any hydro peeps here?
 

On Sep 17, 1:37*pm, mj wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:47*am, phorbin wrote:

In article 0a2ea65d-b4a5-40f7-ba3d-
, says....

Yes, why is it that everyone thinks that if you grow in hydroponics it
must be pot?

The original post asked for advice on growing "killer marijuana"

That would be "killer marijuana Hydro"
I don't get your point.
MJ

How does that answer my question?
MJ

any hydro peeps here?
 

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

http://www.hos.ufl.edu/protectedag/p...babysquash.pdf

No mention of nutrients. In most other cases, plants that struggle to
survive have more bioflavonoids, bell peppers being an exception. Are
"ponics" competitive? Citation please.
--
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

any hydro peeps here?
 

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

http://www.hos.ufl.edu/protectedag/p...babysquash.pdf

No mention of nutrients. In most other cases, plants that struggle to
survive have more bioflavonoids, bell peppers being an exception. Are
"ponics" competitive? Citation please.


Highly, especially Tomatoes and Peppers.
The specific hydroponic nutritional analysis is referenced in here :
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/

I understand the concept but would like to see your "struggle to survive"
material research.
What plants, methods, etc. Was it environmental stress, heat stress, water
deprivation, bending?

any hydro peeps here?
 

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

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

http://www.hos.ufl.edu/protectedag/p...babysquash.pdf

No mention of nutrients. In most other cases, plants that struggle to
survive have more bioflavonoids, bell peppers being an exception. Are
"ponics" competitive? Citation please.


Highly, especially Tomatoes and Peppers.
The specific hydroponic nutritional analysis is referenced in here :
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/

I understand the concept but would like to see your "struggle to survive"
material research.
What plants, methods, etc. Was it environmental stress, heat stress, water
deprivation, bending?

Funny that you should hold me to a higher standard than yourself,
especially since the site you gave me appears to be a private lab that
does extensive work for the "biotech" industry.

Here 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 suppport)
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

I await your ****ing and moaning.
--

- Billy

Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.* ~Channing E. Phillips

Israeli Settlers Attack Palestinian Land
http://i2.democracynow.org/2009/7/22/headlines#7

http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

any hydro peeps here?
 

"Billy" wrote in message
...


billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation are
a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as
well.



I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your
lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical
platforms.



This is one of those frequent times you should have kept your mouth shut so
as not to remove all doubt.

any hydro peeps here?
 

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...


billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation are
a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as
well.

I gave citations and you give ad hominem attacks, you are sick.


I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your
lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical
platforms.

You find the observations of the University of California and one of
it's professors of no worth, nor the views of Penn State University?
Huh?

You attacked me, not the evidence. Why don't you just admit that you are
full of IT?

You asked for substantiation that plants must struggle to produce
healthier food. I gave it. What part of the transaction do . . . aw,
screw it, GFY.



This is one of those frequent times you should have kept your mouth shut so
as not to remove all doubt.
--
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

any hydro peeps here?
 

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

"Billy" wrote in message
...


billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation
are
a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as
well.

I gave citations and you give ad hominem attacks, you are sick.


I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your
lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical
platforms.

You find the observations of the University of California and one of
it's professors of no worth, nor the views of Penn State University?
Huh?

You attacked me, not the evidence. Why don't you just admit that you are
full of IT?

You asked for substantiation that plants must struggle to produce
healthier food. I gave it. What part of the transaction do . . . aw,
screw it, GFY.


You didn't answer the question(s), you neglected to proofread your report
and your references; none of which adequately addressed your premise and
you posted a cut and pasted underlined, disjointed, jumbled, juvenile
writing reverting to your usual organic dogma.

Your still pathetic, little boy.

any hydro peeps here?
 

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Funny that you should hold me to a higher standard than yourself,
especially since the site you gave me appears to be a private lab that
does extensive work for the "biotech" industry.

Here 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 suppport)
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

I await your ****ing and moaning.
-Billy

gunny, sorry I missed the humor in your response.


--

billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation
are
a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as
well.



I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your
lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical
platforms.



This is one of those frequent times you should have kept your mouth shut
so
as not to remove all doubt.
-------
You didn't answer the question(s), you neglected to proofread your
report
and your references; none of which adequately addressed your premise
and
you posted a cut and pasted underlined, disjointed, jumbled, juvenile
writing reverting to your usual organic dogma.

