Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 06-10-2009, 05:31 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 221
Default any hydro peeps here?


"phorbin" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
says...


Have you sobered ve noticed very much, perhaps because you were again
Drunk While Typing.


You still at it?

Ah well, back to the killfile wit ye.

plonk


ohhhh that really hurts my feelings


  #17   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2009, 12:42 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 221
Default any hydro peeps here?


I spend some time today to review these links again and still find you can't
fault the
conclusions. You will, like so many of your belief have already, whine and
cry foul, but the proof is pretty soild. So stop teabagging and read it.

The UK's FSA independent study completed this summer( 2009) states :
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the
selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of
nutritional superiority."

1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?


you didn't read the link, did you?

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

Who are these people, and when where these studies made?


Again, you didn't read the link, did you?

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1

"In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies,
conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of
nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher
content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a
difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient
categories analyzed."

So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,

making them a target for noxious insects.

You messed this one up also. Is this a quote from the link above it? No, so
separate the two and give a reference to your lead-in of your absurd
hypothesis; "chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
making them a target for noxious insects"

Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple
of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about.
Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding ******.


I can see now you are really confused, mostly because you haven't read or
have you? Stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS and READ.

I did note that you screwed this last part up as much as you did the
first bit of jumbled crap you refer to as "citations". Suffice it to say
that the statement; " chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the
plants, making them a target for noxious insects" is a complete misstatement
of fact in whatever you are attempting . Pure supposition. No one said
"leaves", no one said "noxious insects", except you. We were also
discussing hydroponics, so to assume that excess nitrogen in a plant invites
pests in hydroponic food is a bit out there. I asked you for information on
your absurd claim and you dare to compare conventional and organic produce
with your jumbled up mess including Pollan quotes and links to UC-Davis.
Your links as usual, showed inconsistencies and half-truths. I gave you
the latest information conducted by FSA that included such information as
you hold to prove your point. The conclusion is the same as Dr. Barrett,
UC-Davis, echoed earlier; Any claim that organic produce is somehow
nutritionally superior is inconclusive.

Again, I also said I wasn't going to do your work for you. You must
actually read the studies to know what they say. Only then can you attempt
to refute them. You haven't done that so far. Only when you do can you
forward your faulty premises. Right now you are just cherry picking your
facts and mostly using quotes out of context, as usual. You need to quote
your so called "facts" correctly.

How funny your use of " bleeding ******" ? Is this your faux pas attempt at
being British? Worldly, perhaps? Yet, how apropos as you will see, or
perhaps as you already did?

Good to see you using the basic interrogatives as I recommended, but you
wouldn't have had to if you would have actually READ the links. At the
minimum, everything you ask is on the first pages as well as the who, what,
why,when, where and how the study was conducted. If in a hurry, just read
the executive summaries or abstracts as you usually do.

But this one time I gave you the entire study in PDF form, as well as the
second review and the American peer review so you can't pretend it is of no
significance. The complete protocol to include the fact that " relevant
subject experts and external bodies were alerted to the review process and
the availability of the review protocol." and that "A draft of the final
report was reviewed and approved by the independent review panel". So
either you can't read or you won't read? which is it? Your comprehension
will be another issue.

Personally, I believe it was too kind in that the protocol was
overly broad. One thing the organic comparisons do not do is give a base
soil analysis to include pH. and then explain what nutrients they have
available for use in their soil bank. There is a big difference in chicken
manure, cow manure, alfalfa etc. What inorganic materials did they use? in
what amounts, and how frequently. I do find fault with the control (or lack
of) in most of "experiments" and studies so far. Your "research", thus the
facts used to confirm your beliefs are mostly flawed and vastly over stated.
You have no standard protocol to make comparisons as this show.

I am sure you can see the disparity that can be. So lets see an equal side
by side where all things are the same as possible, then give realistic
explainations for the varients. Hasn't been done to date as Br Barrett
indicates.

I realize balanced scientific papers are not on the Fringe Organic Industry
Insider's recommended reading list, but this FSA study is going to cause
you considerable consternation if you continue to claim such superiority.
Go review the study design, search strategy, pub selection, etc. 50 years!

The concept of sustainable agriculture using organic materials is a good and
noble one, but it not the panacea you have so falsely claimed and badger
people about. You continue to preach apples, all the while showing oranges
as this latest study shows.

Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said
many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior.
So you want to quit now and move on because you nor your fan club can
adequately address this one.

-- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped














  #18   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2009, 08:28 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 127
Default any hydro peeps here?

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

I spend some time today to review these links again and still find you can't
fault the
conclusions. You will, like so many of your belief have already, whine and
cry foul, but the proof is pretty soild. So stop teabagging and read it.

The UK's FSA independent study completed this summer( 2009) states :
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the
selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of
nutritional superiority."

1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?


you didn't read the link, did you?

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

Who are these people, and when where these studies made?


Again, you didn't read the link, did you?

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1

"In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies,
conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of
nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher
content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a
difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient
categories analyzed."

So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,

making them a target for noxious insects.

You messed this one up also. Is this a quote from the link above it? No, so
separate the two and give a reference to your lead-in of your absurd
hypothesis; "chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
making them a target for noxious insects"

Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple
of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about.
Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding ******.


I can see now you are really confused, mostly because you haven't read or
have you? Stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS and READ.

I did note that you screwed this last part up as much as you did the
first bit of jumbled crap you refer to as "citations". Suffice it to say
that the statement; " chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the
plants, making them a target for noxious insects" is a complete misstatement
of fact in whatever you are attempting . Pure supposition. No one said
"leaves", no one said "noxious insects", except you. We were also
discussing hydroponics, so to assume that excess nitrogen in a plant invites
pests in hydroponic food is a bit out there. I asked you for information on
your absurd claim and you dare to compare conventional and organic produce
with your jumbled up mess including Pollan quotes and links to UC-Davis.
Your links as usual, showed inconsistencies and half-truths. I gave you
the latest information conducted by FSA that included such information as
you hold to prove your point. The conclusion is the same as Dr. Barrett,
UC-Davis, echoed earlier; Any claim that organic produce is somehow
nutritionally superior is inconclusive.

