In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.

Which is it? Vote for the nightmare or repeal the nightmare?

You still hung up on plutocrat sock puppets? The DNC and the RNC have
opted for cash. Repealing the nightmare requires "campaign finance
reform".

Sorry, I do better at trimming the newsgroups next time.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and **** the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits, what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good? Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?

On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and **** the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits, what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good? Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is your
only issue what should other people do about it?

On Apr 27, 9:34*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:
On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:





On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and **** the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits, what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good? Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is your
only issue what should other people do about it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll answer one of your questions, which is how many people have died
of malaria b/c of the DDT ban? The answer is zero, because DDT is not
banned in Africa. The rest are too stupid to bother with.

On Apr 27, 12:43*pm, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:34*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and **** the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits, what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good? Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is your
only issue what should other people do about it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll answer one of your questions, which is how many people have died
of malaria b/c of the DDT ban? The answer is zero, because DDT is not
banned in Africa. The rest are too stupid to bother with.

Really? There was never a worldwide ban on DDT? And how much DDT has
Africa produced over the years in any event? I'll suggest that
hundreds of millions have died because of the DDT ban. Prove me wrong!

On Apr 27, 1:10*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:
On Apr 27, 12:43*pm, "John B." wrote:





On Apr 27, 9:34*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and **** the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits, what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good? Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is your
only issue what should other people do about it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll answer one of your questions, which is how many people have died
of malaria b/c of the DDT ban? The answer is zero, because DDT is not
banned in Africa. The rest are too stupid to bother with.

Really? There was never a worldwide ban on DDT? And how much DDT has
Africa produced over the years in any event? I'll suggest that
hundreds of millions have died because of the DDT ban. Prove me wrong!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you prove yourself wrong? The UN has no authority to ban
anything. There is a TREATY by which 160 countries agreed to stop
using DDT. The treaty recognizes that eliminating DDT in countries
with high rates of malaria is not feasible so it is still in use in
those countries. Your estimate that hundreds of millions have died
because of the DDT "ban" is ludicrous, but that's rather par for the
course for you, isn't it?

On Apr 27, 2:32*pm, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 27, 1:10*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



On Apr 27, 12:43*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:34*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and **** the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits, what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good? Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is your
only issue what should other people do about it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll answer one of your questions, which is how many people have died
of malaria b/c of the DDT ban? The answer is zero, because DDT is not
banned in Africa. The rest are too stupid to bother with.

Really? There was never a worldwide ban on DDT? And how much DDT has
Africa produced over the years in any event? I'll suggest that
hundreds of millions have died because of the DDT ban. Prove me wrong!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you prove yourself wrong? The UN has no authority to ban
anything. There is a TREATY by which 160 countries agreed to stop
using DDT. The treaty recognizes that eliminating DDT in countries
with high rates of malaria is not feasible so it is still in use in
those countries. Your estimate that hundreds of millions have died
because of the DDT "ban" is ludicrous, but that's rather par for the
course for you, isn't it?

So you have no information at all.

From the UN's own propaganda:

( http://www.unep.org/PDF/DSSA_Africa.pdf )

"DDT and its residues build up in the food chain,
and it is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not
applied in accordance with WHO
guidelines and recommendations. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
such as DDT, which
became widely used in the 1940s, are slowly metabolized, accumulate in
living tissue, and can
affect the health of humans and wildlife. There is now considerable
debate and increased
suspicion regarding the ability of DDT and other pesticides to disrupt
the endocrine systems of
mammals. New evidence is being published about links between low-level
DDT exposure and
adverse health effects, in particular related to childhood
neurodevelopment, breast cancer in
women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and
to diabetes."

So DDT *may* be harmful, and there is "new evidence" of "links" to
adverse health effects. No real data though. No evidence of any cause
and effect, like we have with say Malaria! Much better to have 300
million cases of malaria a year (the UN number) than expose people to
such potential risks of DDT! And lets put aside the fact that people
have been looking for adverse effects of DDT for 50+ years...and have
found nothing of any real substance.

Typical though...and in the meantime because of poor water quality
people in Africa have to expose themselves to shistosomes...and we
could help with the water...if the money wasted on DDT were spent on
water quality, hundreds of millions would not get malaria and millions
at least would not get schistosomaiasis...but then there's those bald
eagles...their decline *MAY* have been caused by DDT... no real
evidence, but some good links!