Your still pathetic, little boy.
----

Sorry, gunny, that you can't read, but that isn't my fault. Everything
is there 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 poverty of information in the cite you gave
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/ from Plant Research
Technologies Inc. and see if you can find the parameters that you are
asking of me.

Now you can GFY ;O)
--
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

any hydro peeps here?
 

"Billy" whines like a little girl in message
...
and in article
,
when little billy childishly wrote: Now you can
GFY ;O) .

So you want to continue arguing your ignorance by referencing your Internet
abstract articles of papers you can't get, Amazon book reviews of books you
don't buy and google references you don't read through?

billy, you whine like a little Valley Bitch about something you still
fail to show is true, yet you cast dispersions on an article that gives you
some of the specific details that you say you want to see. It also gives
leads to the data source, so as you claim, you can further research the
subject. (sure you will...)

I gave you the information you asked for. Poverty or not, it gave more
specific detail than all your disjointed, underlined, BS crap did. As
usual, your referencing a massive volume of BS is still going to equal BS.
The onus is not on me to prove anything to you nor to play your silly ass
little games. Your penchant for SALG and drunken diatribes are quite
apparent.

You have a very bad habit of juvenile google researching and still you
never thoroughly reading your cherry picked sources. It is thinly veiled
information that you think illustrates your point and disregards anything
that would contradict your "facts". But in case you missed the basic
interrogatives my article gave I will include them here so you don't get
confused again. Also, If you need a lesson in the basic interrogatives, let
me know, I can recommend some remedial programs for you.

"Plant Research Technologies Inc., an independent analytical laboratory in
San Jose, California," (The one you call an industry hack because you
can't refute the study so you have to cast dispersions on it as a
industry insider. As if Mitchell and the Organic Center don't have a
connection!) stated that :

"Tomatoes (Patio Pride) demonstrated a mean increase of 50 percent in
vitamin and mineral content. Of the 14 values tested, the hydroponics
tomatoes showed increases in five and modest decreases of 25 to 30 percent
in three. Sweet peppers (Gypsy) showed a mean increase of 150 percent -
increases in nine of the 14 values tested and equal to soil-grown in the
remaining five. The sweet peppers tested up to 300 percent higher in
vitamins B2 and B3. A literature search including USDA, EPA and FDA
publications, plus reports from university and private industry sources on
the nutritional content of soil-grown crops was used in the study

Nutritional analysis included vitamins A, B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3
(niacin), B6 (pyridoxine), C and E. The plant analysis included nitrogen,
sulfur, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, iron, aluminum,
manganese, copper, boron and zinc.

The tomatoes were grown in an Aquafarm system and the peppers in an AeroFlo
system both using hydroponic nutrients. The hydroponic produce was also
tested for heavy metals and chemical residues on the EPA's priority list.
None were detected."

Pretty specific details in there for a short article, billy. Quite opposite
of the thin dogma you give in that load of BS you reference as proof.

This is specific, measurable information, something you so often fail to
give in your quest for us heathens to see the organic light. Perhaps if you
offer 72
virgins to work the 40 acres and a mule dream you also promise when on your
organic soapbox.

What did your book author Pollan and your google scientific
articles actually show? the definition of a Phenolic? the actual
bioflavonoids you refer to? The quantified amounts? The exact conditions
each were grown in?

No, none of those things, just more organic supposition to create subject
hyperbole.

I find nothing to address any of the basic interrogatives, nothing. just
references to references that suggest it MAY BE true. The reference that
Mitchell's work is going to be reviewed by the UK's FSA seemed to be a
good lead, yet it also failed to be conclusive as evidenced by the UK's
FSA. So all
you have is hyperbole.

"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."

OK, who, what, why, when, where, and how? What is meant by "significant",
"otherwise sustainably"?
Your references again fail to show any specifics, billy. It wold be nice to
know the study he is refering to with such a claim.

And this one?

"The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made
pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol
pesticides".

OK, where is some proof to the hypothesize and again, where are the basic
interrogatives? Do
try to remember that the subject was hydroponics, not conventional, not
organic... hydroponics, a subject you know little to nothing about.

Here is another quote from your reference of Pollan: " 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."