Again, I also said I wasn't going to do your work for you. You must
actually read the studies to know what they say. Only then can you attempt
to refute them. You haven't done that so far. Only when you do can you
forward your faulty premises. Right now you are just cherry picking your
facts and mostly using quotes out of context, as usual. You need to quote
your so called "facts" correctly.

How funny your use of " bleeding ******" ? Is this your faux pas attempt at
being British? Worldly, perhaps? Yet, how apropos as you will see, or
perhaps as you already did?

Good to see you using the basic interrogatives as I recommended, but you
wouldn't have had to if you would have actually READ the links. At the
minimum, everything you ask is on the first pages as well as the who, what,
why,when, where and how the study was conducted. If in a hurry, just read
the executive summaries or abstracts as you usually do.

But this one time I gave you the entire study in PDF form, as well as the
second review and the American peer review so you can't pretend it is of no
significance. The complete protocol to include the fact that " relevant
subject experts and external bodies were alerted to the review process and
the availability of the review protocol." and that "A draft of the final
report was reviewed and approved by the independent review panel". So
either you can't read or you won't read? which is it? Your comprehension
will be another issue.

Personally, I believe it was too kind in that the protocol was
overly broad. One thing the organic comparisons do not do is give a base
soil analysis to include pH. and then explain what nutrients they have
available for use in their soil bank. There is a big difference in chicken
manure, cow manure, alfalfa etc. What inorganic materials did they use? in
what amounts, and how frequently. I do find fault with the control (or lack
of) in most of "experiments" and studies so far. Your "research", thus the
facts used to confirm your beliefs are mostly flawed and vastly over stated.
You have no standard protocol to make comparisons as this show.

I am sure you can see the disparity that can be. So lets see an equal side
by side where all things are the same as possible, then give realistic
explainations for the varients. Hasn't been done to date as Br Barrett
indicates.

I realize balanced scientific papers are not on the Fringe Organic Industry
Insider's recommended reading list, but this FSA study is going to cause
you considerable consternation if you continue to claim such superiority.
Go review the study design, search strategy, pub selection, etc. 50 years!

The concept of sustainable agriculture using organic materials is a good and
noble one, but it not the panacea you have so falsely claimed and badger
people about. You continue to preach apples, all the while showing oranges
as this latest study shows.

Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said
many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior.
So you want to quit now and move on because you nor your fan club can
adequately address this one.

-- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped


Huh? whadda ya talking about now?
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
  #19   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2009, 05:03 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 221
Default any hydro peeps here?


"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:






Huh? whadda ya talking about now?


We are still the on fact you haven't read any of the FSA's study, much less
the ones you have falsely claimed is some kinda proof . Personally I think
you are pretending and know you can't refute them, kinda like you did with
the Ironite fiasco when you were making "factual" claims on a product that
sold out 2 years prior or when you accused Sherwin of lying when he said he
contacted Dr. Swartz.

So here we are yet again, talking about you not checking your cut and
paste "facts". Your research skills are juvenile at best, billy. Next time
you want to play big man on campus, you better have your facts right.

You looking for a quick exit, are ya?


-- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped



  #20   Report Post  
Old 12-10-2009, 09:27 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 1
Default any hydro peeps here?

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

Little "Billy" writes

" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."

and in another message again writes:

"Now you can GFY ;O) ."

Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"

Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks to
go **** themself everytime he is proved wrong! ...


Blah, blah, blah, I thought we were talking about nutrients in plants,
which is why you choose the praise of a company (I noticed you left out
their url [http:hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/) that prides
itself on working with biotech companies, to minimize the favorable
reports from the University of California at Davis, and others.


Have you sobered up from your all night binge yet, billy? When you do, go
back and "notice" I gave you that url on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:30
AM so you must not have noticed very much, perhaps because you were again
Drunk While Typing.

I realize it may be after you graduate the 7th grade this next year, but
when you can comprehend the thread, try to address the contradictions I
outlined from your jumbled, disjointed references you erroneously believe
shows that organic is better.

Just for fun, here is yet another refutation of your claim from one of the
very UC-Davis PhDs in that jumbled up mess you cite as proof?


" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane Barrett,
Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively say
that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there were
signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product, And
(sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes. But
neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals
were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there was
no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the organic
and conventionally grown products"



IFT Media Relations, Chicago, Il

Being a scientist



But lets stay on your claim of organic superiority and address the most
exhaustive study
todate, the UK's FSA study completed this summer( 2009) that says "Our
review
indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of
organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional
superiority."



1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1


See below for criticism of the Food Standards Agency, UK (who is
responsible for the above cites), which was accepted by them.
Also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai
for pro GMO - anti-organic sentiments on the part of the British
government. For more information see:
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
by Jeffrey M. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...y-Engineered/d
p/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255374687&sr=1-1
, pages 5 - 44




You can try to refute the study, billy, but you can't with any real
scientific evidence, just observational selection

inferences from the many pro-organo organizations. But you wouldn't want to
quote an "industry hack " that have may
have a hidden agenda or praise as you so often infer the chem folks do,
would you?



Just saying something is true is a lot different than actually proving it.
You fail at proving you claims a lot.



Again, the BS trademark political commentaries are snipped.


As are the the cites used to refute your position.



Once again, it's funny that you should hold me to a higher standard than
yourself, since the sites that you gave me are (1) a private lab that
does extensive work for the "biotech" industry, and (2) the UK's Food
Standards Agency which has already accepted criticism that it is, or
appears, to be bias against organic produce and in favor of GMOs.
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf
See: Recommendation 20 - It is clear that many stakeholders believe the
Agency has already made policy decisions on these issues and is not open
to further debate. The Agency should address the perceptions of these
stakeholders who have now formed views of the Agency founded on their
belief that the basis upon which the Agency¹s policy decisions were made
was flawed.

