human beings when used as directed", please add a comment about the other domestic and wild animals, and anything which could eventually go into human bodies through the food chain (unless Roundup is expected to decompose well before that stage), otherwise you are emphasizing the human part and playing down on the effect on other plants and animals. You should write "up to now Roundup is not found dangerous for human beings, plants (except weeds) and wild animals when used as directed", or "up to now Roundup is not found dangerous for human beings when used as directed, as for wildlife we do not have conclusive results yet".

And you might want to address the situation when Roundup is used with other fertilizers or pesticides, say, you applied Sluggo here and then you immediately apply Roundup. "Used as directed" might not include this scenario, but gardeners might likely do this and the scientific researches should also test this. It is like plastic bags for toddlers. You cannot say they are safe for toddlers when used as directed. You also have to test some scenarios which are NOT as directed by ordinary users might do.

And finally when several people argue with you that Roundup is bad, you should not treat them into a team and believe they are the same thing, that if Mr. A applies to deceit then you claim all others do too. Please try to treat each other individually.

Reply to
Siberian Husky

I am a physician and a pathologist. I know about effects on humans. I tend to stick to topics I know.

I have. I have not, for instance, accused *you* of deceit. The people I have accused, I have accused for a reason.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List

formatting link
the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.

Reply to
dr-solo

It answers the question as to why I discuss effects on humans as opposed to other things. Thank you for your interest.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

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!

Reply to
Just another fan

You do get testy when you get caught, don't you?

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

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

Reply to
Tom Jaszewski

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!

Reply to
Just another fan

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?

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:

Reply to
Tom Jaszewski

I said "different domain" not "anonymous IP."

cssa.com != livesoil.com

nslookup cssa.com

Non-authoritative answer: Name: cssa.com Address: 205.206.32.64

nslookup livesoil.com

Non-authoritative answer: Name: livesoil.com Address: 66.209.74.9

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver

And just because someone wants to believe in an unproven risk doesn't justify lying about what the science actually says. It's one thing to note that Rounup has no proven danger to humans when used as directed; it's another to claim that there is a proven danger and lie about the scientific data.

billo

Reply to
Bill Oliver
Reply to
enoughluncheonmeat!

I was hoping you could have also made reference to black helicopters as well.. it's the only thing that's missing from your rant...

Dave

Reply to
David J Bockman

Poor naive David uses poisoned wood in gardens and greenhouses and now considers black helicopters paranoia! You've got it reversed as usual.

Reply to
Tom Jaszewski

Aw hell, Tom, we both should know better than to waste time on these morons. Black helicopters indeed... Back to gardening related topics! Being a prowd Canuckistani and as it's legal and all that, I'm going to perform a marriage ceremony for 2 gay clones in a special made hoophouse. No, really! Bwaaaaaaahaaaa!

Reply to
enoughluncheonmeat!

What do I have reversed Tom?

Dave

Reply to
David J Bockman

I wondered that too. Black helicopters are poisonous & pressure treated wood is paranoid.

I once had a black helicopter hover over my house perfectly stationary for a great length of time in the middle of the night. It really was unnerving, especially when one peers from the bedroom window pondering all the paranoid theories, & it's just hovering there, hovering, hovering, making a muted fuf-fuf-fuf-fuf sound endlessly.

Later in the paper I by mere chance caught a note on what that was about. They were taking heat-sensitive photographs of local neighbhorhoods to establish which houses had inadequate insulation.

-paghat the ratgirl

Reply to
paghat

Hey, Dokta Laura is a dokta of gym teaching. Yet, she somehow has a show all about psychology, which is cloaked under a show about morality.

Reply to
animaux

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.