"...seems to support" ..."MAY BE"? Real scientific info coming from a book
writer guy worrying about the psychological rearing of a pig being killed
for dinner. and what is this? "....as we know conventionally grown plants
tend to be"?

Do you dare attempt to prove that tidbit of junk science with a MAYBE
theory? MAYBE he is a popular writer but using Pollan as an authoritative
source is hardly science.

Now, lets go to your google references you hide in that jumbled mess you
posted
and note this passage from those disjointed and redundant references:

"The findings add to a SMALL BODY OF LITERATURE
showing higher levels of antioxidants in some organic produce, including
research out of the UC-Davis showing higher levels of phenols in some
berries."
(Was this Mitchell's research of her research?)

AND THIS LITTLE REVEALING TIDBIT, ALSO FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"Building solid evidence confirming the benefits of organic fruits and
vegetables over conventionally grown produce IS HAMPERED by wide
variances in organic farming, ranging from soil and climate differences to
variations in crops, seasons and farmer philosophies, said Diane Barrett,
also a researcher with the UC-Davis department of food science and
technology."

AND AGAIN FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"We need MORE controlled and real-life commercial studies, and we NEED
BETTER collaboration between researchers to get a broader look at
growing systems," said Barrett."

Did that fellow UC-Davis researcher infer Mitchell needs more controlled and
real-life commercial studies? that solid evidence is hampered? that there
is a small body of literature and that better research is needed?

Funny, the UK's FSA report this summer came to the very same conclusion.
little scientific evidence to support the overly broad claim organic is
better.

The controversial and peer reviewed UK's FSA report looked at the whole
organic is better claim that you recite ad naseum.
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


"Dr. Dangour, of the LSHTM's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention
Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: 'A SMAll NUMBER
of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically
and
conventionally produced crops and livestock, but
these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. 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."

ohh...A SMAll NUMBER...This really ****ed off the Organic community which
is
still up in arms and as you often do, disparage his ancestry, his loyalty
and his scientific knowledge. Shortly after, the French claim they had a
study to prove it true and the Swedes one that supported the FSA.... Still a
host of
articles abound written from that FSA press release, many with the exact
verbiage,
depending on the ideological bent of the writer, few of any worth
addressing the actual report contents.

It is a good bet there will be much further debate on all this but right now
there is no one that has any real answers, just best guess and a bunch of
the same myths you spout.

But due note your Dr. Mitchell's studies were in that FSA study. I am not
knocking Mitchell's studies in the context of research, but you still have
no
real idea of what she is researching and what her findings actually are.
What is the "significant difference you claim? Is is a PPM? is it 1 or
perhaps
3 mmol kg¯ 1 gram more? What specifically is the difference of what
compound and how does it affect the plant and more importantly, humans?

So all very interesting, yet, again..... still absolutely NOTHING to do
with
Hydroponics, which BTW, I will still maintain does all that organic claims
and even better; lower pesticides,better growth, higher yields, less
pollution, less labor, less enviro footprint and does it all with the very
chemical
salts that you claim kills the earth and uses much less water. And yes,
tastes as good as or better.
BTW, If called for, I can control stress environments much easier and more
precisely hydroponically
than you could ever attempt to do organically.

"Multiple biotic and aboitic factors can influence levels of phenolics
antioxidants in fruit and vegetables and it is important to consider these
factors when sampling and compiling values."
Dr. A. Mitchell

So without a recognized standard, data is all subjective. If subjective,
how can one say it is an accurate comparison and therefore one is better.
YOU don't get to change facts to suit your arguement.

Now STFU, go play your SLAG with someone else that doesn't know you better
or
someone that will put up with your drunken diatribes. There is no more
audience for you to play hillbilly professor to.

any hydro peeps here?
 

In article ,
"gunner" wrote:

Ad hominems and derision, that's all you got? LOL ;O)

"Billy" whines like a little girl in message
...
and in article
,
when little billy childishly wrote: Now you can
GFY ;O) .

So you want to continue arguing your ignorance by referencing your Internet
abstract articles of papers you can't get, Amazon book reviews of books you
don't buy and google references you don't read through?

billy, you whine like a little Valley Bitch about something you still
fail to show is true, yet you cast dispersions on an article that gives you
some of the specific details that you say you want to see. It also gives
leads to the data source, so as you claim, you can further research the
subject. (sure you will...)