Specifically, see
1.7
1.7.1
While it is not within the remit of this Review to consider matters
relating to the internal structures or organisation of the Agency, it
must be noted that the role of the Advisory Committees in the devolved
countries was not always clear, both to those serving on the Committee
and to other stakeholder groups. Some questioned whether each of the
Advisory Committees functions in the same way and has the same level of
effectiveness and influence on Agency decisions.
While most stakeholders welcomed the Agency having a presence in the
devolved countries, there were some (mainly from the food industry) who
were concerned this structure adds a level to the decision-making
process and delays actions.
Specific issues raised
Early references to organic food, and to GM food, were highlighted
(unprompted by the Reviewers) by a number across the stakeholder groups.
It is clear that these two issues are still heavily influencing
stakeholders¹ perceptions of the Agency. In respect of both issues, the
perception of the vast majority was that the Agency had deviated from
its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific
evidence, to giving the impression of speaking against organic food and
for GM food. This view was expressed not only by stakeholders
representing organic and GM interest groups, but by those who would be
regarded as supporters and natural allies of the Agency.


So, here again, is more information than you gave me.

Omnivore¹s Dilemma
p. 179

³The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. ³It is
not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment
about nutrition or quality."
Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by
University of California‹Davis researchers published in the Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which
identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in
neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and
conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols.
Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants
that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and
nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing
or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis
researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits
and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols.
The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought
our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to
a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten
anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was
reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the
macronutrients‹protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated these
compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human nutrition.
Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in macronutrients
nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when scientists discovered
the major vitamins‹a second key to human nutrition. Now it's the
polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a critical role in
keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets heavy in
processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as nutritious as
fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these plants, what
other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to depend on.
In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food
chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The
two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our
chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes
into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century German
chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears responsibility for
science's overly reductive understanding of both ends of the food chain.
It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had found the chemical key
to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and it was the same Liebig
who thought he had found the key to human nutrition when identified the
macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't wrong on either count, yet in both
instances he made the fatal mistake of thinking that what we knew about
nourishing plants and people was all we need to know to keep them
healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep repeating until we develop a
deeper respect for the complexity of food soil and, perhaps, the links
between the two.
But back to the polyphenols, which may hint at the nature of that link.
Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain
significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study
haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The
reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend
themselves against pests and diseases; the more pressure from pathogens,
the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are
the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the
coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on
them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet
of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that
then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants
being defended by man-made pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make
their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the
plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong
defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.)
A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to support)
may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically
fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to
synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might be
sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant everything
it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or resveratrol in
quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and especially a
sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the characteristic taste of a
fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet identify, in soil may
contribute qualities we've only just begun to identify in our foods and
our bodies.
-----
And,
https://sharepoint.agriculture.purdu...ons/2-%20Wedne
sday,%20September%2017,%202008/Concurrent%20Session%203/The%20Organic%20v
s%20Conventional%20Debate%20-%20Can%20We%20Strike%20a%20Balance%20Between
%20Passion%20and%20Science.pdf
and,
http://www.agricultureinformation.co...g/18027-organi
c-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html
and,
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-31531.html

It is true in some cases that judgement can't be reached be cause some
of the produce was purchase in markets and is of unknown provenance both
geographically and biologically, but if you really care about the truth,
you will notice that some of the studies we done of plants grown
specifically for the studies.

As usual, we have moved far from where your rant originally began, when
you cited the biotech support lab "Plant Research Technologies Inc." as
the source of the supposed nutritional superiority of hydroponically
grown produce.

Sorry, gunny, if you can't read, but that isn't my fault. Everything
is here to substantiate my assertions, except for he part where
chemfert fed plants grow faster (as it damages the soil ecosystem),
leading to more tender foliage (which happens to be where the nitrates
are stored), and that in turn attracts insect predators. Of course. if
you are growing indoors, there are no insects, and less flavonoids.

Take another look at the paucity of information in the cite you gave
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/ from Plant Research
Technologies Inc. and see that they give no information to support their
report.

As for the reportage on Dr. Diane Barrett,
(" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane
Barrett,
Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively
say
that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there
were
signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product,
And
(sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes.
But
neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals
were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there
was
no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the
organic
and conventionally grown products."), you have to know that she is a
scientist, and until she can confirm that she has covered every possible
variable in the produce being analyzed, she can't make a summary
judgement. However, if you have the eyes to see, and the wit to
comprehend, you will see from the cites above, that organic is usually
superior in nutrition, be they macro-nutrients, vitamins, or flavonoids.
This is in addition to "organic" being lower in pesticides and
friendlier to the environment. To be fair, one should also consider the
the cultivars grown (shelf-live vs. nutrition) and the distribution
system of field, to warehouse, to store, to consumer as opposed to from
field to consumer, and their impacts on the nutritional value of the
produce.

As usual, I await your ****ing and moaning ;O)
--


  #21   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2009, 12:37 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 221
Default any hydro peeps here?


"Billyy Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

Little "Billy" writes

" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."

and in another message again writes:

"Now you can GFY ;O) ."

Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact
he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and
derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"

Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks
to
go **** themself everytime he is proved wrong! ...


Let me understand this correctly.

1. You use this link dated in 2005 as some kind of proof the 2009 FSA
commissioned study is flawed?
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf


That is a better joke than most of the BS refutation the organic
organizations tried to use. They are at least saying the Study used outdated
studies (a lie) or that it neglects use of pesticides ( outside stated
scope) and other plausible denial tricks.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai ....GM foods? Neither Árpád
Pusztai nor GMs were even mentioned in the thread nor any of the links to
date . But still, that was some kinda wingnut article. Did you not read
the disclaimer? I see now why Wiki is having problems with confirming its
information. it's all a conspiracy!

3. As to your continuing use of abbreviated Amazon book reviews? billy I
have told you before you need to tinyurl those cuz you lose those
extraordinarily long links,but also you should buy the book and ACTUALLY
READ them before you try to use them as some kind of authority. Again,
another fringe writer with scare tales needing a paycheck. I note his bio
(self written?) neglects his educational background, only that he is a
writer and member of the Institute he formed. billy, we were not talking
about GM foods but remember that tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, corn, etc. are
all GM foods, far from their ancestral roots. Still all in all, Smith is
one of your organic stakeholders, albeit another mediocre wordsmith with no
science bona fides. How come you get to cry conspiracy so much and no one
else gets too?

