'They' meaning the EPA? No, the EPA didn't ban cca treated lumber paghat.

Dave

"paghat" wrote in message
news
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/

David J Bockman wrote:

"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

I'm one of them!
Rick Defray.
There! I've revealed my *true* identity on the internet.
Where's me $50,000?

"animaux" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2003 17:02:57 GMT, gekko
opined:


Saying that table salt is deadly is nowhere near the same as saying
"safe as table salt", nor even "using glyphosate as table salt."

Paghat's argument is not helped when she alters what was said
in order to support her statements.

She didn't make the quote. It was Monsanto's ad campaign that did.
"Roundup,
Safe as Table Salt..." It was mandated by the court to be removed
immediately
from their ad. New York State vs Monsanto.

But that's not what SHE reported in her posts. She insists that
Roundup be used in place of table salt!

snip
Perhaps you need to take lessons. Send me your Visa info & I'll
charge you
a hundred smackeroos if you need some very elementary instruction.
For
when I tried it, I got HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of hits. Here's just
the
first couple items from the first page alone:
Monsanto fined, agrees to change their labeling & stop lying in
their ads:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monad.html

Are you arguing that Roundup is unsafe or that Monsanto is a slimy
company? These are TWO different things!

In article ,
paghat wrote:

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



Why do you keep running away, paghat? C'mon, what's
good for the goose is good for the gander.

Who do *you* work for?


What are *your* scientific credentials?


Oh, and of course my challenge stands.

One, just one, scientific article in a peer-reviewed
journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous
to humans when used as directed. Just one. One teeny
itsy bitsy article.

All the personal attacks in the world can't change
the fact that you can't come up with a single
article.

billo

On 19 Aug 2003 03:02:54 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Oh, don't sell yourself short. Please, go ahead and
list your scientific credentials.
Hey Billo believe it or not the rest of the world somehow manages to
stumble it's way through life without a Phd and even make reasonable
decisions. After all you continue this discusion all the while
remaining clueless.


"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 ,
Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On 19 Aug 2003 03:02:54 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Oh, don't sell yourself short. Please, go ahead and
list your scientific credentials.
Hey Billo believe it or not the rest of the world somehow manages to
stumble it's way through life without a Phd and even make reasonable
decisions. After all you continue this discusion all the while
remaining clueless.


That's not an answer.

But that's OK, Tom, *you* were the one who thought it so important
to roll out where I worked and what my credentials are -- and
paghat is still obsessing over it. *You* were the one who
made the effort to track down where I worked and one of my
degrees. *You* clearly think it's an important factor in
evaluating someone's opinion.

Why, then, are you so afraid to reveal the same thing about
yourself? I mean, if it's an important thing when evaluating
*my* opinion, the same *must* be true of you.

C'mon, Tom, let's have a little disclosure here.

What are you hiding? Why are you being so coy?


Who is your employer?


What are your scientific credentials?



billo

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:27:55 GMT, Tim Miller
opined:


In other words yolu don't need no stinkin' science.

I didn't say that, you did. However, I don't believe much of the "science"
coming out of land grant universities which are funded by Monsanto, DowElanco,
Ortho, etc...


You are one of those organic fools.

If it makes you feel superior to call me such a thing, feel free.

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

Ah, no retort.

On 19 Aug 2003 03:01:03 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


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

I'd add people with compassion to the long list of people who don't buy into the
lies of the agchem industry.

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?

What are yours?

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.

We don't lump in together. I happen to know where Tom works and I'm glad he
hasn't told you. However, I feel confident he knows what he's talking about.
Me, you can call me whatever you like. I don't need a science background to be
a homemaker and organic gardener. I'm retired, have been for 10 years and I'm
only 47. So go back to you job, little man, and make your Frankenstein logic
somehow fit into the universe.


Of course you can't.

Of course I can, but you don't believe anything other than your silly little man
world of knowing.


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

It's already been done. You don't buy it. I don't buy your line, either.
Agree to disagree. Now how 'bout that frappe of Roundup? Would you like it
flavored or plain?

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:08:06 GMT, "David J Bockman"
opined:

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

Dave

You must be joking.

On 19 Aug 2003 12:39:33 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

That's not an answer.

But that's OK, Tom, *you* were the one who thought it so important
to roll out where I worked and what my credentials are -- and
paghat is still obsessing over it. *You* were the one who
made the effort to track down where I worked and one of my
degrees. *You* clearly think it's an important factor in
evaluating someone's opinion.

I know many people with degrees who are social idiots. Literally.

Why, then, are you so afraid to reveal the same thing about
yourself? I mean, if it's an important thing when evaluating
*my* opinion, the same *must* be true of you.

C'mon, Tom, let's have a little disclosure here.

What are you hiding? Why are you being so coy?


Who is your employer?


What are your scientific credentials?



billo

You are starting to sound very creepy.

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 19 Aug 2003 03:01:03 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


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

I'd add people with compassion to the long list of people who don't buy into the
lies of the agchem industry.

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?

What are yours?


I've given them. I am board certified in Anatomic, Clinical,
and Forensic Pathology. I have a BS in Microbiology, and an
MS in Computer Science. Since you and your friends have made
a point of where I work, then you know I work in the department
of Cellular Pathology, as well as being a Medical Examiner. I
am published in the areas of Computer Science, Psychiatry,
Quantitative Cytolopathology, General Pathology, and Forensic
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.