I gave you the information you asked for. Poverty or not, it gave more
specific detail than all your disjointed, underlined, BS crap did. As
usual, your referencing a massive volume of BS is still going to equal BS.
The onus is not on me to prove anything to you nor to play your silly ass
little games. Your penchant for SALG and drunken diatribes are quite
apparent.

You have a very bad habit of juvenile google researching and still you
never thoroughly reading your cherry picked sources. It is thinly veiled
information that you think illustrates your point and disregards anything
that would contradict your "facts". But in case you missed the basic
interrogatives my article gave I will include them here so you don't get
confused again. Also, If you need a lesson in the basic interrogatives, let
me know, I can recommend some remedial programs for you.

"Plant Research Technologies Inc., an independent analytical laboratory in
San Jose, California," (The one you call an industry hack because you
can't refute the study so you have to cast dispersions on it as a
industry insider. As if Mitchell and the Organic Center don't have a
connection!) stated that :

"Tomatoes (Patio Pride) demonstrated a mean increase of 50 percent in
vitamin and mineral content. Of the 14 values tested, the hydroponics
tomatoes showed increases in five and modest decreases of 25 to 30 percent
in three. Sweet peppers (Gypsy) showed a mean increase of 150 percent -
increases in nine of the 14 values tested and equal to soil-grown in the
remaining five. The sweet peppers tested up to 300 percent higher in
vitamins B2 and B3. A literature search including USDA, EPA and FDA
publications, plus reports from university and private industry sources on
the nutritional content of soil-grown crops was used in the study

Nutritional analysis included vitamins A, B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3
(niacin), B6 (pyridoxine), C and E. The plant analysis included nitrogen,
sulfur, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, iron, aluminum,
manganese, copper, boron and zinc.

The tomatoes were grown in an Aquafarm system and the peppers in an AeroFlo
system both using hydroponic nutrients. The hydroponic produce was also
tested for heavy metals and chemical residues on the EPA's priority list.
None were detected."

Pretty specific details in there for a short article, billy. Quite opposite
of the thin dogma you give in that load of BS you reference as proof.

This is specific, measurable information, something you so often fail to
give in your quest for us heathens to see the organic light. Perhaps if you
offer 72
virgins to work the 40 acres and a mule dream you also promise when on your
organic soapbox.

What did your book author Pollan and your google scientific
articles actually show? the definition of a Phenolic? the actual
bioflavonoids you refer to? The quantified amounts? The exact conditions
each were grown in?

No, none of those things, just more organic supposition to create subject
hyperbole.

I find nothing to address any of the basic interrogatives, nothing. just
references to references that suggest it MAY BE true. The reference that
Mitchell's work is going to be reviewed by the UK's FSA seemed to be a
good lead, yet it also failed to be conclusive as evidenced by the UK's
FSA. So all
you have is hyperbole.

"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."

OK, who, what, why, when, where, and how? What is meant by "significant",
"otherwise sustainably"?
Your references again fail to show any specifics, billy. It wold be nice to
know the study he is refering to with such a claim.

And this one?

"The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made
pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol
pesticides".

OK, where is some proof to the hypothesize and again, where are the basic
interrogatives? Do
try to remember that the subject was hydroponics, not conventional, not
organic... hydroponics, a subject you know little to nothing about.

Here is another quote from your reference of Pollan: " 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."

"...seems to support" ..."MAY BE"? Real scientific info coming from a book
writer guy worrying about the psychological rearing of a pig being killed
for dinner. and what is this? "....as we know conventionally grown plants
tend to be"?

Do you dare attempt to prove that tidbit of junk science with a MAYBE
theory? MAYBE he is a popular writer but using Pollan as an authoritative
source is hardly science.

Now, lets go to your google references you hide in that jumbled mess you
posted
and note this passage from those disjointed and redundant references:

"The findings add to a SMALL BODY OF LITERATURE
showing higher levels of antioxidants in some organic produce, including
research out of the UC-Davis showing higher levels of phenols in some
berries."
(Was this Mitchell's research of her research?)

AND THIS LITTLE REVEALING TIDBIT, ALSO FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"Building solid evidence confirming the benefits of organic fruits and
vegetables over conventionally grown produce IS HAMPERED by wide
variances in organic farming, ranging from soil and climate differences to
variations in crops, seasons and farmer philosophies, said Diane Barrett,
also a researcher with the UC-Davis department of food science and
technology."

