In article ,
paghat wrote:

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...




Well, thanks for filling us in on your ethics, but you
still have not provided any of the information you think
is so important.

You have gone to great lengths about the corrupt scientific
establishment, your contempt for Pathologists, etc. You
have shown us how important it is that the world know
*my* employer, *my* profession, and *my* credentials.

But when I ask you the same questions, you run like
a cockroach exposed to the light. Why is that?


Tell me, paghat, who is your employer?


Tell me, paghat, what are your credentials, other than
your claimed and demonstrated skill at deceit?


And, of course, my challenges stand. One teensy,
itsy-bitsy, scientific article in a peer reviewed
journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous
to humans when used as directed. One. Just one.
Uno. Ichi. Un. Une. Ein. Um.

You get the idea.


Oh, and I'm still waiting on the "table salt"
quote. Or a retraction. But I expect to wait.
You don't have the ability to provide the former,
and lack the integrity for the latter.


billo

I asked for a puppy. Instead, paghat posted in :

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.

Oh you SO were not. No way. If the abuse of language you exhibit here
is an indication of your writing capabilities, then you're either outright
lying, or your employers were paying for crap.

snippage of rambling, windy, spelling- and grammar-impaired pseudo-psych
evaluation


--
gekko

And that goes for all you illiterate seething puddles of infected rhinoceros pap-smears that make up the collective whiff of dyspeptic orangutan flatus that is this organization. -- Frank Raymond Michaels

On 19 Aug 2003 13:37:17 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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.


And don't know shit about gardening.


"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 13:37:17 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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.


And don't know shit about gardening.


Oh, I am sure you know much more than I do about gardening.

However, the question isn't "Is Roundup good for my roses?"

The question is about the human pathology associated with
Roundup -- and pathology is something Pathologists *do*
know something about.

Oh, and by the way, since you have been so careful to look
up who *I* work for, and what *my* qualifications are,
and since honesty and openness and disclosure are *so*
important to you, one would think you would be proud
to tell us the same about yourself.

Instead, you run away like a cockroach in the light.

Why is that?


Who do *you* work for?


What are *your* credentials?

Why is it a *good* thing that I disclose, yet you hide
in secrecy. Sounds like someone's hiding a conflict
of interest to me.

What are you hiding, Tom? How much money do you
make every year pushing this anti-science agenda?

billo

Hey!* (paghat)!* It's been a long
time! How ya been?* Last time i saw you, you were posting in
rec.gardens and wrote this:


I was a medical editor,

I highly doubt this. You've displayed the ability to copy words from
reports, but your ability to evaluate what they say is notably
lacking.

I'll also note your reported lack of ethics.

No, you were no medical editor. You were a shill. A monkey who
could type what she was told to type.

There's nothing to be proud of, there.

--
gekko

If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

Hey!* "Phrederik" !* It's been a long time!
How ya been?* Last time i saw you, you were posting in rec.gardens
and wrote this:



"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!




Okay, *who* is the "she" in your response? paggers? Pags is
insisting that *billo* is saying it's okay to use Roundup in place
of table salt.

What I was talking about was pag's gross misstatement of what billo
had actually said, and how his comments were no where near
equivalent to saying Roundup can be used as table salt.

??

--
gekko

If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

In article ,
wrote:

Hey!* (paghat)!* It's been a long
time! How ya been?* Last time i saw you, you were posting in
rec.gardens and wrote this:


I was a medical editor,

I highly doubt this. You've displayed the ability to copy words from
reports, but your ability to evaluate what they say is notably
lacking.

I'll also note your reported lack of ethics.

No, you were no medical editor. You were a shill. A monkey who
could type what she was told to type.

There's nothing to be proud of, there.


Billo has been a great example of the fact that, no, there are very few
ethics at work in research -- they have some ghost writer write or revise
for them some good ideas for ethics, but the only ethic in a publish or
perish environment is "don't perish." And as an editor I was in no
position to send something back to be researched more fully, I just had to
try to make bad writing readable for publication. But it's certainly why I
quit -- being forced, with no particular qualification, to ghost write an
entire article from raw data was the last straw for me. I have written in
the past how often I undermined the system -- I was a whistleblower on
some of the research that was unnecessarily cruel to animals, until one of
the biological supply houses found out it was me & they tried to get me
fired. I wasn't fired; I just had my vivarium key taken away so I couldn't
get access to the dirty little secrets for first-hand reports. The surgeon
I ended up working for the most was the only one who (at the insistance of
his key research assistant without whom he'd've been out on a limb)
refused to use animal models, but obtained actual human fluids from
duodenal & pancreatic surgeries, resulting presumedly in better data than
if it'd been fluids of diseased hamsters. But it was this
way-better-than-average department that trumped up data in a single week
pretending it took all year -- so the best & most decent people I
encountered still took as their only ethic "don't perish."

-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 ,
wrote:

Hey!* "Phrederik" !* It's been a long time!
How ya been?* Last time i saw you, you were posting in rec.gardens
and wrote this:



"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!




Okay, *who* is the "she" in your response? paggers? Pags is
insisting that *billo* is saying it's okay to use Roundup in place
of table salt.

What I was talking about was pag's gross misstatement of what billo
had actually said, and how his comments were no where near
equivalent to saying Roundup can be used as table salt.


