sometime in the recent past Billy posted this:
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.
But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a ****ing contest with a
skunk."

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


--
Wilson N44º39" W67º12"

In article ,
Wilson wrote:

But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a ****ing contest with a
skunk."

But if you do, **** with the wind, not into it;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

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Wilson wrote:

But as my grandfather used to say, "Never get in a ****ing contest with a
skunk."

But if you do, **** with the wind, not into it;O)
--

or wrestle with a group of pigs

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.


You are quite fickle, billy, and very comedic. The first source doesn't
give any proof that
of mineral salts kill micro organisms and his analogy of table salt and
slugs is
quite laughable. Course your source has no commerical interests does he?

As to the second source, isn't Dr Joe the one you and "your group" went
to great lengths to denounce, calling him a Monsanto shrill? Why the sudden
turn-about?
Short term memory loss? Do you think he supports your use of scary numbers
and false statistic fringe think?

Actually I find he is very anchored and mainstream, he certainly
dismissed "your group" fringe think and you are still cherry picking his
comments. That whole debacle was quite entertaining.

So enough of your silly games billy. As both of us know, mineral
fertilizers do not kill SOMs when properly applied. You haven't found a
peer reviewed
scientific paper to prove this and you won't. I'm stepping out of this
thread and letting you get back to your sermons. This one quite exhausted
its purpose.

But do yourself a favor, when a man is asking advice to help his
family, don't climb his ass, espcially with BS lies.

Not responding to anyone in particular in this "debate"\but
googling Chemical fertilizer effects on soil microbes
brought a lot of interesting stuff (good scientific word: stuff)

For great general information ( and there is a LOT of info
he

www.answers.com/topic/fertilizer

I didn't read much of the blog/opinion sites.
There is a great deal of study being done in China.
I found these of interest:

www.agnet.org/library/tb/174/

(Combined use of Chemical and Organic Fertilizer and/or Biofertilizer)

also:

http://www.organiclandcare.org/educa...ertilizers.pdf

Happy researching
Emilie]
NorCal

In article
,
mleblanca wrote:

Chemical fertilizer effects on soil microbes
brought a lot of interesting stuff (good scientific word: stuff)

Sometimes what you need most is new eyes. Thanks.
--

- 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://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn