On 19 Aug 2003 03:01:03 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


Only an ecofundamentalist would consider an ideologic catechism
a qualification for a scientific discussion.

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 your qualifications that would make anybody
think you can read the scientific literature critically?
What are your qualifications in toxicology? In cellular
biology? In molecular and clinical pathology?

What are yours?

After all, you, paghat, and Tom make a great deal of
who people are and what their qualifications are. Try
to do better than religious statements.

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 you can't.

Of course I can, but you don't believe anything other than your silly little man
world of knowing.


I can easily provide a reference in a peer-reviewed scientific journal
that says that Roundup is safe when used as directed:

Williams, G. M., Kroes, R., and Munro, I. C. (2000) Safety evaluation
and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient,
glyphosate, for humans. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 31, 117-165

See how easy that was?
Your turn.
billo

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?