Not that I think you actually have any use for science nor facts, you seem
to use your own a lot. But if you are looking for how the British FSA
conducts its studies and past allegations, this link may help:
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../900/900-i.pdf

Meantime, your claim that organic foods have more nutrients compared to
conventionally grown foods has not been found true because there is little
to no EQUAL comparison done so far. Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one
in some of YOUR references) has said many times there is no conclusive proof
that organic is superior. It would seem so easy to do, doesn't it, yet it
hasn't been done and that is what the FSA report says. So all I see you
have is cherry picked facts to make dubious claims, in short....... a good
marketing ploy. Again, none of which affects Hydroponics which shoot big
holes in your BS claims that inorganic salts kill.

You want to discuss best organic practices, thats fine, gardening tricks,
thats fine. I would like to read them, but don't keep distorting the truth
and then jumping around telling me more lies and claiming conspiarcy when
you can't t refute facts.

I hope one day you actually find it truly was the evil food industries that
caused your diabetes and then you can justify your stump speeches, but lets
face facts, it is just you and your refusal to accept the fact you have a
disease. Man up and deal with it, little billy rose, your conspiracy theory
BS is well played out.


  #22   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2009, 09:25 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 1
Default any hydro peeps here?

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billyy Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
if you have the eyes to see, and the wit to
comprehend, you will see from the cites above, that organic is usually
superior in nutrition, be they macro-nutrients, vitamins, or flavonoids.
This is in addition to "organic" being lower in pesticides and
friendlier to the environment. To be fair, one should also consider the
the cultivars grown (shelf-live vs. nutrition) and the distribution
system of field, to warehouse, to store, to consumer as opposed to from
field to consumer, and their impacts on the nutritional value of the
produce.


As usual, I await your ****ing and moaning ;O)

5

4

3

2

1
and here's gunny;O)
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

Little "Billy" writes

" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."

and in another message again writes:

"Now you can GFY ;O) ."

Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact
he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and
derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"

Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks
to
go **** themself everytime he is proved wrong! ...


Let me understand this correctly.

1. You use this link dated in 2005 as some kind of proof the 2009 FSA
commissioned study is flawed?


No, I'm saying that it looks as if the Food
Standards Agency is bias (see below).
Specifically, see 1.7 of the repot below.

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf

That is a better joke than most of the BS refutation the organic
organizations tried to use. They are at least saying the Study used outdated
studies (a lie) or that it neglects use of pesticides ( outside stated
scope) and other plausible denial tricks.


That isn't what
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf
is sayin. Learn to read. It says that they are bias.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai ....GM foods? Neither Árpád
Pusztai nor GMs were even mentioned in the thread nor any of the links to
date . But still, that was some kinda wingnut article. Did you not read
the disclaimer? I see now why Wiki is having problems with confirming its
information. it's all a conspiracy!

3. As to your continuing use of abbreviated Amazon book reviews? billy I
have told you before you need to tinyurl those cuz you lose those
extraordinarily long links,but also you should buy the book and ACTUALLY
READ them before you try to use them as some kind of authority. Again,
another fringe writer with scare tales needing a paycheck. I note his bio
(self written?) neglects his educational background, only that he is a
writer and member of the Institute he formed. billy, we were not talking
about GM foods but remember that tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, corn, etc. are
all GM foods, far from their ancestral roots. Still all in all, Smith is
one of your organic stakeholders, albeit another mediocre wordsmith with no
science bona fides. How come you get to cry conspiracy so much and no one
else gets too?

Not that I think you actually have any use for science nor facts, you seem
to use your own a lot. But if you are looking for how the British FSA
conducts its studies and past allegations, this link may help:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...tech/900/900-i.
pdf

Meantime, your claim that organic foods have more nutrients compared to
conventionally grown foods has not been found true because there is little
to no EQUAL comparison done so far. Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one
in some of YOUR references) has said many times there is no conclusive proof
that organic is superior. It would seem so easy to do, doesn't it, yet it
hasn't been done and that is what the FSA report says. So all I see you
have is cherry picked facts to make dubious claims, in short....... a good
marketing ploy. Again, none of which affects Hydroponics which shoot big
holes in your BS claims that inorganic salts kill.

You want to discuss best organic practices, thats fine, gardening tricks,
thats fine. I would like to read them, but don't keep distorting the truth
and then jumping around telling me more lies and claiming conspiarcy when
you can't t refute facts.

I hope one day you actually find it truly was the evil food industries that
caused your diabetes and then you can justify your stump speeches, but lets
face facts, it is just you and your refusal to accept the fact you have a
disease. Man up and deal with it, little billy rose, your conspiracy theory
BS is well played out.



So there you have it, ladies and gents.
https://sharepoint.agriculture.purdu...ons/2-%20Wedne
sday,%20September%2017,%202008/Concurrent%20Session%203/The%20Organic%20v
s%20Conventional%20Debate%20-%20Can%20We%20Strike%20a%20Balance%20Between
%20Passion%20and%20Science.pdf
and,
http://www.agricultureinformation.co...g/18027-organi
c-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html
and,
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-31531.html

vs.

1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1


See below for criticism of the Food Standards Agency, UK (who is
responsible for the above cites), which was accepted by them. They
didn'y deny the criticism. They accepted the criticism that they
appeared pro-GMO.

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf
Calls into question the objectivity of this group.

Early references to organic food, and to GM food, were highlighted
(unprompted by the Reviewers) by a number across the stakeholder groups.
It is clear that these two issues are still heavily influencing
stakeholders¹ perceptions of the Agency. In respect of both issues, the
perception of the vast majority was that the Agency had deviated from
its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific
evidence, to giving the impression of speaking against organic food and
for GM food. This view was expressed not only by stakeholders
representing organic and GM interest groups, but by those who would be
regarded as supporters and natural allies of the Agency.


As further proof of U.K. government bias see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai
for pro GMO - anti-organic sentiments on the part of the British
government. For more information see:
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
by Jeffrey M. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...y-Engineered/d
p/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255374687&sr=1-1
, pages 5 - 44

British politicans are at least as sleasy as American politicians. They
have been consistently pro-GMO.

Keep in mind that gunny spends most of his posts in personal attacks,
which have no bearing on the topic at hand i.e., the nutritional value
of hydroponic produce vs. organic produce.