We don't lump in together. I happen to know where Tom works and I'm glad he
hasn't told you.


Funny thing about that, isn't it? It's *so* important
where *I* work and what *I* do and what *my* qualifications
are, but when it come to you guy's, it's time for secrets.

I am not surprised that you guys are so afraid of telling
us where you work.



Of course you can't.

Of course I can, but you don't believe anything other than your silly little man
world of knowing.


Heh.


See how easy that was?

Your turn.

It's already been done.

Nope. So far there hasn't been a single article pointed out that
didn't either note that the experiment was done at levels well
above that of normal usage or that had no significant effect on humans.

Those are your two choices.

Now, maybe I have overlooked that article you are talking about
that claimed to show that Roundup was dangerous to humans when
used as directed.

Please feel free to refresh my memory:

Authors:
Title:
Journal:
Year:
Volume:
Pages:

You don't buy it.


Oh, I'll buy it. You just have to *present* it. You haven't.

billo

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 19 Aug 2003 12:39:33 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

That's not an answer.

But that's OK, Tom, *you* were the one who thought it so important
to roll out where I worked and what my credentials are -- and
paghat is still obsessing over it. *You* were the one who
made the effort to track down where I worked and one of my
degrees. *You* clearly think it's an important factor in
evaluating someone's opinion.

I know many people with degrees who are social idiots. Literally.



Oh, I am sure you do. But this is a *scientific* question, not
a popularity contest. Or is your argument that "Roundup is toxic
because I am the most popular person on the block."

Well, now that you mention it, that *does* seem to be the gist
of y'alls argument.


You are starting to sound very creepy.


As opposed to Tom's dragging it in as a topic and what paghat
as been writing about forensic pathology?

Funny thing, that. It wasn't "creepy" when you guys decided
to make and issue of it. It's only "creepy" when I request
equal disclosure.

What kind of secrets are you guys hiding? *That* is "creepy."


billo

"animaux" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:08:06 GMT, "David J Bockman"
opined:

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

Dave

You must be joking.

Joking? No, I'm not joking.

Dave

In article ,
wrote:

On 19 Aug 2003 12:39:33 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

That's not an answer.

But that's OK, Tom, *you* were the one who thought it so important
to roll out where I worked and what my credentials are -- and
paghat is still obsessing over it. *You* were the one who
made the effort to track down where I worked and one of my
degrees. *You* clearly think it's an important factor in
evaluating someone's opinion.

I know many people with degrees who are social idiots. Literally.

Why, then, are you so afraid to reveal the same thing about
yourself? I mean, if it's an important thing when evaluating
*my* opinion, the same *must* be true of you.

C'mon, Tom, let's have a little disclosure here.

What are you hiding? Why are you being so coy?


Who is your employer?


What are your scientific credentials?



billo

You are starting to sound very creepy.

I was a medical & health sciences editor for a few years & had to render
the poor writings & hastily-concocted-at-deadline's-end data for folks
like billo, working my magic to make their gibberish come out as
publishable articles, or revising the articles again after journal editors
demanded alterations. So I recognize the insecurity of a type of
self-glorified technician of limited achievement in a publish-or-perish
environment. It was never the competent researchers who felt only someone
with their same degree could even read the stuff (while yet expecting some
twelve-bucks-an-hour editor to make sense of it for them). And like Billo
giving fallacio to Monsanto's hired guns, it was exclusively the worst
doctors in the health sciences complex, the least published, the least
respected, the most depressed, the most worried about where they'd be
working when the present gig ran out, who ranted & raved at the editors
even though these dumbasses' poor publication recorsd were strictly their
own & nothing we could do would make them easily publishable. These were
the kinds of writing-impaired researchers the health science editors were
horrified to see coming with another pile of inept scribblings for us to
condense & organize & render at least comprehensible.

Occasionally we had genuine gibberish, could only GUESS what they intended
to be saying, so we just rewrote the stuff as our own ideas, & you know
what, no one could tell the difference. The worst case was when a
department head had her class students interview prostituttes, then she
brought the raw data to me to turn into publishable manuscripts. The
doctor didn't even provide a rough draft, just the interviews her students
obtained. I'd heard about this "researcher" from another editor but
thought it was an exaggeration. I did write one entire article, then I
quit, as I didn't want to waste my own creative energies as a ghost
writer. For over a year after, I was harrassed at home with offers to
write more articles on the side, but by then I had my own book contracts &
wasn't tempted.

Once when a grant deadline approached & might not be renewed if nothing
could be shown to have been done in the previous year, about three days of
work was done, some nice stains made & photographed, while I wrote a
proposal full of claims about what was done in the past year & what would
be furthered in the coming year. I helped a technician "prove" a "fact"
about cancer cells that was not actually in evidence, & the head physician
in the department put his name to it. The resulting report with scarsely a
single truth in it got the grant was renewed, & not one more day of work
was done on that project for many months to follow. But about a year
later, a manuscript was given into my hands to edit, & I recognized long
patches of it as my own grant proposal! The same crapola we
all-but-made-up in haste for the grant renewal was now on its way to
publication in a medical journal.

That's the environment of general ineptitude & laziness & cheating that so
easily becomes, among Monsanto hired guns, complete & intentional
fabrication of data, with plenty of the billo types cheering on the
fakery, as few of 'em any longer know the difference.

-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/