Charlie wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:48:20 -0500, Charlie wrote:


Seriously, Gunny...your insults are juvenile, (along with those of the
rest of the people in this thread who made similar pejorative remarks
about people with whom they disagree and don't understand, people who
may not always play well with the rest of you kids) with your
references to mental illnesses and meds and loons and such.

I'm sorry, I said this thread when I meant to indicate the other group
and that thread in which you and bob and kate and mic were holding
forth.

You can attribute this oversight, or mistake, to lack of medication
and ability to clarify thoughts, if you choose, Gunny.

Charlie

Charlie, I aint no Gunny. I 'm a Gunner, a Warrant Officer. I was an E7
Promotable (9 years) when I was appointed, then commissioned RA 6 months
later. Army also, but I was adopted because of so many joint assignments.

BTW, Dr of sorts... no! but I do understand more than a bit of MH issues.
FWIW I am a licensed counselor in WA State, well for the next month anyway,
getting too expensive to stay current when you are doing free work. I have
been the Court Appointed Guardian for 3 MH persons so far and as an advocate
working issues for a few others over the years, I have been an advocate
working for the last year an a half on a host of issues ranging from the
IRS, INS, The State of CA, the Federal Government, Medicare/Medicaid and 3
Insurance companies for this one person. as well as dealing with 5 doctors.
She is
Bi Polar since teens. last year she went down that road and I didn't think
she was coming back this time.
Was talking to the IRS for a couple of hours just Yesterday AM on her
issues.

I am not the Dr guy one needs, I 'm the guy that plowed through the
bureaucracy
and get stuff done my friend so they can get to the Dr guy. As you can
perhaps sense, I don't win a lot
of brownie points for style, but I get a job done in record time. So you
may feel that I am
insensitive,.... I do not..., may not be considered PC, but a far cry from
being insensitive to the plight of other.

I do apologize to you if you are afflicted and felt dissed. That you came
to
his defense, good on you so I will tell you first, I am going to break up
with him, he is getting way too needy and honestly, I think he is seeing
another NG.

Who is Kaiser? mein Fuhrer? Are you talking
growing Meds? as in Humbolt Co, or the other holistic ayurveda thing such
as for Diabetes? Regardless, Use caution with the Shaman craft.

As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations"

Wilson potificates; Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My
dictionary includes ! 6. a
passage cited; quotation.
! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context

And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it
curious that no matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal,
you will find people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I
call that 'The Lemming Effect.'


How's that dictionary working out for ya. Mr. Wilson? I maintain that you
cite a passage or quotation and you reference a source. I also
recommend you reread what ya wrote and take it to heart?

The underlying problem with what you wrote is it is just fluff. " I think I
can tell that you've probably ". I'm sure it is all well meaning and
supportive
for your cause, timidly ad hominem for sure, but fluff never the less.

Please note the proviso in 7. a (above) .... "quotation showing a particular
word or phrase in context". "In context " being the key words here.
Something that is in very short supply on this NG. I think false information
and information taken out of context are two of the biggest faults about
the Internet, emails and causal writing in general, especially devoid on
this NG. These two are so easily spread around and oft cited as fact. Then
repeated in other papers as verified fact. I don't mind casual language,
yet I still believe there is a danger of using casual language in an
informational role. To me it stifles critical thinking skills and fails to
check the Bull Shit artist; .
i.e. "Chemferts(sic) kill micro organisms."

Such a broad generalization, yet it doesn't answer the basic interrogatives,
a meaningless slogan for the cause.

I hope you don't mind using you as an example here since you opened the
door. Let us take your comments " you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately" You see you do not
clarify what you are talking about in regards to the "safe"
residue and why I should "stop eating immediately" . are you are discussing
the EPA or perhaps it is the EU's safe standards . Since the many diverse
Organic
organizations use the EPA allowable limits. If you recall
we found the EPA standards being used by the USDA's AMS is the very same as
the pie chart driven "What's On My Plate" site. We can assume the EPA
standards, yes? But one should not assume.


BTW, your post would have been a classic "argument from authority" fallacy
outlined in Sagan's Fine Art of Boloney Detection if it was referenced.
What is "my dictionary" ? A edition of the Oxford English Dictionary
perhaps? I would not expect a full pedigree but some reference would have
been nice, something as simple as Webster's Jr, High pocket dictionary
would have been ok. None of the three I just looked up had what you quoted.
But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old instructor
liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .

To continue "Always found it curious ........Lemming effect. " Yes,
wilson, I find it curious also. There is always such gross generalization
applied with the all knowing nod and a wink , rarely anchored in anything of
substance. It gives just the right amount of plausible denial for self
righteous indignation, that bit of wiggle room for those that fail to
recognize their bias, as way to recover with the proviso "that is not what I
meant". That
is across the board not just your little group. Otherwise, how do I put
this... your
wording is a way for the timid to feel clever without serious confrontation
and having to use factual information.

Here is the original comment " So gunner, make your argument, and present
your citations. If you've been to school, you should know how it works".

I don't present a bunch of quotes to support my arguments and I certainly
don't cherry pick them to support a particuliarly biased view as practiced
here. i.e. observational selection.

I also remain unimpressed with someone listing a large group of links
especially when they obvisouly did not read them. One example of a reference
link I recall was used to compare conventional fertilizers with organic
fertilizers and in
just in the first couple of paragraphs the subject scientist was "cited" as
saying
one should not compare the two. A very incongruent message to send which
told me the writer did not do his job very well. Total fluff. Irealize one
should
not totally discount the argument because of one mistake but the entire post
decomposed into the standard, "you don't understand the world like I do"
trivial BS. You know the old wise and sage "Father Knows Best" thingie.

So let's keep our "facts" in proper context. A healthy sustainable world
is a very good goal, but in a reality check, I doubt seriously that we will
go back to the idyllic good old days. Lets learn to use what information we
have at hand, not what we think we should have.

I'm still awaiting someone to explain how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
organisms." without all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations"

Wilson potificates; Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My
dictionary includes ! 6. a
passage cited; quotation.
! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context

And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it
curious that no matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal,
you will find people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I
call that 'The Lemming Effect.'


How's that dictionary working out for ya. Mr. Wilson? I maintain that you
cite a passage or quotation and you reference a source. I also
recommend you reread what ya wrote and take it to heart?

The underlying problem with what you wrote is it is just fluff. " I think I
can tell that you've probably ". I'm sure it is all well meaning and
supportive
for your cause, timidly ad hominem for sure, but fluff never the less.

Please note the proviso in 7. a (above) .... "quotation showing a particular
word or phrase in context". "In context " being the key words here.
Something that is in very short supply on this NG. I think false information
and information taken out of context are two of the biggest faults about
the Internet, emails and causal writing in general, especially devoid on
this NG. These two are so easily spread around and oft cited as fact. Then
repeated in other papers as verified fact. I don't mind casual language,
yet I still believe there is a danger of using casual language in an
informational role. To me it stifles critical thinking skills and fails to
check the Bull Shit artist; .
i.e. "Chemferts(sic) kill micro organisms."

Such a broad generalization, yet it doesn't answer the basic interrogatives,
a meaningless slogan for the cause.

I hope you don't mind using you as an example here since you opened the
door. Let us take your comments " you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately" You see you do not
clarify what you are talking about in regards to the "safe"
residue and why I should "stop eating immediately" . are you are discussing
the EPA or perhaps it is the EU's safe standards . Since the many diverse
Organic
organizations use the EPA allowable limits. If you recall
we found the EPA standards being used by the USDA's AMS is the very same as
the pie chart driven "What's On My Plate" site. We can assume the EPA
standards, yes? But one should not assume.


BTW, your post would have been a classic "argument from authority" fallacy
outlined in Sagan's Fine Art of Boloney Detection if it was referenced.
What is "my dictionary" ? A edition of the Oxford English Dictionary
perhaps? I would not expect a full pedigree but some reference would have
been nice, something as simple as Webster's Jr, High pocket dictionary
would have been ok. None of the three I just looked up had what you quoted.
But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old instructor
liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .

To continue "Always found it curious ........Lemming effect. " Yes,
wilson, I find it curious also. There is always such gross generalization
applied with the all knowing nod and a wink , rarely anchored in anything of
substance. It gives just the right amount of plausible denial for self
righteous indignation, that bit of wiggle room for those that fail to
recognize their bias, as way to recover with the proviso "that is not what I
meant". That
is across the board not just your little group. Otherwise, how do I put
this... your
wording is a way for the timid to feel clever without serious confrontation
and having to use factual information.

Here is the original comment " So gunner, make your argument, and present
your citations. If you've been to school, you should know how it works".

I don't present a bunch of quotes to support my arguments and I certainly
don't cherry pick them to support a particuliarly biased view as practiced
here. i.e. observational selection.

