Thanks, Siberian Husky, for a very civilized post at the end of a very long
thread. There are so many things in our lives that we take for granted which
are damaging the environment that none of us really has the right to point
fingers of blame. (The image of someone driving a gas-hog SUV somewhere to
protest a nuclear power plant springs to mind, for instance). If our first
baby steps are merely to reduce usage of those things, and persuade others
to do likewise, we're still accomplishing something, and if over time, we
learn more ways to minimize our individual footprints on the earth, who
could argue that that's not a good thing? It's clear that round up is NOT
mother's milk, but it is also clear that the casual gardener who still has
3/4 of a gallon sitting in his garage after 5 gardening years is not
responsible for the deaths of millions, and might even live to zap another
weed. However, we all need to educate ourselves about the chemicals that
are used in the tens of millions of gallons to assure us of unlimited cheap
food, and ask whether we're willing to pay a little more for crops that
haven't been achieved by dousing the soil (and ultimately the ground water)
with chemicals whose properties and long-term effects are poorly understood
at best.
"Siberian Husky" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
look everyone, this is a classic example of pseudoscience. He already
has his
conclusion that Roundup is completely safe and he will find fault with
any science
that says otherwise. Look at the creationists... they do the same.
Just quit trying
to deal with him logically, this isnt about facts, it was never about
facts.
Ingrid

Let's face it. Bill Oliver has all his freedom to believe Roundup is
100% safe or 100% dangerous, based on the criteria he uses (either
scientific, superstitious, prejudice, or experience). The other
people cannot and should not talk him into believing the other side.

Similarly Bill cannot and should not talk others into believing
Roundup is 100% safe. He can try, and others can disregard whatever
he says, be they speculations, facts, or scientific experiment
results.

I am a newcomer of rec.gardens and I don't think I should say this as
if I am an old timer, but I think people spent too much effort in
threads about Roundup, trying to convince others Roundup is safe or
Roundup is dangerous. It is not necessary. Didn't one netter suggest
the newsgroup to be renamed rec.gardens.roundup?

The key is the other silent lurkers, reading the messages in
rec.gardens without posting, and even a larger group of people who do
not read rec.gardens and they think of the solution to eradicate weeds
and buy Roundup in Home Depot. These are the target population.

I suggest people stop arguing and debating with Bill Oliver. It is
time wasting. Try to read messages by other netters. If they suggest
using Roundup, telling them why it is not good. If they face a
radical situation and they cannot help but use Roundup, ask them to
use it very sparingly, and recommend the alternatives, which might
take more money, more time, more sweat, but being more friendly with
the earth.

Bill Oliver can keep believing Roundup is 100% safe and keep using it
in his garden. That counts as 1. If other 100 netters are convinced
and turn away from using Roundup, that count as 100.