In article ,
Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 15:05:52 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

I am a licensed physician with training in microbiology,
molecular biology, cellular pathology, anatomic pathology,
clinical pathology, and forensic pathology.

What about you?

I have published in the peer reviewed scientific literature
that you are so fond of. Have you? I'll tell you what,
why don't we match publication by publication.


Gosh Billy, I guess you're living proof a licensed physician can be
pretty well blinded by the light of selfish self interests....HUH?


Funny thing. You are all hot to engage in personal attacks
based on my profession, my person, etc. And you are hot to
dig up all that stuff.

Well, not that funny, since you have no science to back
up your claims.

But, oddly enough, you don't seem to have the guts to tell
us about your own employer and your own credentials.

What are you hiding, Tom? What are you afraid of?

Since you brought it up, don't you think what's good for
the goose is good for the gander?


Who do *you* work for?

What are *your* credentials?


billo

In article ,
paghat wrote:
Apparently his sole paying gig is doing autopsies. Even a lowly medical
examiner can tell when they're already dead. Keeps him from personally
killing anyone at least.

-paghat the ratgirl

Gosh paghat, you were all so hot to discuss who
people worked for and what credentials they
have, but you seem to be afraid to tell us about
your own.

What are you hiding?

Who do you work for?

What are *your* credentials?

billo

In article , wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
Apparently his sole paying gig is doing autopsies. Even a lowly medical
examiner can tell when they're already dead. Keeps him from personally
killing anyone at least.

You've attacked Bill Oliver, his profession, colleagues and his employer.
None of this is appropriate for a science newsgroup. Why don't you
discuss the data?

Hey, you clipped the data on doctor's killing. But I didn't post that
stuff, so don't blame me for your inability to follow a fun discussion. I
only pointed out his specialty is cutting up corpses so he's not
contributing to those killer stats, he's just carving up people other
doctors killed. If you hate the stats about the profession, go back to the
original post & yell at Tom for telling it straight, not me.

Long diatribes regarding the corporate misbehaviour of one of the
manufacturers of glyphosate also aren't appropriate in a science
newsgroup.

Yes, Billo already stated that "scientists" don't care if the research is
trumped up by dishonest people. That may not be true of all scientists;
I'm not as cynical as you & Billo on that score, having worked in a
research hospital long enough to have seen the good & the bad.

But I'll try to watch for the crossposts & delete as you wish. Wasn't me
who added them, didn't think it should be me who removes, but if it's in
your charter that rampant scientific dishonesty at companies like Monsanto
is a taboo subject, so be it. Head in sand syndrome is your choice.

-paghat the ratgirl

Andrew Taylor

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:22:44 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up with
nothing.


Yeah sure David sorta like nothing came up on using arsenic treated
lumber for planters and greenhouses!!!



"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets,
but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how.
To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet;
one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules,
any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"

Aldo Leopold

"paghat" wrote

...The same sorts of
gullible dolts who'd trust murderers as their personal bodyguards, rapists
to babysit their kids, or thieves to guard their money WOULD trust that
the same people who lied about agent orange for 40 years are tellin' ya
the truth now about glyphosate. Even if it requires overlooking one hell
of a lot of uninvested independent evidence to the contrary to see only
the known-liars-generated proof of safety. And the depth of that
gullibility is reflected in said dolts' continued "faith" even after
Monsanto is caught time & again faking data. To praise Billo whose primary
citation was from a chap caught promoting data he already knew had been
faked shows how little you are thinking. It takes only the simplest
observational skills to notice Monsanto's persistent habit of lying, which
wouldn't be necessary if their product was even half as safe as they
pretend.

You are a sad delusional person. I hope you get help.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:35:10 -0400, animaux wrote:

On 18 Aug 2003 14:52:24 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

Well, since we are in such a sharing mood, and since the bunch here is
such a fan of open disclosure, why don't you tell us who *you* work for
and what *your* qualifications are?

Who do *you* work for?

I work for me, my husband, our pet parrot, the Tibetan People in exile
in India, Tibetan Nuns and volunteer work.

In other words yolu don't need no stinkin' science.
Let's all sing Cumbia.
What are *your* qualifications?

Qualifications for what? For everything? Narrowing it down, my
qualifications are as follows: I will not, nor do I ever intend to
cause any harm to, or death of anything with the use of a pesticide. I
am a qualified organic gardener and qualified to be a home maker and
retired from the horticulture industry where I worked as a grower for
both types of operations. My first job was grower of bedding plants for
one of the largest greenhouse operations in the nation (a million square
feet under glass with six head houses and sixty tractor trailer loads
going out daily from March till June, daily), on Long Island. Second
job in the industry was for a smaller grower, 70,000 square feet under
glass where I learned to grow organically. I'm not a qualified
scientist, but I know when someone is full of shit and Monsanto is full
of shit. Period.


You are one of those organic fools.

And, of course, my challenge stands. One article. One.


billo

Your challenge is denied. How about you provide an article which says
glysophate is safe. Not relatively safe, but safe.