AND AGAIN FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"We need MORE controlled and real-life commercial studies, and we NEED
BETTER collaboration between researchers to get a broader look at
growing systems," said Barrett."

Did that fellow UC-Davis researcher infer Mitchell needs more controlled and
real-life commercial studies? that solid evidence is hampered? that there
is a small body of literature and that better research is needed?

Funny, the UK's FSA report this summer came to the very same conclusion.
little scientific evidence to support the overly broad claim organic is
better.

The controversial and peer reviewed UK's FSA report looked at the whole
organic is better claim that you recite ad naseum.
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


"Dr. Dangour, of the LSHTM's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention
Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: 'A SMAll NUMBER
of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically
and
conventionally produced crops and livestock, but
these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. 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."

ohh...A SMAll NUMBER...This really ****ed off the Organic community which
is
still up in arms and as you often do, disparage his ancestry, his loyalty
and his scientific knowledge. Shortly after, the French claim they had a
study to prove it true and the Swedes one that supported the FSA.... Still a
host of
articles abound written from that FSA press release, many with the exact
verbiage,
depending on the ideological bent of the writer, few of any worth
addressing the actual report contents.

It is a good bet there will be much further debate on all this but right now
there is no one that has any real answers, just best guess and a bunch of
the same myths you spout.

But due note your Dr. Mitchell's studies were in that FSA study. I am not
knocking Mitchell's studies in the context of research, but you still have
no
real idea of what she is researching and what her findings actually are.
What is the "significant difference you claim? Is is a PPM? is it 1 or
perhaps
3 mmol kg¯ 1 gram more? What specifically is the difference of what
compound and how does it affect the plant and more importantly, humans?

So all very interesting, yet, again..... still absolutely NOTHING to do
with
Hydroponics, which BTW, I will still maintain does all that organic claims
and even better; lower pesticides,better growth, higher yields, less
pollution, less labor, less enviro footprint and does it all with the very
chemical
salts that you claim kills the earth and uses much less water. And yes,
tastes as good as or better.
BTW, If called for, I can control stress environments much easier and more
precisely hydroponically
than you could ever attempt to do organically.

"Multiple biotic and aboitic factors can influence levels of phenolics
antioxidants in fruit and vegetables and it is important to consider these
factors when sampling and compiling values."
Dr. A. Mitchell

So without a recognized standard, data is all subjective. If subjective,
how can one say it is an accurate comparison and therefore one is better.
YOU don't get to change facts to suit your arguement.

Now STFU, go play your SLAG with someone else that doesn't know you better
or
someone that will put up with your drunken diatribes. There is no more
audience for you to play hillbilly professor to.
--
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

any hydro peeps here?
 

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! How mentally myopic you remain,
billy. Still, I note you do not refute the FSA study contridicting your
claim nor your absurd references that you gave to support them. So, I can
assume you have no further proof to offer, well, any real proof that is. In
the future do proofread your work, check your references well, stop cherry
picking and above all, forgo the Billy Mayes Marketing techniques.

Yet, I am glad you attempt at least one of Segan's "Fine Art of Boloney
Detection" concepts that I showed you, now if you can only grasp some of his
others and actually apply them to support your positions.

I do hope you will continue your learning; instead of your usual
peusdointellectual cherry picking and quoting half truths followed by your
Romper Room theatrics. Good luck with that.

Just remember, billy; Who, what, why, when, were and how. Learn em, and
as well refer to Segan's principles often: http://tinyurl.com/y29s4o

any hydro peeps here?
 

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! How mentally myopic you remain,
billy. Still, I note you do not refute the FSA study contridicting your
claim nor your absurd references that you gave to support them. So, I can
assume you have no further proof to offer, well, any real proof that is. In
the future do proofread your work, check your references well, stop cherry
picking and above all, forgo the Billy Mayes Marketing techniques.

Yet, I am glad you attempt at least one of Segan's "Fine Art of Boloney
Detection" concepts that I showed you, now if you can only grasp some of his
others and actually apply them to support your positions.

I do hope you will continue your learning; instead of your usual
peusdointellectual cherry picking and quoting half truths followed by your
Romper Room theatrics. Good luck with that.

