On Tue, 29 May 2007 01:48:27 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
wrote:

Apparently the small stuff does bother you or you wouldn't resort to
the name changing game when addressing me. That's newbie stuff.

You can try the tough act, the USENET warrior routine, all the puffing
and posturing, but you just don't have it man.

Care
Charlie

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:08:07 +0000 (UTC), FragileWarrior
wrote:


Hey, can everyone stop picking on Michael now? I think the points have
been made often enough and hard enough and more-than-occasionally *rude
enough* that he understands the pros and cons now.

A kinder approach teaches people; pig pile/shit upons just drives them
away.

Oh pulleeze! Don't be so........fragile. I thought you and he were
Battle Hardened. Nobody even threw a hard punch.

Be a tough old garden plant! Or weed!

You can never, ever quit banging the pots when it comes to poison in
the garden.

Please Be Careful, my FragileFriend
Charlie

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this in:
rec.gardens


I know you contribute a lot of intelligent commentary, especially in
the food NG, but in this one regard (chemicals), you are being a twit.

The little cascade Charlie started is about as enlightened as you calling
me a twit. I also know you contribute a lot of intelligent commentary in
the groups you participate in but resorting to finger pointing and name
calling will not make any points for your cause, at least in my direction.

Sorry, Michael. It's a cop out to say "I just use a small amount of
chemicals". As I mentioned above, homeowners are one of the two
largest sources of groundwater pollution. That's bad, and there is no
room to debate it. Your kitchen is yours to spend a fortune on. But
outdoors, the things you do don't stay on your property.

Well Joe, neither does air pollution for autos and industry, alcohol in a
body behind the wheel of an automobile or letting screaming children cross
your property line etc. I am not, nor ever have been a purist. I am more
of a middle ground person. Am I aware chemicals may cause contamination?
Of course I am. Do I use organic and natual herbicides, pesticides and
fertilizers? That is all I use, even on the lawn, except for the Roundup.
I use Roundup very responsibly and will not apologize, or even feel bad,
for using it. I have great respect and fear of chemicals. I have 3 cats,
a
dog and a horse. All rescue animals. But yet I find PETA to be a rabid
organization. IMO they take things to the very extreme and do nothing but
damage to the organization. I like vodka martinis and hate gin. I am gay
but firmly denounce NAMBLA and other organizations like it. See how I am?
People and organizations that are extreme in any area, with completely
rigid attitudes and opinions, generally snap off during the big storm.

Michael - just my 2 cents

Chemicals are like religion, Michael. The moment they leave your property,
you're guilty. I love fishing. But guess what? Every year, the list of fish
that are unhealthy to eat grows larger. You could say that as of today,
you're not the cause of that, since the chemicals found in fish came from
industries who dumped toxic waste 20-40 years ago. But 20 years from now,
the crap YOU use will be showing up in fish, and you WILL be guilty.

Remember: Homeowners have now surpassed industry as point source polluters.
Do you know what a point source is?

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
Charlie was forced to post this in: rec.gardens

You go to all that time and trouble?

It takes very little time and is no trouble at all.



Jeez man, it's a lot quicker to just dig the offending plant. Carry a
garden knife.

Tell you what Chuck. You come on over and I'll give you a brand new
garden
knife to dig up the violets. You'll be dead of old age before you get the
job done but I promise to cremate you in the Webber kettle after you pass
on.


Here's a better idea: Get your partner to a therapist. Today, it's the
violets. Soon, he'll be cleaning that $50,000.00 kitchen light fixture with
a friggin' Q-tip, and the two of you will have no time for anything
enjoyable.

Seriously. Violets? He needs to deal with his obsessive compulsive behavior.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 04:37:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Chemicals are like religion, Michael. The moment they leave your property,
you're guilty. I love fishing. But guess what? Every year, the list of fish
that are unhealthy to eat grows larger. You could say that as of today,
you're not the cause of that, since the chemicals found in fish came from
industries who dumped toxic waste 20-40 years ago. But 20 years from now,
the crap YOU use will be showing up in fish, and you WILL be guilty.

We did an annual family fishing thing today. Caught some really nice
channel cat. We released them, not because of "sportsmanship". You
know the reason.

Remember: Homeowners have now surpassed industry as point source polluters.
Do you know what a point source is?

Amen.

It's not just chemicals. Groundwater and municipal supplies are
showing levels of drugs that are unacceptable, from what is disposed
and from what is not metabolized and ****ed down the drain.

I am effing sick of this crap man.

Sorry this slipped OT, but I am in a ****ing humor about the ****ing
idiots that buy the party line and keep shittin' in our nest and then
try and excuse and justify their criminal, as far as I am concerned,
behavior. Bang away.