....

On Apr 27, 5:19*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:
On Apr 27, 2:32*pm, "John B." wrote:





On Apr 27, 1:10*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:43*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:34*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and **** the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits, what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good? Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is your
only issue what should other people do about it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll answer one of your questions, which is how many people have died
of malaria b/c of the DDT ban? The answer is zero, because DDT is not
banned in Africa. The rest are too stupid to bother with.

Really? There was never a worldwide ban on DDT? And how much DDT has
Africa produced over the years in any event? I'll suggest that
hundreds of millions have died because of the DDT ban. Prove me wrong!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you prove yourself wrong? The UN has no authority to ban
anything. There is a TREATY by which 160 countries agreed to stop
using DDT. The treaty recognizes that eliminating DDT in countries
with high rates of malaria is not feasible so it is still in use in
those countries. Your estimate that hundreds of millions have died
because of the DDT "ban" is ludicrous, but that's rather par for the
course for you, isn't it?

So you have no information at all.

From the UN's own propaganda:

(http://www.unep.org/PDF/DSSA_Africa.pdf)

"DDT and its residues build up in the food chain,
and it is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not
applied in accordance with WHO
guidelines and recommendations. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
such as DDT, which
became widely used in the 1940s, are slowly metabolized, accumulate in
living tissue, and can
affect the health of humans and wildlife. There is now considerable
debate and increased
suspicion regarding the ability of DDT and other pesticides to disrupt
the endocrine systems of
mammals. New evidence is being published about links between low-level
DDT exposure and
adverse health effects, in particular related to childhood
neurodevelopment, breast cancer in
women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and
to diabetes."

So DDT *may* be harmful, and there is "new evidence" of "links" to
adverse health effects. No real data though. No evidence of any cause
and effect, like we have with say Malaria! Much better to have 300
million cases of malaria a year (the UN number) than expose people to
such potential risks of DDT! And lets put aside the fact that people
have been looking for adverse effects of DDT for 50+ years...and have
found nothing of any real substance.

Typical though...and in the meantime because of poor water quality
people in Africa have to expose themselves to shistosomes...and we
could help with the water...if the money wasted on DDT were spent on
water quality, hundreds of millions would not get malaria and millions
at least would not get schistosomaiasis...but then there's those bald
eagles...their decline *MAY* have been caused by DDT... no real
evidence, but some good links!

...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What the hell is wrong with you? You're rebutting an argument that I
never made.

Water quality has nothing to do with malaria. You don't get malaria
from drinking dirty water, you get it from mosquitoes that breed in
water. They don't care how dirty it is.

As for bald eagles, the evidence is conclusive. You're just too lazy
to go look for it.

I thought you were some sort of science professor. I'm sure glad you
don't teach my kids.

On Apr 27, 5:32*pm, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 27, 5:19*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



On Apr 27, 2:32*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 27, 1:10*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:43*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:34*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and **** the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits, what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good? Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is your
only issue what should other people do about it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll answer one of your questions, which is how many people have died
of malaria b/c of the DDT ban? The answer is zero, because DDT is not
banned in Africa. The rest are too stupid to bother with.

Really? There was never a worldwide ban on DDT? And how much DDT has
Africa produced over the years in any event? I'll suggest that
hundreds of millions have died because of the DDT ban. Prove me wrong!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you prove yourself wrong? The UN has no authority to ban
anything. There is a TREATY by which 160 countries agreed to stop
using DDT. The treaty recognizes that eliminating DDT in countries
with high rates of malaria is not feasible so it is still in use in
those countries. Your estimate that hundreds of millions have died
because of the DDT "ban" is ludicrous, but that's rather par for the
course for you, isn't it?

So you have no information at all.

From the UN's own propaganda:

(http://www.unep.org/PDF/DSSA_Africa.pdf)

"DDT and its residues build up in the food chain,
and it is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not
applied in accordance with WHO
guidelines and recommendations. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
such as DDT, which
became widely used in the 1940s, are slowly metabolized, accumulate in
living tissue, and can
affect the health of humans and wildlife. There is now considerable
debate and increased
suspicion regarding the ability of DDT and other pesticides to disrupt
the endocrine systems of
mammals. New evidence is being published about links between low-level
DDT exposure and
adverse health effects, in particular related to childhood
neurodevelopment, breast cancer in
women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and
to diabetes."