I also remain unimpressed with someone listing a large group of links
especially when they obvisouly did not read them. One example of a reference
link I recall was used to compare conventional fertilizers with organic
fertilizers and in
just in the first couple of paragraphs the subject scientist was "cited" as
saying
one should not compare the two. A very incongruent message to send which
told me the writer did not do his job very well. Total fluff. Irealize one
should
not totally discount the argument because of one mistake but the entire post
decomposed into the standard, "you don't understand the world like I do"
trivial BS. You know the old wise and sage "Father Knows Best" thingie.

So let's keep our "facts" in proper context. A healthy sustainable world
is a very good goal, but in a reality check, I doubt seriously that we will
go back to the idyllic good old days. Lets learn to use what information we
have at hand, not what we think we should have.

I'm still awaiting someone to explain how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
organisms." without all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?

pg. 26
Negative impacts on the soil food web
Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off
entire_ portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does
to a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the
bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and_ nematodes in the soil. Since these
microbes are at the very foundation of the_ soil food web nutrient
system, you have to keep adding fertilizer once you start_ using it
regularly. The microbiology is missing and not there to do its job,
feeding the plants.
It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa
are_ gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms,
for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in
soluble nitrogen_ fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders
of organic material, their_ absence is a great loss. Without the
activity and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the
nutrient system but all the other things a healthy soil_ food web
brings. Soil structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic,"_
pathogens and pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening
becomes_ a lot more work than it needs to be.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb.../dp/0881927775
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1

Jeff Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern
University, law

I hope that holds you for the time being. I have important stuff to do,
but I'll be back to play with you ;O))
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations"

Wilson potificates; Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My
dictionary includes ! 6. a
passage cited; quotation.
! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context

And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it
curious that no matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal,
you will find people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I
call that 'The Lemming Effect.'


How's that dictionary working out for ya. Mr. Wilson? I maintain that you
cite a passage or quotation and you reference a source. I also
recommend you reread what ya wrote and take it to heart?

The underlying problem with what you wrote is it is just fluff. " I think I
can tell that you've probably ". I'm sure it is all well meaning and
supportive
for your cause, timidly ad hominem for sure, but fluff never the less.

Please note the proviso in 7. a (above) .... "quotation showing a particular
word or phrase in context". "In context " being the key words here.
Something that is in very short supply on this NG. I think false information
and information taken out of context are two of the biggest faults about
the Internet, emails and causal writing in general, especially devoid on
this NG. These two are so easily spread around and oft cited as fact. Then
repeated in other papers as verified fact. I don't mind casual language,
yet I still believe there is a danger of using casual language in an
informational role. To me it stifles critical thinking skills and fails to
check the Bull Shit artist; .
i.e. "Chemferts(sic) kill micro organisms."

Such a broad generalization, yet it doesn't answer the basic interrogatives,
a meaningless slogan for the cause.

I hope you don't mind using you as an example here since you opened the
door. Let us take your comments " you've probably consumed all the 'safe'
residues you can, and should stop eating immediately" You see you do not
clarify what you are talking about in regards to the "safe"
residue and why I should "stop eating immediately" . are you are discussing
the EPA or perhaps it is the EU's safe standards . Since the many diverse
Organic
organizations use the EPA allowable limits. If you recall
we found the EPA standards being used by the USDA's AMS is the very same as
the pie chart driven "What's On My Plate" site. We can assume the EPA
standards, yes? But one should not assume.


BTW, your post would have been a classic "argument from authority" fallacy
outlined in Sagan's Fine Art of Boloney Detection if it was referenced.
What is "my dictionary" ? A edition of the Oxford English Dictionary
perhaps? I would not expect a full pedigree but some reference would have
been nice, something as simple as Webster's Jr, High pocket dictionary
would have been ok. None of the three I just looked up had what you quoted.
But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old instructor
liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .
Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points
you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this instance,
'my dictionary' was http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations.
However, if I go to my hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
copyright 1988, pg. 243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt,
quote.' Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers
attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts. If
you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking. My
spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone.

The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit
picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to
yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure.

To continue "Always found it curious ........Lemming effect. " Yes,
wilson, I find it curious also. There is always such gross generalization
applied with the all knowing nod and a wink , rarely anchored in anything of
substance. It gives just the right amount of plausible denial for self
righteous indignation, that bit of wiggle room for those that fail to
recognize their bias, as way to recover with the proviso "that is not what I
meant". That
is across the board not just your little group. Otherwise, how do I put
this... your
wording is a way for the timid to feel clever without serious confrontation
and having to use factual information.

Here is the original comment " So gunner, make your argument, and present
your citations. If you've been to school, you should know how it works".

I don't present a bunch of quotes to support my arguments and I certainly
don't cherry pick them to support a particuliarly biased view as practiced
here. i.e. observational selection.

