On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

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

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?


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's patently clear what you said.

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

Ergo; water quality is a cause of malaria.


*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.

That's the problem, the best you can do is try to bend what you've
actually said into something else. You do this consistently; make
statements that you can't back up and then stonewall it with
BS.

You'll do this for a couple of days, hoping that your misstatement
will be forgotten.


clip 40 lines of obfuscatory BS

BK

In article
,
Dinosaur_Sr wrote:

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.

Not "can't", "won't".

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

I've asked nicely, so now I'll try the otherway. Will you ass-holes ****
off, and delete rec.gardens from the newsgroups? Otherwise, I'll lead
every whacked out screwball I can find to your web site, and make sure
that they stay there. Grrrr
--
- 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

Oops!
--
- 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

In article
,
Billy wrote:

I've asked nicely, so now I'll try the otherway. Will you ass-holes ****
off, and delete rec.gardens from the newsgroups? Otherwise, I'll lead
every whacked out screwball I can find to your web site, and make sure
that they stay there. Grrrr

Hey Billy, here's a thought:

If you really want rec.gardens left out...


....why did you include it in your post?

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

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:10:44 -0700, Billy
wrote:

I've asked nicely, so now I'll try the otherway. Will you ass-holes ****
off, and delete rec.gardens from the newsgroups? Otherwise, I'll lead
every whacked out screwball I can find to your web site, and make sure
that they stay there. Grrrr

Good idea. Why didn't you delete rec.gardens from this one? I didn't
so you'd see it.

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

I've asked nicely, so now I'll try the otherway. Will you ass-holes ****
off, and delete rec.gardens from the newsgroups? Otherwise, I'll lead
every whacked out screwball I can find to your web site, and make sure
that they stay there. Grrrr

Hey Billy, here's a thought:

If you really want rec.gardens left out...


...why did you include it in your post?

To err is human, what's your excuse?

I made no error.

My post went where I intended it to go...

....as did this one.

If you want such missives to end with this one, try not replying.

:-)

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

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Oops!

My bad. I'm just gonna' KF these idiots.
--
- 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, 10:56*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:
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!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in
developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing
countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of
malaria.

Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid
of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm
that the absence of DDT has caused.

On Apr 29, 9:42*am, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:56*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



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!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in
developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing
countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of
malaria.

Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid
of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm
that the absence of DDT has caused.

What a foolish statement. You obviously have no idea about the DDT ban
or the effect on malaria levels.

Fact is the DDT ban is absurd. It is not a particularly dangerous
pesticide, compared to others we use, and the well established fact of
the deaths caused by the reductions in DDT use can only be question by
unaware dupes who simply buy into some party line.

In any event I apologize for debating anything with you. there is no
point at all to discussing anything with uninformed people. I am sorry
that I cannot teach you about pesticide use in a usenet post, but I
can't. In any event, I won't bother with such things with you again.

Continue on with your liberal transition of character assassination of
those who disagree with you on some political point. It doesn't mean a
thing, because the politics of liberal vs conservative (for example)
mean nothing, and such wasting of your time keeps people like you from
have a real impact, ie making real trouble!

In article
,
Dinosaur_Sr wrote:

On Apr 29, 9:42*am, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 28, 10:56*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



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!- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in
developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing
countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of
malaria.

Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid
of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm
that the absence of DDT has caused.

What a foolish statement. You obviously have no idea about the DDT ban
or the effect on malaria levels.

He knows that DDT hasn't been banned in developing countries...

....which you are apparently incapable of grasping.


Fact is the DDT ban is absurd. It is not a particularly dangerous
pesticide, compared to others we use, and the well established fact of
the deaths caused by the reductions in DDT use can only be question by
unaware dupes who simply buy into some party line.

The problem with DDT is not simply in its immediate toxicity, but more
in its *persistence*.


In any event I apologize for debating anything with you. there is no
point at all to discussing anything with uninformed people. I am sorry
that I cannot teach you about pesticide use in a usenet post, but I
can't. In any event, I won't bother with such things with you again.

You can't because you're a know-nothing.


Continue on with your liberal transition of character assassination of
those who disagree with you on some political point. It doesn't mean a
thing, because the politics of liberal vs conservative (for example)
mean nothing, and such wasting of your time keeps people like you from
have a real impact, ie making real trouble!

And when you can't, you launch into a deflecting little rant.

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

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

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 theAynRandpoint of view, which
would be: tough shit for them?


Does anyone in their right mind spew rhetoric with nothing to back it
up? Why don't you enlighten us and point out exactly where you find
substantiation for what you've claimed to be "the Ayn Rand view"?

Or would you like to just admit you're talking out your ass?

The "Ayn Rand view" would be to realize that the conditions of these
so-called "developing nations" don't exist in a vacuum. What ideology
does the leadership and population embrace? Why do they continue to
procreate living in poverty conditions?

If the US spent every dime of its GNP on Africa do you think it would
solve their problems?