So DDT *may* be harmful, and there is "new evidence" of "links" to
adverse health effects. No real data though. No evidence of any cause
and effect, like we have with say Malaria! Much better to have 300
million cases of malaria a year (the UN number) than expose people to
such potential risks of DDT! And lets put aside the fact that people
have been looking for adverse effects of DDT for 50+ years...and have
found nothing of any real substance.

Typical though...and in the meantime because of poor water quality
people in Africa have to expose themselves to shistosomes...and we
could help with the water...if the money wasted on DDT were spent on
water quality, hundreds of millions would not get malaria and millions
at least would not get schistosomaiasis...but then there's those bald
eagles...their decline *MAY* have been caused by DDT... no real
evidence, but some good links!

...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What the hell is wrong with you? You're rebutting an argument that I
never made.

Water quality has nothing to do with malaria. You don't get malaria
from drinking dirty water, you get it from mosquitoes that breed in
water. They don't care how dirty it is.

As for bald eagles, the evidence is conclusive. You're just too lazy
to go look for it.

I thought you were some sort of science professor. I'm sure glad you
don't teach my kids.

Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.
Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.

In article
,
Dinosaur_Sr wrote:

On Apr 27, 5:32*pm, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 27, 5:19*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



On Apr 27, 2:32*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 27, 1:10*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:43*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:34*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr

wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and ****
the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's
thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits,
what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who
determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year
from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our
heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good?
Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view,
which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious
diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many
people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no
evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms
birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people
like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is
your
only issue what should other people do about it?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll answer one of your questions, which is how many people have
died
of malaria b/c of the DDT ban? The answer is zero, because DDT is
not
banned in Africa. The rest are too stupid to bother with.

Really? There was never a worldwide ban on DDT? And how much DDT has
Africa produced over the years in any event? I'll suggest that
hundreds of millions have died because of the DDT ban. Prove me
wrong!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you prove yourself wrong? The UN has no authority to ban
anything. There is a TREATY by which 160 countries agreed to stop
using DDT. The treaty recognizes that eliminating DDT in countries
with high rates of malaria is not feasible so it is still in use in
those countries. Your estimate that hundreds of millions have died
because of the DDT "ban" is ludicrous, but that's rather par for the
course for you, isn't it?

So you have no information at all.

From the UN's own propaganda:

(http://www.unep.org/PDF/DSSA_Africa.pdf)

"DDT and its residues build up in the food chain,
and it is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not
applied in accordance with WHO
guidelines and recommendations. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
such as DDT, which
became widely used in the 1940s, are slowly metabolized, accumulate in
living tissue, and can
affect the health of humans and wildlife. There is now considerable
debate and increased
suspicion regarding the ability of DDT and other pesticides to disrupt
the endocrine systems of
mammals. New evidence is being published about links between low-level
DDT exposure and
adverse health effects, in particular related to childhood
neurodevelopment, breast cancer in
women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and
to diabetes."

So DDT *may* be harmful, and there is "new evidence" of "links" to
adverse health effects. No real data though. No evidence of any cause
and effect, like we have with say Malaria! Much better to have 300
million cases of malaria a year (the UN number) than expose people to
such potential risks of DDT! And lets put aside the fact that people
have been looking for adverse effects of DDT for 50+ years...and have
found nothing of any real substance.

Typical though...and in the meantime because of poor water quality
people in Africa have to expose themselves to shistosomes...and we
could help with the water...if the money wasted on DDT were spent on
water quality, hundreds of millions would not get malaria and millions
at least would not get schistosomaiasis...but then there's those bald
eagles...their decline *MAY* have been caused by DDT... no real
evidence, but some good links!

...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What the hell is wrong with you? You're rebutting an argument that I
never made.

Water quality has nothing to do with malaria. You don't get malaria
from drinking dirty water, you get it from mosquitoes that breed in
water. They don't care how dirty it is.

As for bald eagles, the evidence is conclusive. You're just too lazy
to go look for it.

I thought you were some sort of science professor. I'm sure glad you
don't teach my kids.

Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.
Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.

You said (and I quote):

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria"

How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article

Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.
Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.

