Frank wrote:
On Jun 4, 2:32 pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,
"David E. Ross" wrote:

See my http://www.rossde.com/garden/garden_organic.html

Urea isn't artificial. Most people excrete it everyday, you may be
different.

Then you blend the technical language of chemistry with the common
language that most people communicate in. Ever talk to a lawyer and
notice that common words suddenly take on a different significance?

Malathion has carbon to carbon bonds, which to a chemist means that
it
is an organic molecule. Talk to an agronomist, and they'll tell you
that
it isn't organic, because it doesn't occur naturally. The chemist and
the agronomist are talking in two different technical languages,
most of
us don't speak technically without qualifying the framework in which
we
speak first.

Organic
3. denoting a relation between elements of something such that they
fit
together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole
----
This definition in your exposition seems to have escaped you, as you
confuse the technical with the common.

Good work on confusing the neophytes.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito
Mussolini.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3l...Zinn_page.html

Your usual nitwit response.
He's trying to be helpful.
Nobody's perfect like you

It isn't a nitwit response.

The quibble over urea is quite silly as it is both natural and synthetic.

The synthesis of urea after it had long been regarded as natural was one of
the turning points in the change of the meaning of "organic" used by
chemists. Once it meant compounds produced by living things, now it means
compounds of carbon.

As for the criticism of the page for confusing the neophyte Billy has a
better point. It would be better to explicitly explain both meanings of
"organic" rather than leaving it at the point of showing that "organic" in
the modern chemist's sense is not necessarily natural. Saying that the word
can be defined in different ways is less helpful than actually explaining
what both of those ways are.

In support of David Ross making the point that "natural" doesn't mean safe
(and warm and fuzzy and what grandma used to do) is well worth while in the
context of gardening and also when faced with a barrage of products that
have been greewashed.

But this will not make one bit of difference as both of you will find
something else to throw at each other once this issue has died.

David