I also remain unimpressed with someone listing a large group of links
especially when they obvisouly did not read them. One example of a reference
link I recall was used to compare conventional fertilizers with organic
fertilizers and in
just in the first couple of paragraphs the subject scientist was "cited" as
saying
one should not compare the two. A very incongruent message to send which
told me the writer did not do his job very well. Total fluff. Irealize one
should
not totally discount the argument because of one mistake but the entire post
decomposed into the standard, "you don't understand the world like I do"
trivial BS. You know the old wise and sage "Father Knows Best" thingie.

So let's keep our "facts" in proper context. A healthy sustainable world
is a very good goal, but in a reality check, I doubt seriously that we will
go back to the idyllic good old days. Lets learn to use what information we
have at hand, not what we think we should have.

I'm still awaiting someone to explain how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
organisms." without all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?









--
Wilson N44º39" W67º12"

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

I'm still awaiting someone to explain how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro
organisms." without all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?

pg. 26
Negative impacts on the soil food web
Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off
entire_ portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does
to a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the
bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and_ nematodes in the soil. Since these
microbes are at the very foundation of the_ soil food web nutrient
system, you have to keep adding fertilizer once you start_ using it
regularly. The microbiology is missing and not there to do its job,
feeding the plants.
It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa
are_ gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms,
for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in
soluble nitrogen_ fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders
of organic material, their_ absence is a great loss. Without the
activity and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the
nutrient system but all the other things a healthy soil_ food web
brings. Soil structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic,"_
pathogens and pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening
becomes_ a lot more work than it needs to be.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb.../dp/0881927775
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1

Jeff Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern
University, law

I hope that holds you for the time being. I have important stuff to do,
but I'll be back to play with you ;O))

Well shister, were you happy with the answer? It what way does it fall
short of your expectations? What else may I explain to that pea size
brain of yours, hmmmm?
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Wilson" wrote in message
...
sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
and Wilson retorted with :
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old
instructor
liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .


Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points
you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this
instance, 'my dictionary' was
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations. However, if I go to my
hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1988, pg.
243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt, quote.'

My point exactly Mr. Wilson, a citation is a quote, not a reference. You
cite facts, events, etc, in a writing but If you are quoting a paper or a
book, you don't need to be writing , you are plagiarizing,

Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers
attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts.
If you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking.
My spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone.

ahh this was a bit confusing at first, MS OS yes? yea it doesn't like
colloquialism or street slang. I'm not changing except when I am writing for
a professinal audience but if that is all ya got I am good with that, Mr.
Wilson!


The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit
picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to
yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure.

Suffice it to say, you ain"t got nothing of substance?
Good. I have always found when you put your nose into a fight that wasn't
yours, regardless of intentions, you have a good chance of getting it
smacked.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb.../dp/0881927775
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1

Jeff Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern
University, law

Finally! Thank you, Billy,that was not hard was it? now I know who to
look up and
find his bona fides and what actual research he bases his thesis on. I can
finally verify this bold comment. So I will check to see if this
statement is based on actual research or just opinion.

What else can you do for this peabrain? You can damn well wait until I get
back to my computer. I don't spend my life in front of it like you do DS.

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web
Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Teaming-Microb.../dp/0881927775
/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815176&sr= 1-1

Jeff Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern
University, law

Finally! Thank you, Billy,that was not hard was it?
Hard? I posted it within seconds of seeing your post. You are easy to
deal with gunny, when you step out of your cloud of acronyms, and
innuendoes.
---

cite |s?t|
verb [ trans. ] (often be cited)
1 quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of
an argument or statement, esp. in a scholarly work.
€ mention as an example : medics have been cited as a key example of a
modern breed of technical expert.
€ Law adduce a former tried case as a guide to deciding a comparable
case or in support of an argument.

I hope this clears up your confusion with the English language.
now I know who to
look up and
find his bona fides and what actual research he bases his thesis on. I can
finally verify this bold comment. So I will check to see if this
statement is based on actual research or just opinion.
Got to admire the brave face you put on, gunny. Go gettem boy. Have fun
;O)


What else can you do for this peabrain? You can damn well wait until I get
back to my computer.

Ah, some people want too much. You aren't getting a wee bit testy are
you, gunny?

When you return, I may not be available (us DSs have demanding
schedules, y'know), so let me now direct you off into the writings of
Joe Schwarcz.

Schwarcz is one of North America's foremost educators and is the
director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, which is
dedicated to demystifying science for the public, the media, and
students. Schwarcz is also a professor in the chemistry department and
teaches nutrition and alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School.

