In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
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 quite happey to be proven incorrect. It would help if
people didn't lie about what articles stated, however.



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.

And it doesn't matter if your opinion is based on a lie.


billo