Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
"Rony Rose" wrote in message ... Is that your final answer? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT how much USA peeps are different | United Kingdom | |||
any hydro peeps here? | Edible Gardening | |||
any hydro peeps here? | Edible Gardening | |||
Semi-Hydro versus Water Culture? | Orchids | |||
"Hydro Seeding" Opinions Please ? | Lawns |