In article ,
Psalm 110 wrote:
(Bill Oliver) "Nature-hating Republican Liar" wrote in message
...
In article ,
animaux wrote:


Hardly ecofundamentalist. Hardly ANYfundamentalist. Quite the contrary.
However, I've seen the reports. I have no doubt I could pull up as much and
more than what paghat pulled up... I'm rather certain you would still have your
own version of what you blame others of having, attacking the person, not the
findings. I suppose calling anything I say "ecofundamentalist irrationality" is
a compliment? Hmmm. Damn. I'm doing it all wrong.


No, you cannot. And that's rather the point. All you have is posturing.
I have posted abstracts from peer-reviewed journals that show that RoundUp
is no danger when used as directed.

Since it would be *so* easy for you to provide a scientific study
in a peer-reviewed journal that shows that RoundUp is a danger when
used as directed, please feel free to trot it out.


billo

Nature-hating Republican Liar:



Ah, yes. When you don't have the facts, try attacking the
writer and covering with bullshit.

What lie is that? Certainly not that you cannot provide a single
peer-reviewed article that claims that Roundup is dangerous when
used as directed. None of the peer-reviewed articles you cite
makes that claim. If Roundup is so easily shown to be dangerous
when used as directed, you should have no problem providing
*one single peer-reviewed article* that claims to show it.

You cannot. And cutting-and-pasting a list of articles that
do *not* show it doesn't do the trick.

Sorry, but religious fanaticism is unattractive -- even with
ecofundamentalists.

Please, provide a single peer-reviewed article that claims
that Roundup is toxic when used as directed. If Roundup
is as dangerous as you claim, that should be *easy.*

billo