Speaking of a troll, read the following.....

You said (and I quote):

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria"

How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?

--
Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal
Vancouver, British Columbia

-Greg

On Apr 28, 5:53*am, "dene" wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message

...

In article

Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.
Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.

Speaking of a troll, read the following.....

You said (and I quote):

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria"

How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?

--
Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal
Vancouver, British Columbia

-Greg

I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely
refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts.

If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their
problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good
example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level
of consciousness thing, IMHO.

On Apr 28, 8:55*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:53*am, "dene" wrote:





"Alan Baker" wrote in message

...

In article

Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria..
Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.

Speaking of a troll, read the following.....

You said (and I quote):

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria"

How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?

--
Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal
Vancouver, British Columbia

-Greg

I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely
refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts.

If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their
problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good
example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level
of consciousness thing, IMHO.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would
reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either
explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than
suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it?

In article
,
"John B." wrote:

On Apr 28, 8:55*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:53*am, "dene" wrote:





"Alan Baker" wrote in message

...

In article

Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.
Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.

Speaking of a troll, read the following.....

You said (and I quote):

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria"

How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?

--
Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal
Vancouver, British Columbia

-Greg

I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely
refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts.

If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their
problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good
example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level
of consciousness thing, IMHO.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would
reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either
explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than
suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it?

I've asked "Punch and Judy" here to keep this in their own newsgroup,
Apparently, they enjoy being a pain in the wahzoo.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

On Apr 28, 9:22*am, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 28, 8:55*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



On Apr 28, 5:53*am, "dene" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

...

In article

Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.
Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.

Speaking of a troll, read the following.....

You said (and I quote):

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria"

How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?

--
Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal
Vancouver, British Columbia

-Greg

I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely
refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts.

If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their
problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good
example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level
of consciousness thing, IMHO.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would
reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either
explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than
suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it?

I can't do anything if you don't understand what I write. It's clear
to me, and that's the best I can do.

But IMHO your problem isn't so much that you are stupid as you are a
political dupe. You just by the party line "liberal". The pesticide
issue is a good example of the harm this sort of approach causes, as
well as an example of selfish behavior and even the nobility of many
greens-keepers (ie golf content!).

While DDT is hardly begin, it's not even close to the most toxic of
insecticides in use. One can look at a crop like cotton, which
classically needs 10 sprayings of pesticides per crop. It also is very
hard on the soil, and fertilizers are also needed. It can easily be
argued that cotton is the most environmentally damaging of all
crops...so why not ban it? It does more harm that DDT ever could..so
ban it, right...no wait, the minions at earth cookie central like
their cotton clothing. They hate things like polyester! Yuk!

Being anti-DDT as your means of being anti chemical costs your basic
upper east side twit nothing. We can use other pesticides to replace
DDT, and so what if they may be more harmful...they aren't DDT! So
onto the DDT bandwagon we go, and so what if millions in developing
countries die...we can come up with alternatives...nets and bug
zappers..there ya go! Think you will see the upper east side earth
cookie living 24/7 the lifestyle of some poor person in a malaria
infested part of rural Africa, relying on nets and bug zappers to
protect him from malaria.

If we spent the money on malaria that we spend on cotton
pesticidewise, I doubt anyone would get malaria...but Johnny cares
about his cotton shorts more than he cares about the lives of people
in malaria infested parts of the world, and that is an observable
matter of fact for which laments of opinion ring totally hollow.

Would it or would it not be an interesting and worthwhile experiment
to have people from malaria infested parts of the world choose which
pesticides to ban, and where to invest our pesticide
resources...rather than people in the US and western Europe? Would
probably save a lot of lives, and put Johnny in polyester shorts...a
trade he would not actually make, as we can observe.

The golf content here is that greenskeepers have an interesting
challenge. They have to keep weeds of Johnny's green's, we can't have
that! But those pesticides are expensive and toxic. I cannot imagine a
greenskeeper wanting to use pesticides if they didn't have to because
of the toxicity issue, nor a golf course owner wanting to use them
because of the cost. But your upper east side earth cookie golfer will
not stand for weeds on the greens...so what to do? Find less toxic,
cheaper alternatives that you don't have to use as much...and I
suspect they have! Ordinary market economics solving a problem!