Just remember, billy; Who, what, why, when, were and how. Learn em, and
as well refer to Segan's principles often: http://tinyurl.com/y29s4o

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.

I can see that you are a true believer, and that you have no control
over your need to protect your fantasy, I wish you luck.
--
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

any hydro peeps here?
 

"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



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




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.

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



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

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?


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.

"No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop
nutrient categories analyzed."

What 8 nutrient categories? Do they include bioflavonoids?




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.

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 ******.
--
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

any hydro peeps here?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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)
--

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.

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

any hydro peeps here?
 

"Rony Rose" wrote in message
...

Is that your final answer?

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

any hydro peeps here?
 

"Wilson" wrote in message
...
sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
"Wilson" wrote in message
...

Are these your salient points?
Bele or Lokai...,
sniffing you out....
cookbook, chef...
No urea, no herbicide, no pesticide....
So praise the 14 bottom plow... Who do you shill for Gunner? ...
I don't need to read the studies or the reports to know the agenda they
serve....


I do admit I had to look that one up,..... Star Trek ! a Sci-Fi fantasy!
That floored me at first, then as I thought about, I realized that much of
your ilk has this sort of fantasy version of the old communes and old Mother
Earth magazines You need it to feel good, don't ya? You can't be bothered
with little things like reality and facts as you play these philosophical
fantasy games. The work to make your vision happen is always borne by
others. Your are the cerebrals, never the worker bees. If it fails, it is
the worker's fault, they didn't keep the faith. You and billy both avoid
facts because it would destroy that fantasy vision you guys have created. I
just took a quick look back and see you and the tribal medicine man both
walk and talk like the same duck. Its some version of this every time;
"your facts lie because you don't know about all the earth destruction from
the plow...blah, blah, Monoculture... blah, blah and all the pesticides
....blah, blah, blah. " leaves just a bit of the mystery to life and its
processes" as you say. Did you guys take this approach from the old Cold
War playbook? Suspiciously sounds like it.

Sniffing? a nearsighted blind man can tell what brand you ride for. You
guys all ride the same jackass.

Inferring I need to understand the nuance of haute cuisine to be as
cerebral as your camp? Trust me you don't want to go with that analogy.

This you need to readdress; "no urea, no herbicides and no pesticides" in
the Organo camp, you just wish there was not. Isn't the approved list
somewhere in your little red book?

Shill? You two sure try to paint me as bias alot, as you do everyone that
challenges your dogma. Dr. J. Swartz is one that does come to mind. Funny
that thread was. Calling Sherwin a liar only to find out he really did talk
to Swartz who thinks your tribe is a bunch of loonies, billy starts in
denigrating him as a shrill but in his short memory he neglects to recall he
used Swartz as an authoritative source in that PAN thread. Wow, how quick
you guys flip, can't even keep up with your own BS.

But fact check this Spock, you will not find where I ever have shilled for
an agribiz. Never endorsed the chemical industry. No, not one iota. That
is your lie! I support many of the concepts of permaculture and
sustainability. I have studied a few culture's agriculture and culinary
anthropology for a while. My trigger is when you guys use lies to support
this dogma of yours. All I have done is show many of your facts are false
science and what seems to be your program's propaganda. Since you cannot
refute these and you little boys can't bully me, you have to neutralize
that by painting any contradiction as biased. That is all your fantasy
world has, you don't have much else to counter your false self
righteousness. I respect the good intentions of folks, just not folks that
use pseudoscience to fit their own perceptions

Too bad you didn't read the link, that is pitifully close-minded. Read my
links or not I don't care, You have freewill to be all you want be. Just
know, I do read what folks link and reference, even the ones billy cherry
picks. I'm thinking he should read his links also.

Are you active or passive?

BTW since you know my agenda , I will paste it here for anyone still reading
this:

http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm

What is Critical Thinking?