He may even be able to rouse that dormant organ between your ears, gunny.

Quotes from Joe Schwarcz:
1) Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizer enter ground water with
potential environmental and health consequences.

2) When they are not protected by pesticides, crops produce their own
chemical weapons. Some of these, various flavonoids, are antioxidants
which may contribute to human health. Organic pears and peaches are
richer in these compounds and organic tomatoes have more vitamin C and
lycopene.
When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C
and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they
found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C
and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes
probably produce these to fend of pests. If they get no help from
commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety.

3) Synthetic fertilizers, with their high levels of nitrogen, potassium
and phosphorus, encourage rapid growth, but this results in more water
being taken up from the soil. The produce is bigger, but it is bigger
because it has a higher water content. Organic crops, fertilized with
manure, take up nitrogen more slowly and have a lower water content. In
a sense they are more concentrated in flavourful compounds.

Some, but certainly not all, studies have shown that organically grown
foods are higher in antioxidants. This isn't surprising because crops
left to fend for themselves without outside chemical help will produce a
variety of natural pesticides, some of which just happen to have
antioxidant properties.
.. . . . According to a four year long study carried out at the
University of Newcastle, organic food is some 40% richer in antioxidants.

If cost is not an issue, organic may indeed be an appropriate choice.
There is no doubt that it is environmentally a more sound practice.

4) All ways of reducing pesticide risk are examined, with great emphasis
on Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, which is aimed at reducing the
reliance of pesticides as the sole approach to pest management. IPM is
geared towards taking action only when numbers of pests warrant it and
uses a mix of biological, physical and chemical techniques. (This is
Canadian, not American)

But can even such a rigorous system ensure that we will have no
consequences from the use of pesticides? Absolutely not. There may be
subtle effects in humans that show up only after years of exposure.

One of the developing concerns about the use of insecticides and
herbicides is a possible effect on the immune system. Laboratory
evidence indicates impaired activity of immune cells after exposure . . .

5) Analytical chemists, armed with their gas chromatographs and mass
spectrometers, heightened our fears by revealing that it was not only
farmers or agro-chemical producers who were exposed to pesticides, we
all were! Residues of these chemicals were found on virtually
everything we ate.

6) Would a pesticide-free world be better? For people who have to
handle pesticides occupationally, and for the environment, yes.

7) The World Health Organization estimates that there are roughly three
million cases of pesticide poisoning world wide every year, and close to
a quarter million deaths!

Pesticide companies, in some cases, pay their salespeople on commission
so it is in their interest to push product even when it may not be
necessary. In Sri Lanka pesticides are advertised on radio to the
public, often painting an unrealistic picture of magical, risk-free crop
protection.

Even though there may be no immediate effects of such exposure, there
are enough studies suggesting a link between pesticide use and
neurological problems, developmental delays, Parkinson's disease and
cancer to cause concern.

An often-quoted study at Stanford University found a link between
Parkinson's disease and domestic pesticide use. People with as few as
thirty days of exposure to home insecticides were at significantly
greater risk; garden insecticides were somewhat less risky. Because of
the large variety of products available, the researchers were not able
to zero in on any specific ingredients.

Great caution must be used with insecticides in the home and I think
their use during pregnancy should be totally avoided.

These quotes were taken from writings posted here in rec.gardens.edible.
You should be able to find them in "Google Groups".

I don't spend my life in front of it like you do DS.

Why use acronyms as a crutch? Don't you want to write the words? The
sentence is a little longer, but it gives clarity to your thoughts, when
you have any. Thanks, anyway, for the compliment,
yes, I am a "Darling Stud" ;O)
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Wilson" wrote in message
...
sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
and Wilson retorted with :
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old
instructor
liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .


Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points
you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this
instance, 'my dictionary' was
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations. However, if I go to my
hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1988, pg.
243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt, quote.'

My point exactly Mr. Wilson, a citation is a quote, not a reference. You
cite facts, events, etc, in a writing but If you are quoting a paper or a
book, you don't need to be writing , you are plagiarizing,
Good god man, you must be dummer than dirt.
cite |s?t|
verb [ trans. ] (often be cited)
1 quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of
an argument or statement, esp. in a scholarly work.
€ mention as an example : medics have been cited as a key example of a
modern breed of technical expert.
€ Law adduce a former tried case as a guide to deciding a comparable
case or in support of an argument.

So says the dictionary that came with my Mac.

or
(n) citation, cite, acknowledgment, credit, reference, mention,
quotation (a short note recognizing a source of information or of a
quoted passage)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cite

Do you not understand English, gunny? What is your native tongue?

Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers
attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts.
If you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking.
My spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone.

ahh this was a bit confusing at first, MS OS yes? yea it doesn't like
colloquialism or street slang. I'm not changing except when I am writing for
a professinal audience
Yeah, they wouldn't let you get away with that crap.
but if that is all ya got I am good with that,
Well, I guess you'll shortly be speaking to yourself then gunny.
Mr. Wilson!


The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit
picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to
yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure.

Suffice it to say, you ain"t got nothing of substance?
Good. I have always found when you put your nose into a fight that wasn't
yours, regardless of intentions, you have a good chance of getting it
smacked.
Brave words, gunny, but just words. Wilson simply sees what the rest of
us see, a clever, self absorbed, narcissistic, bag of wind (gave you the
benefit of the doubt there).
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

OMG, you buffoons can't even get an insult right! Ya confused the sensory
basics i.e. instead of "you enjoy listening to your self ...., You could
say "I enjoy reading what I wrote" but that doesn't have the same effect
does it, cuz ya should be proof reading what crap you both are writing.
kinda like Billy's "citations".

Back OT , I can discount your author, Lowenfels, the one with the "soil
foodweb" . Like all your "citations" to date, this is just conjecture, he
lists no studies or research papers to show mineral salts kill micro
organisms. His hook is the "soil foodweb" banner which is hyping the ACCTs.
.. Like selling bibles at a Billy Graham crusade.

Billy, I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should understand
this; I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal
hyper BS obfucating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific
papers/research showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts
kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and
the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the
argument from authority. If one of your "citations" knows it to be true,
then there is a study/paper on it, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated
opinion.

Stop your habit of throwing out a lot of BS and stupid personal attacks to
cover your propaganda. Now if you will excuse me, I have more important
things to do, you once again cut into my allotted research time with your
fantasy theories. Show me or shut up!

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

OMG, you buffoons can't even get an insult right! Ya confused the sensory
basics i.e. instead of "you enjoy listening to your self ...., You could
say "I enjoy reading what I wrote" but that doesn't have the same effect
does it, cuz ya should be proof reading what crap you both are writing.
kinda like Billy's "citations".

Back OT , I can discount your author, Lowenfels, the one with the "soil
foodweb" . Like all your "citations" to date, this is just conjecture, he
lists no studies or research papers to show mineral salts kill micro
organisms. His hook is the "soil foodweb" banner which is hyping the ACCTs.
. Like selling bibles at a Billy Graham crusade.

Billy, I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should understand
this; I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal
hyper BS obfucating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific
papers/research showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts
kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and
the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the
argument from authority. If one of your "citations" knows it to be true,
then there is a study/paper on it, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated
opinion.

Stop your habit of throwing out a lot of BS and stupid personal attacks to
cover your propaganda. Now if you will excuse me, I have more important
things to do, you once again cut into my allotted research time with your
fantasy theories. Show me or shut up!

Couldn't figure it out, or getting lazy? If two authorities aren't
enough, you won't open your eyes to see what you don't want to see.
You don't like my authorities? What have you got?
Never mind. We have more important things to do, than give you a chance
to see your name in lights.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Gunner challenges:

Billy, I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should understand
this; I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal
hyper BS obfuscating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific
papers/research showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts
kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and
the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the
argument from authority. If one of your "citations" knows it to be true,
then there is a study/paper on it, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated
opinion.

Billy again pussyfoots, counters with even more BS:

Couldn't figure it out, or getting lazy? If two authorities aren't
enough, you won't open your eyes to see what you don't want to see.
You don't like my authorities? What have you got?
Never mind. We have more important things to do,.........

WE? Are you in one of your Sybil personality modes again?

than give you a chance
to see your name in lights.

Once again your definition of an authority is BS ( scream louder, I'm on the
Internet) . Unless you can give a valid reference to a scientific paper or
some such research that one of your "citations" has actually accomplished or
perhaps has knowledge of .....you make a false statement. It is certainly
not out of the character for you to do that, you show a history of making up
facts as you preach. When that doesn't seem to work, you attack ( which is
more of your wussy Internet persona).

I am sure your first reference was a very good lawyer ( soil food web??? do
check out where Dr. Ingram is working these days) and I'm sure some the
second might be some fine master gardener. I have not read the latter
because as I said, I am not going to be your book reviewer. You
procrastinate again, son. We both know the reason. Regardless, you still
cannot back up your lie(s) and you have been played into saying it so much,
you own this one. Mineral salts do not kill micro organisms any more than
manures do. You cannot justify this lie, no matter how hard you try nor
how much you squawk.