GRRRRRRR
Charlie

In article , Charlie wrote:

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:08:07 +0000 (UTC), FragileWarrior
wrote:


Hey, can everyone stop picking on Michael now? I think the points have
been made often enough and hard enough and more-than-occasionally *rude
enough* that he understands the pros and cons now.

A kinder approach teaches people; pig pile/shit upons just drives them
away.

Oh pulleeze! Don't be so........fragile. I thought you and he were
Battle Hardened. Nobody even threw a hard punch.

Be a tough old garden plant! Or weed!

You can never, ever quit banging the pots when it comes to poison in
the garden.

Please Be Careful, my FragileFriend
Charlie

We are all getting screwed by the same agri-military-oil-industrial
complex. (Actually, if you look real hard, it is just oil.) It took me a
long time to figure out what was going on, once I escaped the housing
tracts of So. California. We all start somewhere. We are social animals
and if our society is ignorant, then we probably are too. If we get into
who is more socially conscious than who, we can all just bend over and
kiss it good-bye. Fools are not the enemy, they are the victims. We
don't need to do ADM's and Cargill's work for them by keeping ourselves
ignorant. If someone wants to know, don't get all aristocratic on them.
Tell 'em what you know. Sheesh. OK. Everybody let go their ankles and
stand-up. I mean besides "frankenflowers" they got "Organic TV dinners"
that are made by people for people. None of that nature stuff that was
never meant for people. HELLO! The spin is on. Backs to the wall.
- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

Charlie wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 04:37:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Chemicals are like religion, Michael. The moment they leave your property,
you're guilty. I love fishing. But guess what? Every year, the list of
fish
that are unhealthy to eat grows larger. You could say that as of today,
you're not the cause of that, since the chemicals found in fish came from
industries who dumped toxic waste 20-40 years ago. But 20 years from now,
the crap YOU use will be showing up in fish, and you WILL be guilty.

We did an annual family fishing thing today. Caught some really nice
channel cat. We released them, not because of "sportsmanship". You
know the reason.

Remember: Homeowners have now surpassed industry as point source
polluters.
Do you know what a point source is?

Amen.

It's not just chemicals. Groundwater and municipal supplies are
showing levels of drugs that are unacceptable, from what is disposed
and from what is not metabolized and ****ed down the drain.

I am effing sick of this crap man.

Sorry this slipped OT, but I am in a ****ing humor about the ****ing
idiots that buy the party line and keep shittin' in our nest and then
try and excuse and justify their criminal, as far as I am concerned,
behavior. Bang away.


GRRRRRRR
Charlie


"Well, somebody else can take care of the problem. I'm gonna keep using
chemicals because I just use a little, and everyone knows that if 100 people
use just a little, it doesn't add up."

That's the excuse, right?

"Bill Rose" wrote in message
...
In article , Charlie wrote:

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:08:07 +0000 (UTC), FragileWarrior
wrote:


Hey, can everyone stop picking on Michael now? I think the points have
been made often enough and hard enough and more-than-occasionally *rude
enough* that he understands the pros and cons now.

A kinder approach teaches people; pig pile/shit upons just drives them
away.

Oh pulleeze! Don't be so........fragile. I thought you and he were
Battle Hardened. Nobody even threw a hard punch.

Be a tough old garden plant! Or weed!

You can never, ever quit banging the pots when it comes to poison in
the garden.

Please Be Careful, my FragileFriend
Charlie

We are all getting screwed by the same agri-military-oil-industrial
complex. (Actually, if you look real hard, it is just oil.) It took me a
long time to figure out what was going on, once I escaped the housing
tracts of So. California. We all start somewhere. We are social animals
and if our society is ignorant, then we probably are too. If we get into
who is more socially conscious than who, we can all just bend over and
kiss it good-bye. Fools are not the enemy, they are the victims. We
don't need to do ADM's and Cargill's work for them by keeping ourselves
ignorant. If someone wants to know, don't get all aristocratic on them.
Tell 'em what you know. Sheesh. OK. Everybody let go their ankles and
stand-up. I mean besides "frankenflowers" they got "Organic TV dinners"
that are made by people for people. None of that nature stuff that was
never meant for people. HELLO! The spin is on. Backs to the wall.
- Bill
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)


Fools are the victims? Maybe victims of advertising, but that's about as far
as you can stretch that idea. Michael has a choice to not use chemicals in
his yard. Nobody's putting a gun to his head, except his partner, who's got
issues with unimportant details.

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this in:
rec.gardens

Nobody's putting a gun to his head, except his
partner, who's got issues with unimportant details.

Would you care to expound?