No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive for selfish
interests. We gossip, boast, exaggerate, and equivocate. It is "only human"
to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our prior decisions,
or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego,
however, we can often deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We
may not always want to apply critical thinking skills, but we should have
those skills available to be employed when needed.
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main
characteristics are the following:

Rationality
We are thinking critically when we
a.. rely on reason rather than emotion,
b.. require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where
it leads, and
c.. are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right
analyzing apparent confusion and asking questions.
Self-awareness
We are thinking critically when we
a.. weigh the influences of motives and bias, and
b.. recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view.
Honesty
We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish
motives, nefarious purposes, or other modes of self-deception.
Open-mindedness
We are thinking critically when we
a.. evaluate all reasonable inferences
b.. consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives,
c.. remain open to alternative interpretations
d.. accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the
evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer inconsistencies or covers more
data
e.. accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or
reassessment of our real interests, and
f.. do not reject unpopular views out of hand.
Discipline
We are thinking critically when we
a.. are precise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustive
b.. resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and
c.. avoid snap judgments.
Judgment
We are thinking critically when we
a.. recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and
perspectives
b.. recognize the extent and weight of evidence

In sum,
a.. Critical thinkers are by nature skeptical. They approach texts with
the same skepticism and suspicion as they approach spoken remarks.
b.. Critical thinkers are active, not passive. They ask questions and
analyze. They consciously apply tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or
assure their understanding.
c.. Critical thinkers do not take an egotistical view of the world. They
are opento new ideas and perspectives. They are willing to challenge their
beliefs and investigate competing evidence.

Critical thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective
analyses of otherwise objective data, and to evaluate how well each analysis
might meet our needs. Facts may be facts, but how we interpret them may
vary.

By contrast, passive, non-critical thinkers take a simplistic view of the
world.

a.. They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than
recognizing a variety of possible understanding.
b.. They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.
c.. They fail to see linkages and complexities.
d.. They fail to recognize related elements.
Non-critical thinkers take an egotistical view of the world
a.. They take their facts as the only relevant ones.
b.. They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.
c.. They take their goal as the only valid one.


The other pages are a good outline also.

any hydro peeps here?
 

"gunner" wrote in message

(snip) I realized that much of
your ilk has this sort of fantasy version of the old communes and old
Mother
Earth magazines You need it to feel good, don't ya? You can't be bothered
with little things like reality and facts as you play these philosophical
fantasy games. The work to make your vision happen is always borne by
others. Your are the cerebrals, never the worker bees. If it fails, it
is
the worker's fault, they didn't keep the faith.
(snip)
BTW since you know my agenda , I will paste it here for anyone still
reading this:

http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm


LOL. What a gem!

any hydro peeps here?
 

Charlie wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:56:32 -0400, Wilson
wrote:


"Wilson" wrote in message
" ...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."

Very sophomoric and close-minded, yet, Charlie still writes :
" My hat is off and a very deep bow...."
" This is the best rebuttal and reply I have had the pleasure to read in
a long time."
"Thank you, Wilson."

Glaring in its absence....STILL nothing of substance given to support your
shaman.

BTW Charlie, yes your rec.gardens.organic newsgroup is "Deader than a
Hammer......SAD" as you so note. As to why? Personally I think it is the
requisite sermons and proselytizing your tribe tends to do. Maybe the
decline is because of the "teabags" the tribe is leaving to mark
the trail back to camp, or perhaps its the "little red book" the tribe
passes out at the advocacy group meetings? This outlines your only M.O. so
far.

Regardless of why Charlie, all your Shaman has got is lots of Faulty
Analogy, then fringe talk, followed by Ad Hominem attacks. All the while,
the lynch mob hangs back, hoping to snipe one in there when no one is
looking
as demonstrated here

As for this great pearl of wisdom you posted in
your organic newsgroup:

....", but for those who are new, or want to learn something
new, aren't we beholden to correct ignorance and false information
when we encounter it, sheldon, things garden monsanto
worshippers (credit to phorbin)...different perspectives are what we
offer.
Charlie"

A perspective is much different than fact and yes, we are
beholden. "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance
and conscientious stupidity._ MLK Jr.

I still hold hope for your shaman. The lynch mob? not so much nowadays.

Gunner

any hydro peeps here?
 

I used both daikon and garlic in a batch of kraut a couple of years ago.
Very tasty in a kimchee sort of way.
Steve
"Gary Woods" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:

Isn't this an Ad Hominem?
/rhetorical/*

Dang! We were hoping you didn't notice that!

I've got to go pull a bunch of Daikons that just love fall growing.
First
sample was 18" long by 5" max diameter. Has anybody shredded and
fermented them a la kraut? And after a dismal summer, the fall greens are
going great guns.


Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at
home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

any hydro peeps here?
 

sometime in the recent past Gary Woods posted this:
Steve wrote:

Isn't this an Ad Hominem?
/rhetorical/*

Dang! We were hoping you didn't notice that!

I've got to go pull a bunch of Daikons that just love fall growing. First
sample was 18" long by 5" max diameter. Has anybody shredded and
fermented them a la kraut? And after a dismal summer, the fall greens are
going great guns.


Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G
I used some Daikon in my kimchi this summer. The recipe called for Korean
Radishes, but I'm thinking they might be similar. Anyway, a fairly decent
recipe and video found at http://tr.im/EC94 I used anchovies instead of
oysters and Pak Choi that I grew. Better than commercial kimchi that I've
bought before. Good luck.

--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3

any hydro peeps here?
 

Charlie wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:59:24 -0800, Steve wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:38:44 -0600, Charlie wrote:

Fsck off, both you, and your handlers. You bore me.

Oh get to the point, Charlie. ;-)


The point is....

"I am for those who believe in loose delights, I share the midnight
orgies of young men, I dance with the dancers and drink with the
drinkers." ~~~ Walt Whitman

I'm sure the other residents must enjoy you,

but STILL NO FACTS to support the rants.............

Just little schoolboy squawking from the back of the crowd.

any hydro peeps here?
 

Charlie wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:53:27 -0700, "gunner"
wrote:


Phobic left ya

Does this make you feel superior, to belittle peoples' names, and all
that it implies?

Charlie

"gunney-effer "

ya gotta practice on that "high and mighty" a bit more, charlie.

any hydro peeps here?
 

In article ,
"gunner" wrote:

Charlie wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:59:24 -0800, Steve wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:38:44 -0600, Charlie wrote:

Fsck off, both you, and your handlers. You bore me.

Oh get to the point, Charlie. ;-)


The point is....

"I am for those who believe in loose delights, I share the midnight
orgies of young men, I dance with the dancers and drink with the
drinkers." ~~~ Walt Whitman

I'm sure the other residents must enjoy you,

but STILL NO FACTS to support the rants.............

Just little schoolboy squawking from the back of the crowd.

Look, gunny, you are only a barking dog. There is no reason to talk to
you because you can't listen. You seem to want attention. Unfortunately
for you, it's negative attention.

Grow up and learn to talk.

Until then, you're just pathetic.
--
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

any hydro peeps here?
 

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:26:06 -0600, Charlie wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:59:24 -0800, Steve wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:38:44 -0600, Charlie wrote:

Fsck off, both you, and your handlers. You bore me.

Oh get to the point, Charlie. ;-)

HEY, Steve!! Long time and all that...stuff. Left coast stuff still
good, my friend? Buddy of mine called yesterday and said if I would
run out, he had a fresh grassfed cow tongue for me. Tuesday will be
pickled tongue sammiches for lunch...I'm peein' meself already!

Ya know, I'll bet that gunney-effer has a bit of a time getting along
with the locals, unless the locals have changed since I was last in
that neck of the woods....

The point is....

Charlie

Everything is just fine here, Charlie.
We've just been busy as heck, hence the two day delay in answering
you.

I'm becoming convinced that the Industrial Food lobby is paying visits
to this group...I'm not paranoid, just getting very suspicious.
They are not big fans of the truth as illustrated by the nixing of the
Michael Pollan speech at Cal Poly.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...iness-pressure
s-school-to-nix-michael-pollan-speech.html

Well, I'm not buying anymore Harris Ranch beef. What a jerk David E Wood
is. If he had half a brain, he would have asked the college to schedule
Gary Tauber, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the
Controversial Science of Diet and Health, to present a strong argument
for more meat (not produced as it currently is) and less carbs.
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...ce/dp/14000334
62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257820438&sr=1-1
Then the students would have been exposed to 2 complimentary concepts of
health. Babbit strickes again.

any hydro peeps here?
 

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

Charlie wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:59:24 -0800, Steve wrote:


Staying with the same MO, huh, billy?

yet ....STILL WITHOUT FACTS, just like the Ironite
rants were. So far your posse has much the same MO also.

BTW You sure use a lot of aliases and give a lot of talk about handlers and
propaganda, you learning all that from that little red book?