Billo (plagiarizing a Monsanto Funny Fact) sez: Glyphosate is as safe as
table salt.

Gekko (giving blowjob to Billo) sez: Billo didn't say waht he said.

Paghat (being only wise soul on board) sez: Billo says way stupid things
then denies he sez 'em.

Hey gekko, since you & billo are on such agreeable turns, why not go ahead
and SEE if glyphosate is as safe as table salt & have it with popcorn.
Even if billo didn't recommend it, he DOES assure you it would be safe, so
test it, please, together. If I'm in town when you do, I promise to visit
you in the hospital.

-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/

Bill,

The question is about the human ......

You make a lot of references to the effects of Round-up on humans....and
when Round-up is used as directed.

What about lizards?? Is spraying Round-up in the eyes of lizards using
Round-up as directed? I would guess that would have to be the case as I
don't know how to avoid it and I have not seen anything on the label about
how to avoid it. I have seen references to Round-up stinging the eyes. I
doubt spraying Round-up in the eyes is recommended.

I don't know how bad the sting to the eyes is. I certainly don't want to
torture the little critters...they have no access to eye wash.

Also I have used a lot of Round-up after some rather extensive research
that seemed to indicate this stuff was safe...binds to the soil bla bla.
Now I think I may have killed a bunch of frogs and tadpoles. I used the
stuff near one of my wildlife ponds. I did stay what I thought was a safe
distance away from the ponds. However now I see no frogs and no tadpoles
in the pond.

If your references to the safety of Round-up are specific to humans and
specific to using as directed you may be leading some of us into a false
sense of security with respect to our wildlife friends.

Is spraying Round-up in the eyes of lizards of no concern to you?

No.

) wrote in message om...
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

) wrote in message om...
Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto,

no.

or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists?


The anwer in part is a matter ov 'mutal to survive'...in other words
the 'weeds' (ie in a different aspect, perhps us!), mutate to
survive....whatever poison they through at us, we mutate to become
immune. Thus (at an incresing increasing rate), the boffins are
required, in the 'industrial food' paradym, to discover more and more
potent poisons. The side effect of all this is that sensitivity is
eroded....and eventually the whole senario implodes in to a 'great
heat' or something. We have a closed loop of obbsessive/blind
profit/exploitation going on fired up on RRCA (ritualistic racist
child abuse). At some point this 'energy' breaks down, revealing other
realities, more favourable realities, ones that many people have been
closed to by RRCA etc. In other words you're still very pathetic
'westeners', but stay hopeful for reality change/liveration!

christian system is-a vam-pie-er.

Jah rastafar-I

King Amdo

What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

PEACE!

paghat wrote:

...

Maybe if you can break your
addiction to hanging out in misc.writing with people who have never
learnred how, & so are always wondering why they've never been able to
publish anything professionally,

...

I hang out in misc.writing, paghat, and I'm an author of 22 nonfiction
educational books. I'm also under contract with a major publisher. So I
guess you could say that I did indeed *learn how* and I'm not *always
wondering*.

But, enough about that, this is a newsgroup about gardening -- and I'm
glad the whole brouhaha started over Round-up because I didn't know
rec.gardens existed before. I live in a condo so my gardening is limited
mostly to container gardening ... but the incredible jungle I've created
in pots around my house is to die for.

Best,
PJ

In article 01c366dd$74f49f20$6d20500c@zeus1,
Zeuspaul wrote:
Bill,

The question is about the human ......

You make a lot of references to the effects of Round-up on humans....and
when Round-up is used as directed.


Yes I do. My claim is that Roundup is safe for humans when used as
directed.




What about lizards??

It is a different question. After we all agree that Roundup is
safe for humans when used as directed, then we can start looking into
its effects on lizards when used as directed.


billo

In article ,
paghat wrote:


Billo has been a great example of the fact that, no, there are very few
ethics at work in research -- they have some ghost writer write or revise
for them some good ideas for ethics, but the only ethic in a publish or
perish environment is "don't perish."


Except, of course, I never falsified data, and I never helped publish
an article with falsified data.

In contrast to you.


billo

In article ,
paghat wrote:

Billo (plagiarizing a Monsanto Funny Fact) sez: Glyphosate is as safe as
table salt.


This continues to be a lie that paghat requires for her screeds.

My challenges stand:

I challenge you to produce this quote, or publish a retraction.
You do not have the quote, so you cannot do the former. And
you clearly have no integrity since you continue to publish
this falsehood knowing it is false.

You do not do your case any good by publishing falsehoods
that anybody using deja.com can see is a lie. If you cannot
be trusted to tell the truth in this simple thing, how can
anyone believe the rest of your screeds?

And, of course, my scientific challenge stands. Please
provide *one* single article in a scientific, peer-reviewed
journal claiming to show that Roundup is dangerous to
humans when used as directed.

You cannot. That is why your claims have mutated from
the false claim that there is scientific proof that
Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed
to your (slightly more honest) rejection of science
altogether.

And, of course, since you and your friends make such a great
deal out of who *I* work for and what *my* credentials are,
why do you run and hide when I ask the same qustions of
you?

Who do *you* work for, paghat?


What are *your* credentials?


Why do you run away when the disclosure and honesty you
find so important is asked of you?


billo