You gave
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/
from Plant Research Technologies Inc. as a reference, but they have a
conflict of interest, because they work for biotech firms. How would it
look to a bio-tech company, if one of their suppliers praises
traditional food? Yet, gunny avoids this issue by making personal
attacks.

It is impossible to have a dialoge, if the other party doesn't respond
to what you said.

So, since dialoge is out of the question, I'll leave it to the readers
to make their own opinion.

I await your ****ing and moaning, gunny, them I'm out of here.

Oh, no need to tell you to GFY, gunny. I think you've already done that
very nicely ;O)
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why they have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn
  #23   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2009, 03:47 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 221
Default any hydro peeps here?


"Rony Rose" wrote in message
...

Is that your final answer?


  #24   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2009, 03:53 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 221
Default any hydro peeps here?


"Rony Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ss,



So, since dialoge is out of the question, I'll leave it to the readers

to make their own opinion


Have ya got that jury convened yet? Look around ya billy, Phobic left ya
early and your posse still hasn't shown.

You need to understand....no one cares! Its just you and me fighting over
your vexatious claims.

As to dialoge(sic) ??? Right! Try completing this first:
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/...kills/122.html

Then you can practice by trying to refute the young Doc he

http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/ch...-im-political/

or http://tinyurl.com/m6tu4z






  #25   Report Post  
Old 18-10-2009, 11:07 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible,alt.quit.smoking.support
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Default any hydro peeps here?

gunner wrote:
I spend some time today to review these links again and still find you can't
fault the
conclusions. You will, like so many of your belief have already, whine and
cry foul, but the proof is pretty soild. So stop teabagging and read it.

The UK's FSA independent study completed this summer( 2009) states :
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the
selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of
nutritional superiority."

1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?


you didn't read the link, did you?

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

Who are these people, and when where these studies made?


Again, you didn't read the link, did you?

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1

"In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies,
conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of
nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher
content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a
difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient
categories analyzed."

So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,

making them a target for noxious insects.

You messed this one up also. Is this a quote from the link above it? No, so
separate the two and give a reference to your lead-in of your absurd
hypothesis; "chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
making them a target for noxious insects"

Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple
of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about.
Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding ******.


I can see now you are really confused, mostly because you haven't read or
have you? Stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS and READ.

I did note that you screwed this last part up as much as you did the
first bit of jumbled crap you refer to as "citations". Suffice it to say
that the statement; " chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the
plants, making them a target for noxious insects" is a complete misstatement
of fact in whatever you are attempting . Pure supposition. No one said
"leaves", no one said "noxious insects", except you. We were also
discussing hydroponics, so to assume that excess nitrogen in a plant invites
pests in hydroponic food is a bit out there. I asked you for information on
your absurd claim and you dare to compare conventional and organic produce
with your jumbled up mess including Pollan quotes and links to UC-Davis.
Your links as usual, showed inconsistencies and half-truths. I gave you
the latest information conducted by FSA that included such information as
you hold to prove your point. The conclusion is the same as Dr. Barrett,
UC-Davis, echoed earlier; Any claim that organic produce is somehow
nutritionally superior is inconclusive.

Again, I also said I wasn't going to do your work for you. You must
actually read the studies to know what they say. Only then can you attempt
to refute them. You haven't done that so far. Only when you do can you
forward your faulty premises. Right now you are just cherry picking your
facts and mostly using quotes out of context, as usual. You need to quote
your so called "facts" correctly.

How funny your use of " bleeding ******" ? Is this your faux pas attempt at
being British? Worldly, perhaps? Yet, how apropos as you will see, or
perhaps as you already did?

Good to see you using the basic interrogatives as I recommended, but you
wouldn't have had to if you would have actually READ the links. At the
minimum, everything you ask is on the first pages as well as the who, what,
why,when, where and how the study was conducted. If in a hurry, just read
the executive summaries or abstracts as you usually do.

But this one time I gave you the entire study in PDF form, as well as the
second review and the American peer review so you can't pretend it is of no
significance. The complete protocol to include the fact that " relevant
subject experts and external bodies were alerted to the review process and
the availability of the review protocol." and that "A draft of the final
report was reviewed and approved by the independent review panel". So
either you can't read or you won't read? which is it? Your comprehension
will be another issue.

Personally, I believe it was too kind in that the protocol was
overly broad. One thing the organic comparisons do not do is give a base
soil analysis to include pH. and then explain what nutrients they have
available for use in their soil bank. There is a big difference in chicken
manure, cow manure, alfalfa etc. What inorganic materials did they use? in
what amounts, and how frequently. I do find fault with the control (or lack
of) in most of "experiments" and studies so far. Your "research", thus the
facts used to confirm your beliefs are mostly flawed and vastly over stated.
You have no standard protocol to make comparisons as this show.

I am sure you can see the disparity that can be. So lets see an equal side
by side where all things are the same as possible, then give realistic
explainations for the varients. Hasn't been done to date as Br Barrett
indicates.

I realize balanced scientific papers are not on the Fringe Organic Industry
Insider's recommended reading list, but this FSA study is going to cause
you considerable consternation if you continue to claim such superiority.
Go review the study design, search strategy, pub selection, etc. 50 years!

The concept of sustainable agriculture using organic materials is a good and
noble one, but it not the panacea you have so falsely claimed and badger
people about. You continue to preach apples, all the while showing oranges
as this latest study shows.

Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said
many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior.
So you want to quit now and move on because you nor your fan club can
adequately address this one.

-- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped


WTF has this flame war got to do with growing marijuana?


  #26   Report Post  
Old 19-10-2009, 02:55 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2008
Posts: 30
Default any hydro peeps here?

sometime in the recent past Rusty Trombone posted this:
gunner wrote:
I spend some time today to review these links again and still find you can't
fault the
conclusions. You will, like so many of your belief have already, whine and
cry foul, but the proof is pretty soild. So stop teabagging and read it.

The UK's FSA independent study completed this summer( 2009) states :
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the
selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of
nutritional superiority."
1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?

you didn't read the link, did you?
2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?

Again, you didn't read the link, did you?
peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1

"In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies,
conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of
nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher
content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a
difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient
categories analyzed."

So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,

making them a target for noxious insects.

