sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:



Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to
read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts
together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly
endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with
pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not
your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use
"citations"
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.'

as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have
obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses
the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact
WOMF specifically
references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also
themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP
and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some
agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the
primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that !
Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up
with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money,
scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed.
so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check
out the page:
Apple Sauce
... snipped...

Footnotes
1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all
cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

2. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the
WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

3. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data
Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

4. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from
U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data
compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the
2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5074338
2007 data, published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in
2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of
residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total
number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99
percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety
limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for
pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to
that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none
exceed the
allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA
limits, ok maybe the one%.

Bottom line.... PAN just downloaded the USDA data base, framed it, added
some whirligigs to get your attention and poof ....Its magic,.... please
send your dollars to support our important research.

Again, understand the data presented. This is presented in a very
prejudicial
manner, designed to alarm. "OMG this has pesticides on it!" Americans do
not seem to understand the nature of statistics, especially about
measurements of
parts per billion (ppb), for reference 1ppb is equal to 1 minute in 2000
years

I recommended Dr. Bruce Ames, the noted Microbiologist for you to read
because his research on cancers and carcinogenicity are world renown. But
since you don't do much more than goggle and wiki, here is a synopsis link
for you to scoff at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/sc...l?pagewanted=1
or http://tinyurl.com/nkltzn.

I will warn you, like most of your "citations", this reference is a bit
old
but still very relevant to what he has discovered especially if you can find
other writings using his works. Most all his papers
are locked up behind password access but you can certainly write to him on
his website and ask for copies. I find most Profs want to share, well
perhaps except when you slanderously infer them a corporate shrill with your
unique style of research.


Just remember most here do understand and endorse being green, It is just
the fringe lunacy gets a bit much with you. Certainly the co-mingling of
extraneous " citations"
doesn't help your cause.

Good luck in your quest for the holy grail.

My best to you this new day Billy.

Gunner
In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court










--
Wilson N44º39" W67º12"

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

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

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

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"

"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.

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