Michael


Am I mistaken, or didn't you say you fussed with weeds because they annoyed
your partner?

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this in:
rec.gardens

Remember: Homeowners have now surpassed industry as point source
polluters. Do you know what a point source is?

No I don't know what a point source is... *exactly*. My knowledge of
chemical pollution is very limited. I have a vague idea of what a "point
source" might be. If you direct me to a link I'll have a read.

Michael


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_source_(pollution)

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this in:
rec.gardens

Here's a better idea: Get your partner to a therapist. Today, it's the
violets. Soon, he'll be cleaning that $50,000.00 kitchen light fixture
with a friggin' Q-tip, and the two of you will have no time for
anything enjoyable.

How the **** did my partner come into this discussion? What $50,000 light
fixture? You been tipping a few brews?

Seriously. Violets? He needs to deal with his obsessive compulsive
behavior.

I'm the one with the violet issue. My partner couldn't give a shit one
way
or another about them.

Michael

I'm mistaken, then. It's you with the violet problem, which makes the
chemical dependency much easier to deal with. No interpersonal issues to
complicate things.

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this in:
rec.gardens

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this
in: rec.gardens

Nobody's putting a gun to his head, except his
partner, who's got issues with unimportant details.

Would you care to expound?

Michael


Am I mistaken, or didn't you say you fussed with weeds because they
annoyed your partner?

No, they annoy me.

Michael

I get annoyed when people entertain themselves by threatening the health of
children they've never met, and pretending they don't know they're creating
a threat. That's an accurate interpretation of what you do when you use lawn
chemicals.

"Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" wrote in message
6.121...
"JoeSpareBedroom" was forced to post this in:
rec.gardens

I get annoyed when people entertain themselves by threatening the
health of children they've never met, and pretending they don't know
they're creating a threat. That's an accurate interpretation of what
you do when you use lawn chemicals.

Please spare me the sanctimonious chest thumping. Who said anyone was
"entertaining themselves" by threatening the health of children"? Actually
that is *your* interpretation of what people do when they use lawn
chemicals. You make it sound as if people are out there purposely dumping
gallons of chemicals onto their lawns with the sole intent of doing harm
to future generations. Do you seriously believe there is a global
conspiracy to threaten the health of children by using Roundup and/or lawn
chemicals for sport? I don't. Nor does the USDA. However, you have
piqued
my curiosity enough to do some research. Your Wikipedia link, while
somewhat informative, did little to enforce your argument. I'm going to
check the book below out of the library. Meantime I'll see if Missouri
Botanical Garden has an alternative to the Roundup to kill my violets.


1) The only way to know that a substance is safe is to test it by purposely
exposing people to it. You will not see that happen in your lifetime,
especially not with children. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the USDA or
any other agency thinks. None of these things can be correctly tested.

2) The point source definition is all you need, although I'm sure the book
will be interesting. I mentioned "point source" because the opposite is a
situation where contamination CANNOT be traced to a single source. This is
not the case with lawn chemicals. We know exactly where they come from.
Homeowners and golf courses are the primary users. It's not a conspiracy,
but it *is* a large scale, mindless desire for perfection.

3) Here are some things you know: Some chemicals are known to cause
neurological problems. In many places, the stuff you use ends up in
groundwater, and you have no clue as to where it goes next. Perhaps it ends
up in someone else's drinking water. Since you know these things, and you
still contribute to the problem, you must want the problem to continue, or
you would stop using lawn chemicals.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

1) The only way to know that a substance is safe is to test it by purposely
exposing people to it. You will not see that happen in your lifetime,
especially not with children. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the USDA or
any other agency thinks. None of these things can be correctly tested.

You keep repeating this so often, I'll bet you thought it up yourself.

The Clinton administration did place a moratorium on voluntary human
pesticide testing in 1998. But you're saying they are not allowed to
use the data collected from accidental exposures?

Bob

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

1) The only way to know that a substance is safe is to test it by
purposely exposing people to it. You will not see that happen in your
lifetime, especially not with children. Therefore, it doesn't matter what
the USDA or any other agency thinks. None of these things can be
correctly tested.

You keep repeating this so often, I'll bet you thought it up yourself.

The Clinton administration did place a moratorium on voluntary human
pesticide testing in 1998. But you're saying they are not allowed to use
the data collected from accidental exposures?

Bob

Accidental exposures do not equal controlled tests, and certainly not in
large enough numbers to impress any real scientist.

As far as moratoriums, I don't think that's the issue as much as this:
You've probably seen newspaper ads asking for volunteers to test new
medicines. What if you saw an ad involving a new pesticide? Now, how would
you describe any person who volunteered to be dosed with pesticides? Give me
some adjectives, or elaborate descriptions?