You messed this one up also. Is this a quote from the link above it? No, so
separate the two and give a reference to your lead-in of your absurd
hypothesis; "chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
making them a target for noxious insects"

Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple
of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about.
Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding ******.

I can see now you are really confused, mostly because you haven't read or
have you? Stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS and READ.

I did note that you screwed this last part up as much as you did the
first bit of jumbled crap you refer to as "citations". Suffice it to say
that the statement; " chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the
plants, making them a target for noxious insects" is a complete misstatement
of fact in whatever you are attempting . Pure supposition. No one said
"leaves", no one said "noxious insects", except you. We were also
discussing hydroponics, so to assume that excess nitrogen in a plant invites
pests in hydroponic food is a bit out there. I asked you for information on
your absurd claim and you dare to compare conventional and organic produce
with your jumbled up mess including Pollan quotes and links to UC-Davis.
Your links as usual, showed inconsistencies and half-truths. I gave you
the latest information conducted by FSA that included such information as
you hold to prove your point. The conclusion is the same as Dr. Barrett,
UC-Davis, echoed earlier; Any claim that organic produce is somehow
nutritionally superior is inconclusive.

Again, I also said I wasn't going to do your work for you. You must
actually read the studies to know what they say. Only then can you attempt
to refute them. You haven't done that so far. Only when you do can you
forward your faulty premises. Right now you are just cherry picking your
facts and mostly using quotes out of context, as usual. You need to quote
your so called "facts" correctly.

How funny your use of " bleeding ******" ? Is this your faux pas attempt at
being British? Worldly, perhaps? Yet, how apropos as you will see, or
perhaps as you already did?

Good to see you using the basic interrogatives as I recommended, but you
wouldn't have had to if you would have actually READ the links. At the
minimum, everything you ask is on the first pages as well as the who, what,
why,when, where and how the study was conducted. If in a hurry, just read
the executive summaries or abstracts as you usually do.

But this one time I gave you the entire study in PDF form, as well as the
second review and the American peer review so you can't pretend it is of no
significance. The complete protocol to include the fact that " relevant
subject experts and external bodies were alerted to the review process and
the availability of the review protocol." and that "A draft of the final
report was reviewed and approved by the independent review panel". So
either you can't read or you won't read? which is it? Your comprehension
will be another issue.

Personally, I believe it was too kind in that the protocol was
overly broad. One thing the organic comparisons do not do is give a base
soil analysis to include pH. and then explain what nutrients they have
available for use in their soil bank. There is a big difference in chicken
manure, cow manure, alfalfa etc. What inorganic materials did they use? in
what amounts, and how frequently. I do find fault with the control (or lack
of) in most of "experiments" and studies so far. Your "research", thus the
facts used to confirm your beliefs are mostly flawed and vastly over stated.
You have no standard protocol to make comparisons as this show.

I am sure you can see the disparity that can be. So lets see an equal side
by side where all things are the same as possible, then give realistic
explainations for the varients. Hasn't been done to date as Br Barrett
indicates.

I realize balanced scientific papers are not on the Fringe Organic Industry
Insider's recommended reading list, but this FSA study is going to cause
you considerable consternation if you continue to claim such superiority.
Go review the study design, search strategy, pub selection, etc. 50 years!

The concept of sustainable agriculture using organic materials is a good and
noble one, but it not the panacea you have so falsely claimed and badger
people about. You continue to preach apples, all the while showing oranges
as this latest study shows.

Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said
many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior.
So you want to quit now and move on because you nor your fan club can
adequately address this one.

-- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped


WTF has this flame war got to do with growing marijuana?

These two have crossed galaxies to continue the war. See "Let That Be Your
Last Battlefield" Star Trek season III episode #70 http://tr.im/Cif7

Two sides of the same coin, tossed together to argue minutiae across the
sands of time. Their hate evolved faster than reason, one from the tribe of
Organites and the other from the tribe of Chemferts. Why they fight has long
been lost to each and now all they have left is the hate. Tossing aside all
those who make attempts at reason as if they were a common foe, interlopers
beware.
--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3
  #27   Report Post  
Old 19-10-2009, 10:49 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible,alt.quit.smoking.support
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 221
Default any hydro peeps here?


"Rusty Trombone" wrote in message
...
gunner wrote:



WTF has this flame war got to do with growing marijuana?



Nothing son, not a damn thing and unless you are a MM patient in one of the
14 states allowing MM and EATING it, your post doesn't have a damn thing to
do with Rec.Gardens.Edible either. Nor does your inclusion of this thread
in alt.quit.smoking.support. So while it may not be PC to stereotype folks,
son, is it sooooo apropos here or, as my close-minded nemesis says, "your
a ******". Which is it? Just don't pretend like your some injured party,
Ok?

You have posed this subject here twice now AND you have been told at least
once where you might get your questions answered. Don't care the reason why
your so tenacious, I am not going to entertain your vague questions on
potentially illegal topics based on abbreviated BS. Usually your type
question is couched under the pretense of " I want to grow """tomatoes""
hydroponically" or at the very least, pretend like you are a MM patient.
Personally, I don't believe you cannot find information leads on your
subjects, nor that you don't have at least some capacity to separate most
fact from
fiction.

Read experts in the field such as Dr. Howard M. Resh's book on Hydroponic
Food Production, there are plenty of others such as Dr. Lynnette Morgan....
find old copies of Growers Edge Mag or the new one Urban Garden (which seems
to vaguely target your interest group). Then, after you READ up on the
subject and you still have specific questions on the subject of
Hydroponics.... I will try to answer those questions. BTW read it sober ok?
If you don't like reading, well..... just type in 420 and trust in the
Internet, but you knew that right?

As a side note: you might like to know this: Hot off the wire this AM:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fed...t_19_2009.html

Gunner



  #28   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2009, 12:33 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 221
Default any hydro peeps here?


"Wilson" wrote in message
...

Two sides of the same coin, tossed together to argue minutiae across the
sands of time. Their hate evolved faster than reason, one from the tribe
of Organites and the other from the tribe of Chemferts. Why they fight has
long been lost to each and now all they have left is the hate. Tossing
aside all those who make attempts at reason as if they were a common foe,
interlopers beware.
--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3



So eloquently philosophical, yet so pretentious and distorted. You
act like a little Philistine from the Organites camp. You have never
stood up to counter any thing in that camp so far, have ya? So your attempt
to wax philosophical with empty fluffy words from someone in the back of the
crowd that never stood up on an issue is certainly suspect. It does sounds
very Solomanistic, though!

