"Isabella Woodhouse" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Isabella Woodhouse" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Must have learned well from Monsanto and its multitude of name-saving
spinoffs.

See from woodhouse's post your still trying to find the conspiracy
Billy.
BTW your research is still mostly wrong and lacking, but I'm glad you at
least figured out you were beating that dead horse. Still waiting on how
Ironite is posioning the earth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, I am not "Billy" as one can plainly see from the attribution.
Second, you have made a logical error in deducing any motive on Billy's
(or anyone else's) part from something I've said.
If you have a specific issue with something *I* said, then state your
facts. If you dispute something someone else says, then state your
facts in response to the post in question.

You seem well educated, so I assume you also read well. Please reread my
first sentence again. This is not bout you. If your name is not Billy,
you did not need to respond back? It is not a self righteous indignation
thing on your part, is it ? I certainly did not mean to slight your
interjection of a collusion theory. Besides, no, I'm not in error, I
never thought you really said anything. This is not a challenge to your
belief system, I could care less how someone worships, just what they offer
as proof of their beliefs. So, now that you got this off your chest, do you
feel better?

I KF him because of his continuously avoiding answering the OP question all
the while using grade school book report material to confuse facts and all I
"see" on my reader is you responding to my post, showing tidbits of his
"research". So yes Ms Woodhouse, I did read and "see" chronologically
where you jumped in the conversation and I feel very comfortable that
protocol is correct in me responding, just as you did.

And btw, just saying
someone's research is "wrong" or "lacking", absent any evidence, hardly
comprises an argument with legs.

Conversely, just because someone infers some "fact" as he has done in this
entire thread, does not make it a fact......Mr. B. Gruff has yet to
present any evidence of his accusations , just some Google searches and
assumptions yet he uses my sources to say that the product is not the same
pre 2006 as it is now (duh!!! dead horse?) now claiming some sort of moral
vistory or high road because he "alludes" that it was all a conspiracy.

Ironite Products Company is not located in GA, nor CA ( fact) . Most
likely it is now defunct as there are no current records( assumption).
Mr. Brungs was the President of Ironite Products Company of AZ but never
any President nor officer of Central Garden and Pets whose address is the
one in Walnut Grove CA, and owns the GroTec Company in GA, ( fact) It
appears Brungs was a consultant of sorts to CG&P as part of the buyout (
fact) , however there are no records of the man since, mostly likely took
his $6Mill and left as quick as the EPA would let him (assumption) . So
again, despite someone writing conspiracy theory( pure assumption). I gave
references to all this previous. I don't have to prove/disprove this, the
person saying it has to prove it or at least establish some bona fides. It
is easy to prove, Just search the State's Public Records, look at the Corps
SEC filing for its Officers and Board of Directors. Has any of that been
done as yet??? I bet not, nor has the "lawsuit" in ELF's thinly veiled
advertisement( news release) been researched (btw it was not 2006 as noted
in Billy's post you included, it was settled out of court and taken off the
Court's Docket in 2003,BTW the settlement outcome was a warning label
telling kids not to eat Ironite 1-0-0 ). How about the EPA report
referenced in their news release that keeps being touted as the smoking gun
of poisoning the earth? Has anyone read it? But the bottom line, don't try
to break suit and trump the hand with a unproven(and unprovable) conspiracy
theory. (see the Art of Boloney Detection)

Again, It is not my job to refute BS statements by doing that persons
research for them, but I will challenge them. Now I have proven my case
that the horse is dead with factual references and yet for all this self
righteous indignation and pseudo research material, I'm still waiting for
someone to answer the OP question and tell how the Ironite being sold today
is poisoning the earth? Is this just more Internet myth, mystery and
intrigue? Perhaps Brungs is now working on recycling asbestos material into
sandbags for FEMA?