On 19 Aug 2003 10:23:57 +0950, (Andrew Taylor)
wrote:

Long diatribes regarding the corporate misbehaviour of one of the
manufacturers of glyphosate also aren't appropriate in a science
newsgroup.

Andrew Taylor


Ah but genius you are crossposting to a agrdening newsgroup!

That awareness doesn't require an MS






"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets,
but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how.
To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet;
one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules,
any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"

Aldo Leopold

On 19 Aug 2003 01:24:48 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Who do *you* work for?

Blue collar gardener

What are *your* credentials?

Ecofundamentalist by your definition






"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets,
but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how.
To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet;
one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the rules,
any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"

Aldo Leopold

In article
pringmay.com, Tim
Miller wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:35:10 -0400, animaux wrote [cut]

You are one of those organic fools.

Meaning you're one of the ACTUAL fools who view organic gardening as so
fantastically foolish you'd rather eat slime mold off an illegal chemical
dump than suffer the horrors of organic produce. So be it Timster; you're
welcome to your diet. Allow me equal access to mine. Help stop Monsanto's
anti-free-speech campaign to prevent honest labeling thus denying me my
choice.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article , Tom Jaszewski
wrote:

On 19 Aug 2003 01:24:48 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Who do *you* work for?

Blue collar gardener

What are *your* credentials?

Ecofundamentalist by your definition

If you don't cut up corpses for a living, you're toast.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 14:52:24 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

Well, since we are in such a sharing mood, and since the
bunch here is such a fan of open disclosure, why don't
you tell us who *you* work for and what *your* qualifications
are?

Who do *you* work for?

I work for me, my husband, our pet parrot, the Tibetan People in exile in India,
Tibetan Nuns and volunteer work.

What are *your* qualifications?

Qualifications for what? For everything?

Narrowing it down, my qualifications
are as follows: I will not, nor do I ever intend to cause any harm to, or death
of anything with the use of a pesticide.

Only an ecofundamentalist would consider an ideologic catechism
a qualification for a scientific discussion.

What are your qualifications that would make anybody
think you can read the scientific literature critically?
What are your qualifications in toxicology? In cellular
biology? In molecular and clinical pathology?

After all, you, paghat, and Tom make a great deal of
who people are and what their qualifications are. Try
to do better than religious statements.


And, of course, my challenge stands. One article. One.


billo

Your challenge is denied. How about you provide an article which says
glysophate is safe. Not relatively safe, but safe.


Of course you can't.

I can easily provide a reference in a peer-reviewed scientific journal
that says that Roundup is safe when used as directed:


Williams, G. M., Kroes, R., and Munro, I. C. (2000) Safety evaluation
and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient,
glyphosate, for humans. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 31, 117-165


See how easy that was?


Your turn.


billo

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On 19 Aug 2003 01:24:48 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Who do *you* work for?

Blue collar gardener

That's not an answer. *Who* do you
work for?


What are *your* credentials?

Ecofundamentalist by your definition


Oh, don't sell yourself short. Please, go ahead and
list your scientific credentials.

billo

No, plenty came up on that tommy, including the EPA's published finding that
cca treated lumber is safe.

Dave

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:22:44 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up
with
nothing.


Yeah sure David sorta like nothing came up on using arsenic treated
lumber for planters and greenhouses!!!



"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets,
but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how.
To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet;
one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the
rules,
any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"

Aldo Leopold

In article , "David J Bockman"
wrote:

No, plenty came up on that tommy, including the EPA's published finding that
cca treated lumber is safe.

Dave

BWAHAHAHA, which is why they finally banned it outright.
-paghat the ratgirl

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:22:44 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

Interestingly, a google search on 'New York State vs Monsanto' came up
with
nothing.


Yeah sure David sorta like nothing came up on using arsenic treated
lumber for planters and greenhouses!!!



"Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets,
but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how.
To plant a pine, for example, one need be neither god nor poet;
one need only own a good shovel. By virtue of this curious loophole in the
rules,
any clodhopper may say: Let there be a tree--and there will be one"

Aldo Leopold

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

"paghat" wrote in message
news
Shampoo is not eaten, that's why Monsanto, & Billo, prefer to say Table
salt when making their "no more dangerous than" argument. Monsanto
specifically advertised that RoundUp was "safe as table salt" and this got
them into CRIMINAL trouble with the New York Attorney General. Yet
Monsanto's criminal argument is still made in numerous ways, because "safe
as shampoo" doesn't have the same impact of having people think of it in
terms of something edible. The statement is still in much of their PR
stuff which tells people like Billo exactly how & which articles he must
read & quote in order to be a good company man. And Billo stupidly
repeated it because he put his head way too far into Monsanto propoganda &
completely forgot that argument scored them some criminal charges.

In the interests of accuracy, there were no criminal charges filed. This was
a civil lawsuit. Neither party 'won' nor 'lost', it was settled out of
court. As part of the settlement, Monsanto agreed to pay $50,000 to defray
the costs of the lawsuit.

Dave