If you have viable comments on anything I've said to date, spit them out.
As for of billy's disjointed claims or if you actually cared to support
billy's claim by refuting the FSA study, I would like to hear them too.
Better late than never. Don"t like those?..., pick one of his other BS
statements to address, be you pro or con.

Seems you been waiting a while to say something seeming so profound there
Wilson? I recall the last attempt was your argument on "citation" wasn't it?
Again stemming from a billy rant. Funny, you didn't weigh-in on any
"billyfacts" in his using PAN to allude the sky is falling all the while
using the FED's pesticide database which said quite the contrary....some BS
about "lemmings and status quo" & eating pesticides. Oh and that the
definitions in your on-line dictionary are better than my desk dictionary.
So, any allusion to some grand neutrality and arguing what is minutiae is a
bit subjective for you, isn't it?

As for "the tribe of Chemferts", Wilson? No, do not play this little
triviality trick and attempt to brand me with your BS wording to justify
your cute little diatribe or dismiss this as an "either/or". To say
chemical salts kill soil, earthworms or soil organisms is to deny the fact
plants use these very chemical salts for their nutrients. I can go line by
line with many of the other organic "opinions" your camp has proffered here
but your organo statements are largely opinions, maybe good, but mostly
without fact. I will challenge lies, half-truths and dogma. But what have
you done? Not much as I can see but these little pearls great wisdom.

You just snipe safely from the back of the crowd, pulling a Glen Beck. Make
the issues some kinda of simple "either/ or" in some lame attempt to give
cover for action and further your organic dogma.

Now I am guilty of "wrestling the pig" and certainly of jousting with
windmills in fighting self-righteousness. But I will be the first to
say that, but someone, sometime or other, has to speak out on stupidity and
lies.

"It is the worst form of arrogance to believe yourself to be so right that
you are justified in lying to others in order to get them to share your
belief."
http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=35


It is the same pattern everytime w/ billy, some wild ass allegation, then
some
superficial cherry picked statement from some industry insider group all the
while attempting to discredit fact as biased, then when he can't even
dispute the factual statements from his own "citations". Lil billy attempts
bullying and certain of this group such as you, condones it. How pathetic
that is, but much worse is the duplicity exhibited by your lack of action
and pretentious scolding me after the fact.

To challenge such stupidity does not make one from the "tribe of chemferts",
but in my book you sure speak volumes for those that timidly condone such
affronts on intelligence with their silence. Still, its not an "either/or"
issue Wilson, as much as you want to trivialize it.

Beside if you don't like reading this and for what ever reason you couldn't
weigh in on any salient points, why did you continue to read it ? Are you
somehow indignant that someone took away your freewill & made you read all
this?

After all it is your dogma and one has the right to believe what
ever, just not the right to tell lies about it.
















  #29   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2009, 03:30 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 182
Default any hydro peeps here?

Um, Gunner? I'm pretty sure Wilson was being humorous. It made me
laugh.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:33:52 -0700, "gunner"
wrote:


"Wilson" wrote in message
...

Two sides of the same coin, tossed together to argue minutiae across the
sands of time. Their hate evolved faster than reason, one from the tribe
of Organites and the other from the tribe of Chemferts. Why they fight has
long been lost to each and now all they have left is the hate. Tossing
aside all those who make attempts at reason as if they were a common foe,
interlopers beware.
--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3



So eloquently philosophical, yet so pretentious and distorted. You
act like a little Philistine from the Organites camp. You have never
stood up to counter any thing in that camp so far, have ya? So your attempt
to wax philosophical with empty fluffy words from someone in the back of the
crowd that never stood up on an issue is certainly suspect. It does sounds
very Solomanistic, though!

If you have viable comments on anything I've said to date, spit them out.
As for of billy's disjointed claims or if you actually cared to support
billy's claim by refuting the FSA study, I would like to hear them too.
Better late than never. Don"t like those?..., pick one of his other BS
statements to address, be you pro or con.

Seems you been waiting a while to say something seeming so profound there
Wilson? I recall the last attempt was your argument on "citation" wasn't it?
Again stemming from a billy rant. Funny, you didn't weigh-in on any
"billyfacts" in his using PAN to allude the sky is falling all the while
using the FED's pesticide database which said quite the contrary....some BS
about "lemmings and status quo" & eating pesticides. Oh and that the
definitions in your on-line dictionary are better than my desk dictionary.
So, any allusion to some grand neutrality and arguing what is minutiae is a
bit subjective for you, isn't it?

As for "the tribe of Chemferts", Wilson? No, do not play this little
triviality trick and attempt to brand me with your BS wording to justify
your cute little diatribe or dismiss this as an "either/or". To say
chemical salts kill soil, earthworms or soil organisms is to deny the fact
plants use these very chemical salts for their nutrients. I can go line by
line with many of the other organic "opinions" your camp has proffered here
but your organo statements are largely opinions, maybe good, but mostly
without fact. I will challenge lies, half-truths and dogma. But what have
you done? Not much as I can see but these little pearls great wisdom.

You just snipe safely from the back of the crowd, pulling a Glen Beck. Make
the issues some kinda of simple "either/ or" in some lame attempt to give
cover for action and further your organic dogma.

Now I am guilty of "wrestling the pig" and certainly of jousting with
windmills in fighting self-righteousness. But I will be the first to
say that, but someone, sometime or other, has to speak out on stupidity and
lies.

"It is the worst form of arrogance to believe yourself to be so right that
you are justified in lying to others in order to get them to share your
belief."
http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=35


It is the same pattern everytime w/ billy, some wild ass allegation, then
some
superficial cherry picked statement from some industry insider group all the
while attempting to discredit fact as biased, then when he can't even
dispute the factual statements from his own "citations". Lil billy attempts
bullying and certain of this group such as you, condones it. How pathetic
that is, but much worse is the duplicity exhibited by your lack of action
and pretentious scolding me after the fact.

