On 13 Mar 2006 12:51:34 -0800, "James"
wrote:

Any particular reason you're cross-posting this to a Scottish
group? Other than to recruit help with the mean lady and start a
flame war, that is.

I have set my replies to rec.gardens.edible only.

Penelope Periwinkle didn't write:

Developed countries that have already beaten malaria can get by without
DDT.

You've mangled the post with your random snippage. I didn't say
this, and you snipped out " We tend to use way too much
pesticides in general" in order to make your response look
stronger.

How important is the environment if it was your children at risk
instead of the faceless millions in Africa? How many of your children
would you be willing to give up to save the bald eagle? Is the western
world just saving African human lives are worth less than bald eagles?

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Once again you're creating a false dichotomy. It's not an either
or choice. We can save bald eagles *and* children in Africa. DDT
is not the only pesticide on the market, it's just one that's
cheap and familiar. And, well, remember that whole resistance
thing? By focusing on using only DDT we offer false hope. DDT was
used in Africa from the late 1940's until 1970, and it didn't rid
the continent of malaria. This would be where understanding the
political climate and culture of the people would come in handy,
but it doesn't lend itself to creating hysterical
anti-environmentalism reactions, so I suppose it doesn't interest
you.

Nice try with the racist angle though.


Sure DDT isn't the perfect solution but how strongly would you argue
about the faults if it's your neighbor who's going to die?

Remember what I said about embracing the power of "and"?


Penelope

--
You have proven yourself to be the most malicious,
classless person that I've encountered in years.
- "pointed"