Go back to your pretend Google book of the month review club and play up to
your fan base. Seems they buy into your BS.

Gunner
You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some
of the time ... then there is Billy... who just hasn't got a clue.

In article ,
"gunner" wrote:

Gunner challenges:

Billy, I heard you graduated the 8th Grade twice so you should understand
this; I don't want to be your book reviewer and I don't want anecdotal
hyper BS obfuscating what you stated . I want to see some valid scientific
papers/research showing studies/ tests on how your statement mineral salts
kill micro organism is true. I want to see the start, the test methods and
the results which should be replicable. I don't want post hoc BS or the
argument from authority. If one of your "citations" knows it to be true,
then there is a study/paper on it, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated
opinion.

Billy again pussyfoots, counters with even more BS:

Couldn't figure it out, or getting lazy? If two authorities aren't
enough, you won't open your eyes to see what you don't want to see.
You don't like my authorities? What have you got?
Never mind. We have more important things to do,.........

WE? Are you in one of your Sybil personality modes again?

than give you a chance
to see your name in lights.

Once again your definition of an authority is BS ( scream louder, I'm on the
Internet) . Unless you can give a valid reference to a scientific paper or
some such research that one of your "citations" has actually accomplished or
perhaps has knowledge of .....you make a false statement. It is certainly
not out of the character for you to do that, you show a history of making up
facts as you preach. When that doesn't seem to work, you attack ( which is
more of your wussy Internet persona).

I am sure your first reference was a very good lawyer ( soil food web??? do
check out where Dr. Ingram is working these days) and I'm sure some the
second might be some fine master gardener. I have not read the latter
because as I said, I am not going to be your book reviewer. You
procrastinate again, son. We both know the reason. Regardless, you still
cannot back up your lie(s) and you have been played into saying it so much,
you own this one. Mineral salts do not kill micro organisms any more than
manures do. You cannot justify this lie, no matter how hard you try nor
how much you squawk.

Go back to your pretend Google book of the month review club and play up to
your fan base. Seems they buy into your BS.

Gunner
You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some
of the time ... then there is Billy... who just hasn't got a clue.

I've given you two authorities for my position, gunnie. One , Jeff
Lowenfel, Harvard University, geology; Northeastern University, law, and
two, Dr. Joseph Schwarcz, the new chair of the ACCN Editorial Board, the
director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, a
professor in the chemistry department and teaches nutrition and
alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School.

Where is your degree from gunnie? Get help, you're sick.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that
themselves and need not my defense. What I will do is stand shoulder
to shoulder with them and throw rock.

No one is on Bill's ass, he did help Martin, kinda. This is all Billy's
doing.

Like I said, good you show your Bud some support and I would like to
believe you really standup for the underdog. I see no one did for Martin
( florabloom)
Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that. Your man has
a CS Bully personality.

Billy ain't figured this one out as yet. This is childish play, you bet,
but has he answered the question, Of course not, because he cannot. it is a
lie and he is weasling on it.

Yet this is all been for Nilly Billy's chicken shit attack he pulled on
Florabloom. He lied and then attacked an innocent. You stand shoulder to
shoulder to that?

Now he is caught up in it. He coulda got away with his pathological lying,
hell, a few of his "citations" he googles are worth reading and he has got
some folks believing his BS or too scared to say otherwise, don't know which
one, don't care but to launch into a diatribe such as he did and
attack a FNG for asking a question? naaa. No man gets to do that without
some consequence.
Florabloom played nice and he didn't get ANY support from this group.

You can't give a pass on this one Charlie and mean what you said about being
a advocate.

Stand in,..... stand down......... all the same to me Charlie.

In article , Charlie wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:35:06 -0700, "gunner"
wrote:


As far as defending Billy, and Bill, he/they are capable of that
themselves and need not my defense. What I will do is stand shoulder
to shoulder with them and throw rock.

You pick and choose and selectively delete most of the reply to
continue your argument with Billy. My reply was to clarify things
between us, not necessarily to further your argument with Billy.


No one is on Bill's ass, he did help Martin, kinda.

Not so. You aren't on Bill's ass, but not so. I already pointed to
references in the other group. Big picture, Gunner, big picture. You
are a big picture guy, aren't you?

This is all Billy's
doing.
Like I said, good you show your Bud some support and I would like to
believe you really standup for the underdog.

"I would like to believe that you really standup for the underdog" ?

There you go again with your condescension and insinuating that I lie
and twist the meaning and application of advocacy.

