On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 28, 9:22*am, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 28, 8:55*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



On Apr 28, 5:53*am, "dene" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

You said (and I quote):

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria"

How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?


If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their
problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying.

It's patently clear what you said.

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria".

Ergo; water quality is a cause of malaria.


*The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would
reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either
explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than
suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it?

I can't do anything if you don't understand what I write. It's clear
to me, and that's the best I can do.

That's the problem, the best you can do is try to bend what you've
actually said into something else. You do this consistently; make
statements that you can't back up and then stonewall it with
BS.

You'll do this for a couple of days, hoping that your misstatement
will be forgotten.


clip 40 lines of obfuscatory BS

BK