e:
ide quoted text -
Why don't you prove yourself wrong? The UN has no authority to ban anything. There is a TREATY by which 160 countries agreed to stop using DDT. The treaty recognizes that eliminating DDT in countries with high rates of malaria is not feasible so it is still in use in those countries. Your estimate that hundreds of millions have died because of the DDT "ban" is ludicrous, but that's rather par for the course for you, isn't it?
Speaking of a troll, read the following.....
-Greg
I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts.
If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level of consciousness thing, IMHO.
The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it?
I've asked "Punch and Judy" here to keep this in their own newsgroup, Apparently, they enjoy being a pain in the wahzoo.
I can't do anything if you don't understand what I write. It's clear to me, and that's the best I can do.
But IMHO your problem isn't so much that you are stupid as you are a political dupe. You just by the party line "liberal". The pesticide issue is a good example of the harm this sort of approach causes, as well as an example of selfish behavior and even the nobility of many greens-keepers (ie golf content!).
While DDT is hardly begin, it's not even close to the most toxic of insecticides in use. One can look at a crop like cotton, which classically needs 10 sprayings of pesticides per crop. It also is very hard on the soil, and fertilizers are also needed. It can easily be argued that cotton is the most environmentally damaging of all crops...so why not ban it? It does more harm that DDT ever could..so ban it, right...no wait, the minions at earth cookie central like their cotton clothing. They hate things like polyester! Yuk!
Being anti-DDT as your means of being anti chemical costs your basic upper east side twit nothing. We can use other pesticides to replace DDT, and so what if they may be more harmful...they aren't DDT! So onto the DDT bandwagon we go, and so what if millions in developing countries die...we can come up with alternatives...nets and bug zappers..there ya go! Think you will see the upper east side earth cookie living 24/7 the lifestyle of some poor person in a malaria infested part of rural Africa, relying on nets and bug zappers to protect him from malaria.
If we spent the money on malaria that we spend on cotton pesticidewise, I doubt anyone would get malaria...but Johnny cares about his cotton shorts more than he cares about the lives of people in malaria infested parts of the world, and that is an observable matter of fact for which laments of opinion ring totally hollow.
Would it or would it not be an interesting and worthwhile experiment to have people from malaria infested parts of the world choose which pesticides to ban, and where to invest our pesticide resources...rather than people in the US and western Europe? Would probably save a lot of lives, and put Johnny in polyester shorts...a trade he would not actually make, as we can observe.
The golf content here is that greenskeepers have an interesting challenge. They have to keep weeds of Johnny's green's, we can't have that! But those pesticides are expensive and toxic. I cannot imagine a greenskeeper wanting to use pesticides if they didn't have to because of the toxicity issue, nor a golf course owner wanting to use them because of the cost. But your upper east side earth cookie golfer will not stand for weeds on the greens...so what to do? Find less toxic, cheaper alternatives that you don't have to use as much...and I suspect they have! Ordinary market economics solving a problem!
It's patently clear what you said.
"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of millions would not get malaria".
Ergo; water quality is a cause of malaria.
That's the problem, the best you can do is try to bend what you've actually said into something else. You do this consistently; make statements that you can't back up and then stonewall it with BS.
You'll do this for a couple of days, hoping that your misstatement will be forgotten.
BK
Not "can't", "won't".
Greg chiming in like a true hypocrite!
I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Good decision. I'm glad you don't take his bait. If only KP would do the same, Uncle Al would be forced to go elsewhere to play his kiddy games.
-Greg
Glad my post annoys you. Perhaps you should post some private e-mail to make yourself feel better. You need the attention.
-Greg
LOL
I've asked nicely, so now I'll try the otherway. Will you ass-holes f*ck off, and delete rec.gardens from the newsgroups? Otherwise, I'll lead every whacked out screwball I can find to your web site, and make sure that they stay there. Grrrr
Oops!
Hey Billy, here's a thought:
If you really want rec.gardens left out...
...why did you include it in your post?
Good idea. Why didn't you delete rec.gardens from this one? I didn't so you'd see it.
I made no error.
My post went where I intended it to go...
...as did this one.
If you want such missives to end with this one, try not replying.
:-)
My bad. I'm just gonna' KF these idiots.
Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of malaria.
Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm that the absence of DDT has caused.
What a foolish statement. You obviously have no idea about the DDT ban or the effect on malaria levels.
Fact is the DDT ban is absurd. It is not a particularly dangerous pesticide, compared to others we use, and the well established fact of the deaths caused by the reductions in DDT use can only be question by unaware dupes who simply buy into some party line.
In any event I apologize for debating anything with you. there is no point at all to discussing anything with uninformed people. I am sorry that I cannot teach you about pesticide use in a usenet post, but I can't. In any event, I won't bother with such things with you again.
Continue on with your liberal transition of character assassination of those who disagree with you on some political point. It doesn't mean a thing, because the politics of liberal vs conservative (for example) mean nothing, and such wasting of your time keeps people like you from have a real impact, ie making real trouble!
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.