To challenge such stupidity does not make one from the "tribe of chemferts",
but in my book you sure speak volumes for those that timidly condone such
affronts on intelligence with their silence. Still, its not an "either/or"
issue Wilson, as much as you want to trivialize it.

Beside if you don't like reading this and for what ever reason you couldn't
weigh in on any salient points, why did you continue to read it ? Are you
somehow indignant that someone took away your freewill & made you read all
this?

After all it is your dogma and one has the right to believe what
ever, just not the right to tell lies about it.















  #30   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2009, 05:56 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2008
Posts: 30
Default any hydro peeps here?

sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
"Wilson" wrote in message
...
Two sides of the same coin, tossed together to argue minutiae across the
sands of time. Their hate evolved faster than reason, one from the tribe
of Organites and the other from the tribe of Chemferts. Why they fight has
long been lost to each and now all they have left is the hate. Tossing
aside all those who make attempts at reason as if they were a common foe,
interlopers beware.
--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3



So eloquently philosophical, yet so pretentious and distorted. You
act like a little Philistine from the Organites camp. You have never
stood up to counter any thing in that camp so far, have ya? So your attempt
to wax philosophical with empty fluffy words from someone in the back of the
crowd that never stood up on an issue is certainly suspect. It does sounds
very Solomanistic, though!

If you have viable comments on anything I've said to date, spit them out.
As for of billy's disjointed claims or if you actually cared to support
billy's claim by refuting the FSA study, I would like to hear them too.
Better late than never. Don"t like those?..., pick one of his other BS
statements to address, be you pro or con.

Seems you been waiting a while to say something seeming so profound there
Wilson? I recall the last attempt was your argument on "citation" wasn't it?
Again stemming from a billy rant. Funny, you didn't weigh-in on any
"billyfacts" in his using PAN to allude the sky is falling all the while
using the FED's pesticide database which said quite the contrary....some BS
about "lemmings and status quo" & eating pesticides. Oh and that the
definitions in your on-line dictionary are better than my desk dictionary.
So, any allusion to some grand neutrality and arguing what is minutiae is a
bit subjective for you, isn't it?

As for "the tribe of Chemferts", Wilson? No, do not play this little
triviality trick and attempt to brand me with your BS wording to justify
your cute little diatribe or dismiss this as an "either/or". To say
chemical salts kill soil, earthworms or soil organisms is to deny the fact
plants use these very chemical salts for their nutrients. I can go line by
line with many of the other organic "opinions" your camp has proffered here
but your organo statements are largely opinions, maybe good, but mostly
without fact. I will challenge lies, half-truths and dogma. But what have
you done? Not much as I can see but these little pearls great wisdom.

You just snipe safely from the back of the crowd, pulling a Glen Beck. Make
the issues some kinda of simple "either/ or" in some lame attempt to give
cover for action and further your organic dogma.

Now I am guilty of "wrestling the pig" and certainly of jousting with
windmills in fighting self-righteousness. But I will be the first to
say that, but someone, sometime or other, has to speak out on stupidity and
lies.

"It is the worst form of arrogance to believe yourself to be so right that
you are justified in lying to others in order to get them to share your
belief."
http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=35


It is the same pattern everytime w/ billy, some wild ass allegation, then
some
superficial cherry picked statement from some industry insider group all the
while attempting to discredit fact as biased, then when he can't even
dispute the factual statements from his own "citations". Lil billy attempts
bullying and certain of this group such as you, condones it. How pathetic
that is, but much worse is the duplicity exhibited by your lack of action
and pretentious scolding me after the fact.

To challenge such stupidity does not make one from the "tribe of chemferts",
but in my book you sure speak volumes for those that timidly condone such
affronts on intelligence with their silence. Still, its not an "either/or"
issue Wilson, as much as you want to trivialize it.

Beside if you don't like reading this and for what ever reason you couldn't
weigh in on any salient points, why did you continue to read it ? Are you
somehow indignant that someone took away your freewill & made you read all
this?

After all it is your dogma and one has the right to believe what
ever, just not the right to tell lies about it.

To afford you the respect that you didn't give me, I leave your eloquence
un-snipped. I find snipping is a selfish thing, one something does to
others, but never to self. I have actually followed some of your links and
thoroughly enjoyed the hydro tour of the lettuce operation on YouTube. That
said, I'll leave it up to your readers to decide whether you are Bele or
Lokai, as my point was made. You don't know where I stand, but you assume. I
don't bore easily nor quickly, but the 'Billy / Gunner / Billy / Gunner' ad
nauseum does bring me to tears as in 'bored to.'

Continue, glad you enjoyed this little diversion - I can tell. You may have
sniffed out my affection for organics, it is a self-sustaining system unlike
the cycle of the man-sustained chemically-fortified agronomy you defend. You
can hardly do harm with organics. If you approach it like a cookbook, you
can still grow good vegetables, but if instead, like a good chef, you take
the time to learn the interplay of the ingredients with time, heat & spice,
great things are achieved. No urea, no herbicide, no pesticide. Just an
incredibly healthy soil environment which overgrows the pests encountered,
the weeds that try to invade, and leaves just a bit of the mystery to life
and its processes.

No, rather take up the sword and swing it about touting how safe it all is,
to discard all ontological considerations claiming profoundly that Man can
conquer it all. And we can, almost! So praise the 14 bottom plow and the
square miles put under it, the mono-culture that supports nothing but
itself, the reliance on 'Roundup resistant' GM plants while sitting back and
claiming that no ill comes from this mentality.

Who do you shill for Gunner? Rhetorical question of course, because your
arguments fall on deaf ears. And I know you'll blast me for this one, but I
don't need to read the studies or the reports to know the agenda they serve.
You dismiss and I dismiss. We are both dismissed. Class adjourned.


--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT how much USA peeps are different Broadback[_3_] United Kingdom 60 06-08-2013 07:06 PM
any hydro peeps here? jeff Edible Gardening 4 22-09-2009 07:20 PM
any hydro peeps here? Rusty Trombone Edible Gardening 12 18-09-2009 01:20 PM
Semi-Hydro versus Water Culture? J Fortuna Orchids 0 06-01-2004 06:34 AM
"Hydro Seeding" Opinions Please ? Bob Lawns 1 19-04-2003 04:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017