Which you asserted, but never demonstrated. Yet another lie.
Nonetheless, since you are so convinced that oppenness and disclosure
are important, why not display the same?
Where do you work?
What are your scientific credentials?
As you said, "the jig is up."
Actually, I never once defended Monsanto. My claim is, and
always has been that Roundup is not dangerous to humans
when used as directed. You have not shown otherwise, while
I have provided multiple studies that show that it is safe
at these dosages, and requires very high dosages for damage.
You cannot refute that, so you stoop to primitive personal
attack, and lies at that.
I know about the human pathology. And I don't dismiss sicence
simply because it conflicts with my religion -- and my
personal cash flow.
Tell me, Tom, how much money do you make pushing your
Oh, really? Do you have any documentation of the human patients
It already has. It has revealed it to be safe for humans when
used as directed.
And all the personal villification and all the diversion in
the world doesn't change that.
And all your ducking about your conflict of interest makes
you no different than what you claim of Monsanto.
On 22 Aug 2003 01:35:31 GMT, email@example.com (Bill Oliver) wrote:
Interesting, Billoboy. Anyone can review the record and find the
link. Too bad you have to hide behind smoke and mirrors. What about
the former leadership of your lab being employed by Monsanto? What
about Monsanto funding to the computer department where you recieved
The jig is up...now be gone...plonk
I have this funny feeling this is too much information for some to fully
process. I don't know how many ways there are to try and inform people that it
is not ONLY the use of glyphosate pesticides, but the mentality of those who
over use it, never read the labels and don't follow directions of use at all.
Very cleverly, Monsanto has marketed this crap with its own nozzle and tube
coming from the bottle. I wonder how many people just start to spray around
and I wonder how many perfectly healthy plants are now dead from the drift. I
wonder how many non-label-readers have used it on windy days.
That said, we were watching our DVD of "Bowling for Columbine," which was
delivered two days ago from our amazon shopping cart. Michael Moore put it so
much more eloquently than I could put it, but in essence he was saying of our
culture of fear and consumerism, what we are saying about the mentality of
people how use glyphosate improperly.
It's not the glyphosate, necessarily (though I contend it is a huge part) but
it's the very closed off way of thinking and lack on knowledge, compiled with
the great inability of many to think outside the box to see the much bigger
picture. I'm not sure I can articulate it here, or anywhere. All I can say is
that, in this life, I am glad I get it. There are many more people who don't
get it, who will most likely never get it. In order for me to live a better
life, I give it a good shot and have to let go of it. Nothing is forever.
How apropos to quote a person who falsifies data as your soulmate.
And finally we have it. It is wrong to admit that Roundup is safe when
used as directed because, pure and simple, it is a thought crime to
the ecofundamentalists. Screw science. Screw the facts. The
important thing is to silence the heretic.
Here's a clue, Victoria. If your cult requires you to lie and
demonize those who tell the truth, you might want to think twice
On 22 Aug 2003 19:11:18 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Oliver) opined:
I am expected to believe an article which has Hannity, AnneOrexia Coulter and
that other jerk I can't stand? Unlike Spinal Tap, Bowling for Columbine has won
just about every prestigious award from here to Asia and back, not to mention an
Oscar and every other fancy film industry, critic industry, documentary industry
award which has ever been created.
Did you see the film? Didn't think so. Too busy examining the spooge of death.
But hey you gotta feel sorry for a neanderthal that quotes an
article like that.
"For example, hunting is a challenging sport, requiring outdoor
skills, wildlife knowledge, patience, and good marksmanship."
"militia members to present their case, he makes the group (which has
no record of illegal violence or any other illegal activity)"
Great stuff from boy scouts with guns....
On 23 Aug 2003 00:49:37 GMT, email@example.com (Bill Oliver) opined:
I was talking about the website slide show of the most vile of all the hate
mongers of radio and television. You know, the Fox News junkies. Oh yeah, a
judge nearly fell off the stand when the lawsuit was being proved up in court.
Al Franken said the term "fair and balanced," and Fox News said it was THEIR tag
line! Bwahahahaha. Holy shit. What's this world coming to. Never mind, don't
Victoria, I don't really care *what* rationalization you use to
avoid the truth. If it wasn't this it would be something else.
The bottom line is that, as always, your statement of fact
(in this case about the article) was false.
I know. But that's the only way to deal with cultists because when
you get to the point that they can't wiggle out of the fact that their
claims are false, they pretend it wasn't the question at all. The
only way to avoid it is to keep repeating the point -- then they
whine you are boring, but they can't pretend the issue isn't what
OK, Victoria, you want to move on beyond my claim that Roundup is
safe to humans when used as directed? You want to ignore the
fact that you claimed this was *not* true, that scientific data
had been present showing it was not true, and that you engaged
in outright despicable personal demonization when you were shown
Ok. Here is is. Simply admit that Roundup is safe for humans
when used as directed.
Go ahead. Write it. Write that Roundup is safe for humans
when used as directed. Here, I'll leave a blank space for
Or not. But if you don't, don't pretend that isn't the issue.
Indeed. Perhaps it will be one of those science-free ones, where you
can get your toxicology data from channelling dolphins.
On 22 Aug 2003 19:18:05 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Oliver) opined:
Your big mistake is that I'm not a cultist, nor a joiner, nor do I subscribe to
anything which could remotely be considered a cult. You still don't see beyond
your prick, which is probably so tiny that anger is the only way you can gather
enough testosterone to grow the two hairs on your head.
You ARE boring.
Awe, poor little man. Did I demonize you? Awe. I'm crying, waaaaaaaaaa
Nope. Reason? I do not believe it, never did, never will.
Are you almost ready to cum? Is that why you are now resorting to humiliating
begging? Are you breathless, frustrated, will you now mount me and yank on me
after you stab me with 50 or so pounces? What's the fascination, billo?
You live in fairyland. Have your way. I don't care if you believe what I
believe. It's really okay. There, have you spooged yet?
What an ass. Maybe since I've saved all your vile posts with plenty of your own
"ahem, behaviors" I will contact the University to see if they approve your
methods of communication. We'll see how that goes. Till then, take care, have
fun, try something else. Nothing you do here seems to be effective, oh great
Well, I guess that pretty much does it for any effort at rationa
discussion with someone like you. Sorry to have offended
Of course not. It's against your religion. Science be damned.
I love this. You lose on science, you lose on demonization, and now
you stoop to pathetic, infantile threats. Pathetic.
Oh, and when you run of to whine, be sure and include the accusations
that they are owned by Monsanto. They'll love that one, too.
On 23 Aug 2003 01:04:44 GMT, email@example.com (Bill Oliver) opined:
Will you at least tell me what the cult is I'm supposed to subscribe to?
What religion? I'm an atheist. What are you talking about? Oh, the science of
the mind? How would you know anything about that? Don't you need a functioning
mind in order to know the science behind it?
Nah, just having a laugh. I didn't really save your post. Just kidding. But
sheesh, it sure did get you to sit up straight.
Land Grant Universities are owned by the agchem industry. The only one I know
of which remotely has come to their senses is Texas A&M, which finally did a
study on turf grass fertilization and which products work the best. Well, ding
dong, the 8-2-4 of certified organic fertilizer outperformed them all.
"gawd" is a dialectical pronounciation of the word "God", which is
often used as an expletive to indicate an emotional response ranging
anywhere from awe to disgust. In this specific case, its intent was
to indicate incredulity.
"whoosh" (note correct spelling) is an onomatopoeic word. In this
case, it is being used to suggest the sound of a rushing passage of
air as though something went whisking over your head.
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -- Jules
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.