I would like to believe that you are not condescending, demeaning and
more arrogant then I, but I'm having trouble with that, Gunner.

I see no one did for Martin
( florabloom)
Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that. Your man has
a CS Bully personality.

Let's not demean Billy nor I by calling him "my man", or making
yourself look like some kind of antediluvian. Whose "man" are you?
Shall I speculate upon this? Shall we comment upon your personality?
Or mine? Again, let's not use me to further your problem with Billy.

Standing silent it not standing up, Charlie and you know that.

Really? And for whom should we stand up? And against whom should we
stand when we believe a horrendous wrong has been committed? And
against whom do we throw rock? And whose convictions and beliefs are
we to accept, or have shoved down our throats or up our butts in order
to stand up for the right people? Do we really want to go there,
Gunner?

Should we go into the role of America and the death and misery it has
dealt to so many innocents and the roles which each of us played in
that death-dealing and misery for so many decades?

Shall we go into the the fact that Our Constituton has been shredded
and what exactly are those who took The Oath to Defend going to do
about this?

Do you want to encourage all this standing up, for which those of us
who do "stand up" here are soundly criticized for being OT?. Makes me
no nevermind, I'm ready to go anytime.



Billy ain't figured this one out as yet. This is childish play, you bet,
but has he answered the question, Of course not, because he cannot. it is a
lie and he is weasling on it.

Of course this baited game of yours is childish play, yet you've
opened the gate for more serious play.

You've neglected to address your eco lunatic fringe remarks as of yet,
more denigration of those who believe differently than you.

'Twas ever thus.


Yet this is all been for Nilly Billy's chicken shit attack he pulled on
Florabloom. He lied and then attacked an innocent. You stand shoulder to
shoulder to that?

Why must you persist in using belittling terms/name-calling? BTW, you
want to talk about BIG lying and BIG attacking innocents and BIG death
and horror? Do you support that of which I insinuate?

You ignore, or choose not to understand, that for which I stand
shoulder to shoulder with Billy, and you continue to frame your
replies to suit your needs and try to put words in my mouth.

Chickenshit attacks? New here, aren't you? I don't see you defending
people from attacks by shel and his ilk. So let's not be giving me
the rundown and lessons.


Now he is caught up in it. He coulda got away with his pathological lying,
hell, a few of his "citations" he googles are worth reading and he has got
some folks believing his BS or too scared to say otherwise, don't know which
one, don't care but to launch into a diatribe such as he did and
attack a FNG for asking a question? naaa. No man gets to do that without
some consequence.

Really? That is bullshit and gets into areas that lie outside the
scope of the supposed discussion of this newsgroup, discussions for
which we are regularly chastised.

BTW, ifn's ya don't care, why ya' be speculating and diagnosing Billy
so often, Hmm?

Florabloom played nice and he didn't get ANY support from this group.

Yeah, like this is is really important life stuff. You chose to take
it to a higher level.

And....good on ya' for chastising all the rest of the posters here
that aren't standup folk like yourself. Lot's of folk around the
world play nice and get napalmed and droned for it.


You can't give a pass on this one Charlie and mean what you said about being
a advocate.

Can't I? That is a BS statement and you know it. Must I advocate on
the behalf of every downtrodden and ****ed-over individual of whom I
am aware or whom I am indicated?

I stated that I advocate for those that are unable and/or unwilling to
advocate for themselves....and you know damn well I meant, so let's
not distort it. Life stuff, not bullshit Usenet slights and slurs and
all that happy horseshit.

Again, you are opening a can of shit stew into which I am not going to
go into any further with you.


Stand in,..... stand down......... all the same to me Charlie.


Only two options, Boss?

......... all the same to me Gunner.

Charlie

The problem is Charlie is that you're being real, and gunnie is just
gamin'. If you presented him with 6 megapixel reality, he would just
say,"Who you gonna beleive, me, or your own lyin' eyes". He's like the
Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

He really isn't worth your time, Charlie. You can't go after every dog
that barks at you.

He doesn't know the English language.
He doesn't know how to frame an argument.
When presented with overwhelming evidence from two internationally
recognized experts, first he says he'll prove them wrong, then he
realizes the task that he has set for himself, and, instead, wants you
to re-invent the wheel. And when backed into a corner he
moves the goal posts, equivocates, and obfuscates.
The only thing that he has going for him is the good will of the people
he argues with.
He is obviously a self made loner.
**** on him.

And will you come back to the garden, Charlie? The cabbages miss you;O)
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://www.map-uk.org/regions/opt/news/view/-/id/348/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn