"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
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

Bill, your continuing haranguing is not leading credence to your side of the
story.

In article ,
Paul E. Lehmann wrote:


Bill, your continuing haranguing is not leading credence to your side of the
story.



Shut me up, then. Provide the reference.

Funny. You don't find that the antics of the anti-science
crowd detracts from their credence, but asking for a
reference *does.*


billo

"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote in message
...
Bill, your continuing haranguing is not leading credence to your side of
the
story.



Quite the contrary, Mr. Lehman. IMHO, Mr. Oliver's tenacity is pretty damn
impressive. He's taken the most rabid, illogical, vicious ecofundamentalists
in this newsgroup and essentially shown them to not only be breathtakingly
mean-spirited, but also hypocritical as well. What's more, he's done it
while faced with a torrent of ad hominem attacks, kooky archive and google
snooping, and outright damnable lies about his credentials.

Personally, I admire anyone with the purist philosophy that leads to organic
gardening. However I find the specious reams of appalling distortions
concerning what exactly Mr. Oliver wrote sad and really disappointing--
especially since the Trinity largely responsible for the hateful barrage
give really, really great advice and are passionate contributors to the
newsgroup.

Just my $0.02,

Dave

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
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

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul E. Lehmann wrote:


Bill, your continuing haranguing is not leading credence to your side of
the
story.



Shut me up, then. Provide the reference.

Funny. You don't find that the antics of the anti-science
crowd detracts from their credence, but asking for a
reference *does.*


billo

Bill, you could summarize your arguements in a sentenence or two and then
let it be.

I have been following the debate but I have not done a literature search to
determine the merits of both sides. I myself, use roundup - very
sparingly - and not in areas where I think there is a likelihood of
contaminated the ground water.

I CAN say that based on my professional experience, that I am HIGHLY
skeptical of any chemical company propaganda.

I worked for over 15 years as a Petroleum Geologist. It was a great job.
It was like looking for buried treasure and getting paid to do it. It was
very exciting and glamouous. When the bust hit the oil business in Houston
in the 1980's, I got a job as an "Environmental Geologist" with a consulting
company in Houston, Texas. I then saw the downstream part of the petroleum
business. The company I worked for had as clients companies like Dow
Chemical, BASF, Oxy Petrochemical and others. The main business of the
company I worked for was to petition the EPA to allow injection of hazardous
waste into injection wells. Congress had previously bannned injection wells
for hazardous waste but the petro chemical industry used its political
influence and got congress to allow injection if it could be proved that the
waste stream would be safe for ten thousand years. I saw first hand how our
clients would completely ignore any evidence or data that would not allow
them to get a petition for their wells. I pointed the evidence out to the
companies. They did not want to hear it and purposely left the data out of
their petitions. For example, one location in South Louisiana had faults
that faulted the injection zone AND the faults came all the way to the
surface. This was verified by numerous lines of seismic data. (Data the EPA
did not have and probably could not afford to buy with their limited budget)
In another instance I was told that I must doctor my geologic cross sections
to prove that a major fault in the Corpus Christi area was a sealing fault
at the level of the injection zone. I refused because there was already
published literature that disproved this case. In another case a very large
chemical company in the Freeport. Texas area continued to rent out storage
space in caverns created in a salt dome even AFTER they learned that the
dome was still active geologically and was shearing the casing in their own
product storage wells AND they were loosing product into the qround water
aquifer. After several years, I could no longer tolerate being a chemical
company whore and quit. I notified the USEPA of some of the things I saw
during my employment. They were sympathetic but the State of Texas had
primary control and the State enforcement agency was bought off by the petro
chem industry. The EPA and other enforcement agencies simply can not
compete with the big bucks of Industry. If you throw enough money at a
project you can "proove" almost anything. I then went to work for NOAA as a
Physical Scientist and Hydrologist where I retired a year and a half ago.
Do I think that roundup will cause the end of the world if used as
directed - no, at least I hope not. Do I think the information supplied by
the manufacturer is accurate and as safe as they claim - HELL NO.
I would advise anyone who uses ANY chemical product to have serious doubts
about the safety of said products. I know what the industry will do - or
not due to make the big bucks.

In article ,
Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul E. Lehmann wrote:


Bill, your continuing haranguing is not leading credence to your side of
the
story.



Shut me up, then. Provide the reference.

Funny. You don't find that the antics of the anti-science
crowd detracts from their credence, but asking for a
reference *does.*


billo

Bill, you could summarize your arguements in a sentenence or two and then
let it be.


So could you, but alas, we do have a tendency to run on, don't we?



I have been following the debate but I have not done a literature search to
determine the merits of both sides. I myself, use roundup - very
sparingly - and not in areas where I think there is a likelihood of
contaminated the ground water.

I CAN say that based on my professional experience, that I am HIGHLY
skeptical of any chemical company propaganda.



Fine. Let's keep it to the scientific literature, then. Please
provide a single scientific article in a peer-reviwed journal that
claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used
as directed.

Oh, I know, you don't care enough to actually do a literature
search or look at the data.

But, oddly enough, you care enough to castigate those who do.

Yes, it would be *so* much better if those who read the literature
just shut up and "let it be," so the anti-science crowd could
drone on without challenge.

That way the anti-science crowd wouldn't ever really have to
prove their assertions.

Life would be much simpler, then.


billo

"Zeuspaul" wrote in message news:01c366dd$74f49f20$6d20500c@zeus1...
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?

ASK'N???
FACES TWO FACES???
FACE
TO
FACE
CONVERSATION"N
CREADENCE CLEARWATER???
WHA?
YAH??
OH
YAH!!!
SEE "C" YOU"C"!!!??? YUP??? "C"??? YOU KNOW??? WHO THAY
ARE??????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????/??????????????
??????????????????????
?????????????????????????????/
?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????
????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????/////////.....//////....GIRLS?????????????????????????????????? ??////.......????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????HAHAHAHAAJAHAJAyahayhwhoooo oo??????????????????????????????????///?????
???/////.....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,??????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????ooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaa
aaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyy???...lISA
D???LONG VIR?????HUH??WHA???AAAAAAATTTTTTTAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAA CROCK
OF SSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHIIIIIIIITTTTTTTAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! !! SWAK...ALoHA's
15 hohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohoho's etc

(Bill Oliver) wrote in
:


I have been following the debate but I have not done a literature
search to determine the merits of both sides. I myself, use roundup -
very sparingly - and not in areas where I think there is a likelihood
of contaminated the ground water.

I CAN say that based on my professional experience, that I am HIGHLY
skeptical of any chemical company propaganda.



Fine. Let's keep it to the scientific literature, then. Please
provide a single scientific article in a peer-reviwed journal that
claims to show that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used
as directed.

What the man is saying, Bill, is that it is very well possible and even
likely that this scientific literature is also possibly 'influenced' by
the companies.

I admire your stubborness, and agree with David J Bockman elsewhere,
that you exposed a fair amount of irrationality and even dishonesty in
your opponents.

But IMO the reason why this drags on is that you are so rigidly trusting
scientific evidence. History is full of monumentous mistakes that at the
time were either not seen in need of scientific approval or were
approved with the (incomplete) knowledge of that time. And this was all
before there were these gigantic corporations at work that have more
money at their disposal than their own government and (provenly) use it
to distort the fact-finding with our current (and STILL incomplete)
knowledge.

I find it hard to believe that _anyone_ could be so rigid in trusting
the evidence around a product coming from a company that is known to be
dishonest in the past and is currently bargaining for the right to print
money during the next 100 years. Since you _are_ that 'someone', not
even allowing for a shred of doubt about all this, I find it hard to
believe the rest of your statements as well.

Ppl are not only making their decisions based upon pure information;
they also look at where the information is coming from. It is to me
quite acceptible and even applaudible that we (or the majority of us)
are not believing _anything_ that has to do with claims made by Monsanto
or by research surrounding their products. For every article that shows
doubt about safeness of their products there will be needed at least 10
articles proving the opposite. That is the price MS is paying now for
their behavior in the past. If they only showed they were at least aware
of this PR problem there might be a solution. Until then all the
scientific evidence in the world will not convince ppl and make it more
expensive to sway the politicians.

Ursa..

BTW. I'm a mathematician by education and CEO/owner of a small
IT-company; I favor organic gardening but occasionaly use Roundup in
spot-application. The recent charade around GM-tech lawmaking and
dooming tradewar between US and EUR made me watch Monsanto with more
interest. What I came to know since then will not make me trust Monsanto
again during my lifetime. If one company should be closed down because
of criminal behavior it is them.

--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______

In article ,
Major Ursa wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in
:


What the man is saying, Bill, is that it is very well possible and even
likely that this scientific literature is also possibly 'influenced' by
the companies.


He provides no evidence that the science is bad.


But IMO the reason why this drags on is that you are so rigidly trusting
scientific evidence.

Yeah, when we know we *really* should be trusting Tarot
cards and channelling.

Animaux said it best with her little:

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

Nothing like a little anti-rational sexist bigotry to really
show what's important. Maybe Robin Morgan is right.
We should be basing our science on listening to
telepathic messages from the dolphins.


History is full of monumentous mistakes that at the
time were either not seen in need of scientific approval or were
approved with the (incomplete) knowledge of that time.


And even greater mistakes made by anti-scientific
irrationality.



I find it hard to believe that _anyone_ could be so rigid in trusting
the evidence around a product coming from a company ...


In other words, ignore the science, ignore the evidence,
ignore any rational considerations about the product
itself whatsoever.

Roundup is dangerous because you don't like Monsanto.
No other evidence is needed or accepted.

Any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed out of
hand. The fact there is *no* evidence whatsoever that
Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed
is *irrelevant.*

And, of course, after all these screeds about conflict
of interest and the horrors of making money, you
ignore the fact that animaux made a *career* of pushing
this bullshit. You want to talk about conflict of
interest? And Tom -- he certainly clammed up when
asked what kind of money he made from pushing his
anti-science agenda. As far as I know, the only
person in this discussion who isn't making money
one way or the other on this is me.

Funny, you don't have any problems with *that*
conflict of interest, do you?

Roundup must be declared dangerous because it represents
unacceptable thought.

Pure and simple.

That's why the lack of any evidence of danger to humans
when used as directed is irrelevant, and why anybody
guilty of the non-organic thought crime must be
demonized.


billo

(Bill Oliver) wrote in :

History is full of monumentous mistakes that at the
time were either not seen in need of scientific approval or were
approved with the (incomplete) knowledge of that time.


And even greater mistakes made by anti-scientific
irrationality.

That may be true and we should try to avoid that as well. But people are
irrational, period. That is why they could be deceived by Monsanto and
that is why they keep distrusting them after that, maybe longer than
needed, but still...

I find it hard to believe that _anyone_ could be so rigid in trusting
the evidence around a product coming from a company ...


In other words, ignore the science, ignore the evidence,
ignore any rational considerations about the product
itself whatsoever.

Roundup is dangerous because you don't like Monsanto.
No other evidence is needed or accepted.

If you read that in my words I think it's time to sit back and read it
again. I did not say that.

I'm only saying there are other concerns beside the purely rational ones.
If you do not allow for that the rest of your arguments will never be
heard. Fact of life.

Any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed out of
hand. The fact there is *no* evidence whatsoever that
Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed
is *irrelevant.*

Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their trust.
They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational) doubts.

And, of course, after all these screeds about conflict
of interest and the horrors of making money, you
ignore the fact that animaux made a *career* of pushing
this bullshit. You want to talk about conflict of
interest? And Tom -- he certainly clammed up when
asked what kind of money he made from pushing his
anti-science agenda. As far as I know, the only
person in this discussion who isn't making money
one way or the other on this is me.

And me :-). Btw. I'm not accusing you of conflict of interest; I just
asked you to acknowledge that such things exist and to give us your
opinion on it. Since you so intensely ignore that issue it is as if you
deny it.

Funny, you don't have any problems with *that*
conflict of interest, do you?

I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.

Roundup must be declared dangerous because it represents
unacceptable thought.

Pure and simple.

Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought and an unacceptable form
of doing business, yes. We do not have to agree on that. However, if the
sheer amount of historic lies by Monsanto does not even make you doubt the
evidence, then you can not expect ppl to take you serious. This is just an
observation I make, trying to explain why you didn't win any hearts.

That's why the lack of any evidence of danger to humans
when used as directed is irrelevant, and why anybody
guilty of the non-organic thought crime must be
demonized.

I don't think Monsanto needs any demonizing by me, they are doing a rather
good job themselves.

I'm really concerned. Monsanto is trying to use still underresearched GM-
technology to get an edge that will pay out 10000-fold during the coming
century. Of course they will use any means to get to that goal. They have
en enormous apparatus in place to misinform all the officials and they
don't even deny it. They have about the worst track-record possible
regarding environmental issues.
In this game, with huge, huge interests at stake, Roundup plays a central
role. It would seem only logical that because of that alone there would be
hardly any trustworthy evidence around.

If you refuse to acknowledge these simple facts you can not expect us to
take your position seriously. To me this thread was an interesting attempt
to get some more insight in this difficult issue. In weighing the evidence
I tried to get a hold on the thought-processes behind them. I think the
picture is complete by now.

Thanks anyway for the lively debate,

Ursa..


--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______

In article , wrote:

I'm an author of 22 nonfiction educational books.
I'm also under contract with a major publisher. [clip] So I
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

Good for you. One very OCCASIONALLY finds actual surgeons posting in the
medicine newsgroups, but mostly a bunch of dumb farts who think they can
cure cancer with echinacea, & one VERY occasionally finds working writers
in the "writers" newsgroups, but mostly just wannabes who reinforce each
others amateur standards & beliefs. It's generally to be expected that
anyone in a How To Write Good newsgroup will speak loudest about How To
Write Good when they've never figured out how to go about it at all,
beyond the utterly democratic context of usenet, or posting their crap at
websites. And frequently their delusions & ideas are so off the mark that
they doom themselves through their own poor choices & mistaken beliefs, &
really won't like the HONEST answer to such questions as "how do I get an
agent" and other wannabe obsessions -- thus never can get can count
working writers among their peers. But if they're talentless anyway,
perhaps no reason to give them the correct information. Even so,
misc.writing, in among the flamers & fools, is sometimes very comical (on
purpose even), & a few genuinely charming people, with or without
delusions of actual talent.

One of the books I was contracted for, which I turned in, was paid for it
& spent the money, but which has been pending now for YEARS, was a guide
to miniature vegetable gardening in finite innercity spaces -- it was such
a cute book with tiny pictures of tiny veggies growing in tiny gardens, I
just loved working on that project. It got to the point of galleys, &
proof flats for the cover illustration -- then illness struck the
publisher & they went from ten books a year to less than one a year. Every
time I think about that little book I wish I could get the rights back as
it would be so easy to sell again. But alas it was work for hire & I
cannot just withdraw it from that publisher, even if they never do finish
the project.

It's been years since I've had to garden in an ultra-finite space & even
the yards I have now sometimes seem too limiting since I can't do such
things as collect a whole bunch of beech tree cultivars, which I would
certainly do if I had a lot of land. I wish I could plant a flowering
understory in a surrounding piece of property that was half wilderness. I
just want to spread out & spread out, & collect more trees as well as
small things . . . if someday when I'm a feeb and have to garden only in a
window box in the old folks home, I suppose I'll readjust, but cannot at
present quite imagine it. If I ever sell the house we own now, the only
thing that would make the disruption rewarding would be if the next place
could be gigantic garden time.

A regular here, Valkyrie, went from big gardens to patio gardening, & her
experiences shared in this group have many times gotten me thinking about
whether I would get depressed about scaling down or just maximize the
experience of smaller space & get just as much pleasure. People do adjust
to much tougher things.

-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 , "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:

I have been following the debate but I have not done a literature search to
determine the merits of both sides. I myself, use roundup - very
sparingly - and not in areas where I think there is a likelihood of
contaminated the ground water.

I CAN say that based on my professional experience, that I am HIGHLY
skeptical of any chemical company propaganda.

I worked for over 15 years as a Petroleum Geologist. It was a great job.
It was like looking for buried treasure and getting paid to do it. It was
very exciting and glamouous. When the bust hit the oil business in Houston
in the 1980's, I got a job as an "Environmental Geologist" with a consulting
company in Houston, Texas. I then saw the downstream part of the petroleum
business. The company I worked for had as clients companies like Dow
Chemical, BASF, Oxy Petrochemical and others. The main business of the
company I worked for was to petition the EPA to allow injection of hazardous
waste into injection wells. Congress had previously bannned injection wells
for hazardous waste but the petro chemical industry used its political
influence and got congress to allow injection if it could be proved that the
waste stream would be safe for ten thousand years. I saw first hand how our
clients would completely ignore any evidence or data that would not allow
them to get a petition for their wells. I pointed the evidence out to the
companies. They did not want to hear it and purposely left the data out of
their petitions. For example, one location in South Louisiana had faults
that faulted the injection zone AND the faults came all the way to the
surface. This was verified by numerous lines of seismic data. (Data the EPA
did not have and probably could not afford to buy with their limited budget)
In another instance I was told that I must doctor my geologic cross sections
to prove that a major fault in the Corpus Christi area was a sealing fault
at the level of the injection zone. I refused because there was already
published literature that disproved this case. In another case a very large
chemical company in the Freeport. Texas area continued to rent out storage
space in caverns created in a salt dome even AFTER they learned that the
dome was still active geologically and was shearing the casing in their own
product storage wells AND they were loosing product into the qround water
aquifer. After several years, I could no longer tolerate being a chemical
company whore and quit. I notified the USEPA of some of the things I saw
during my employment. They were sympathetic but the State of Texas had
primary control and the State enforcement agency was bought off by the petro
chem industry. The EPA and other enforcement agencies simply can not
compete with the big bucks of Industry. If you throw enough money at a
project you can "proove" almost anything. I then went to work for NOAA as a
Physical Scientist and Hydrologist where I retired a year and a half ago.
Do I think that roundup will cause the end of the world if used as
directed - no, at least I hope not. Do I think the information supplied by
the manufacturer is accurate and as safe as they claim - HELL NO.
I would advise anyone who uses ANY chemical product to have serious doubts
about the safety of said products. I know what the industry will do - or
not due to make the big bucks.

What an amazing insightful post. Thanks.

-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 ,
Major Ursa wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in :


I find it hard to believe that _anyone_ could be so rigid in trusting
the evidence around a product coming from a company ...


In other words, ignore the science, ignore the evidence,
ignore any rational considerations about the product
itself whatsoever.

Roundup is dangerous because you don't like Monsanto.
No other evidence is needed or accepted.

If you read that in my words I think it's time to sit back and read it
again. I did not say that.

I'm only saying there are other concerns beside the purely rational ones.
If you do not allow for that the rest of your arguments will never be
heard. Fact of life.


OK. We can agree then. That there is no rational basis for believing
that Roundup is a danger to humans when used correctly.

You believe that Roundup is a danger to humans when used correctly
based purely on irrational, unscientific, ideologic bases.

OK. Go with God.

Just don't *pretend* that you have a rational or scientific
basis for your belief.



Any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed out of
hand. The fact there is *no* evidence whatsoever that
Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed
is *irrelevant.*

Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their trust.
They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational) doubts.



And by "ignore" you mean "fail to pander to." As in

"Oh, yes, there is absolutely no rational basis for
it, but let's pretend that Roundup is dangerous because
it makes us feel better."




Funny, you don't have any problems with *that*
conflict of interest, do you?

I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.


On the contrary. That is exactly what you accuse Monsanto of. You may
have not joined the lynch mob around *me,* but you somehow decline to
use the same criteria when evaluating the critics of Roundup as you do
when evaluating the claims of Monsanto. Tell me, Ursa, what about the
conflict of interest by those in the organic gardening industry --
those who make money pandering to what you agree are irrational fears?





Roundup must be declared dangerous because it represents
unacceptable thought.

Pure and simple.

Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought...


I didn't say "Monsanto." I said "Roundup."


Recognizing the science, and noting that ther is no evidence of danger
to humans when Roundup is used as directed is a *thought crime.*

Whether or not Roundup actually causes damage to humans is
*irrelevant.*



If you refuse to acknowledge these simple facts you can not expect us to
take your position seriously.


If you have any *facts* that show that Roundup is a danger to humans
when used as directed, bring them out.

Simply saying you don't like Monsanto doesn't make Roundup dangerous to
humans when used as directed.

Your argument boils down to the fact that your dislike for Monsanto
means that you don't care about the facts about Roundup.

That's fine. Just recognize that your opinion about Roundup is totally
irrational and not based on science or fact.

And don't pretend otherwise.



billo

Give it up Bill. I never mentioned where you work, nor do I care, nor do I
necessarily believe because you have published papers, have different degrees
and can cut open a human down the middle that, you are necessarily more
qualified than any of us to determine that glyphosate is unhealthy or not.

I am not keeping Tom's work place secret, I happen to know where he works.
That's all I said. I still have no idea, nor do I care where you work.

I've been in the same category as you with someone with way too much free time
to drum up every post I'd ever made and used them against me. That didn't work
on me, and it shouldn't work on you, either.

All I am saying is that I am a homemaker, where I used to work is of no value to
you now, and that's really all I have to say. If Tom decides to tell you where
he works, so be it. I can say he is qualified and rather well informed. I
don't need to blow smoke up his ass. He is confident in himself.

So, anything else? If not, then take good care and forever may you be mindful
that the peer reviewed studies can and are tainted in the agchem industry. It's
done all the time. If Dr. Leibig were still alive, I'd send you to him to find
out. I'm relatively sure you can drum up his C.V.


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

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

(Bill Oliver) wrote in
:

If you read that in my words I think it's time to sit back and read it
again. I did not say that.

I'm only saying there are other concerns beside the purely rational
ones. If you do not allow for that the rest of your arguments will
never be heard. Fact of life.


OK. We can agree then. That there is no rational basis for believing
that Roundup is a danger to humans when used correctly.

You believe that Roundup is a danger to humans when used correctly
based purely on irrational, unscientific, ideologic bases.

I believe that there is no rational basis for believing that Roundup is
no danger to humans when used correctly.

OK. Go with God.

Just don't *pretend* that you have a rational or scientific
basis for your belief.

Scientific no, rational yes. It would be the first time EVER that
Monsanto spoke the truth; hardly believable. And besides, the best
decisions are hardly ever made purely rational.

Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their
trust. They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational)
doubts.

And by "ignore" you mean "fail to pander to." As in

"Oh, yes, there is absolutely no rational basis for
it, but let's pretend that Roundup is dangerous because
it makes us feel better."

No, I don't mean that. Just adress the issue and show that you have the
same doubts about a companies trackrecord. It only shows your human..

Funny, you don't have any problems with *that*
conflict of interest, do you?

I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.


On the contrary. That is exactly what you accuse Monsanto of. You
may have not joined the lynch mob around *me,* but you somehow decline
to use the same criteria when evaluating the critics of Roundup as you
do when evaluating the claims of Monsanto.

As I said, I believe that Monsanto should do a much better job in
proving their claims. It should be proven above and beyond all doubt,
easily verifiable for everyone and without any connections between the
researchers and the company. This should do a ridiculous amount of
proving; that is the price they pay for past behavior.

Tell me, Ursa, what about
the conflict of interest by those in the organic gardening industry --
those who make money pandering to what you agree are irrational fears?

I disagree with using fear as a means of getting business. I would think
that the majority in that part of the industry has genuine concerns
about non-organic farming. And if not, they can hardly do as much damage
with their lies as Monsanto can (and will if it makes them money).

I prefer organic farming not out of fear but because I think it is
better for our future, more in balance with the complicated machine
called nature that we still do not understand, and in the long run
cheaper to execute. The current path is a dead-end creating more
problems than it solves.

Roundup must be declared dangerous because it represents
unacceptable thought.

Pure and simple.

Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought...


I didn't say "Monsanto." I said "Roundup."

Hmmm. Roundup and its linkage to GM-tech represents Monsanto's way of
thinking.

Recognizing the science, and noting that ther is no evidence of danger
to humans when Roundup is used as directed is a *thought crime.*

Whether or not Roundup actually causes damage to humans is
*irrelevant.*

I don't think so. I even hope it is as you state it. I think the current
evidence pro Roundup is too thin, in light of historical
misrepresentation. I find this rather rational actually and would find
it a sign of poor judgement of it wasn't taken into consideration.
Frankly, I can hardly believe that you are doing it.

If you refuse to acknowledge these simple facts you can not expect us
to take your position seriously.


If you have any *facts* that show that Roundup is a danger to humans
when used as directed, bring them out.

Simply saying you don't like Monsanto doesn't make Roundup dangerous
to humans when used as directed.

I think that simply saying that there is no evidence showing Roudup is
dangerous in not enough. The absence does not prove anything. There
could be a lot of reasons why that evidence is not available.

Your argument boils down to the fact that your dislike for Monsanto
means that you don't care about the facts about Roundup.

Because of the reasons why I dislike MS I want more facts, more, more.
As long as it isn't proven beyond any (even unreasonable) doubt the
claims are suspect. Anyone believing them at this stage is either naive
or suspect.

That's fine. Just recognize that your opinion about Roundup is
totally irrational and not based on science or fact.

And don't pretend otherwise.

I think my behavior is rational. As in an analogy you brought up
earlier; if the Germans hadn't shown remorse about their crimes in WWII
we would still not trust anything they do and there wouldn't be a united
Germany now. And if Churchill had based his decisions purely on the
scientific data at that time, the Germans would not have been beaten.

Ursa..

--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______

On 19 Aug 2003 13:40:21 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


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."

Oooo, a scientific question. No such thing as perfect science. Again and again
I will tell you that the agchem industry has many of their facts eliminated
altogether from their *scientific, peer reviewed data* and I don't trust it.
Not for a long, long time.

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

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

I read about one sentence in paghats rants and my head spins. She is either way
too intelligent for me, or way too full of shit. Either way, I can't get through
much more than a sentence.
What kind of secrets are you guys hiding? *That* is "creepy."


billo

I have no secrets. I won't post my work address to you, if that's what you
mean. I work at home. I'm a house wife. A house frau. A gardener, retired,
free of working at the wheezing fluorescent tubes of the work place.

However, I stand on solid ground that, Roundup is not safe as table salt and
indeed does cause damage to soil where VAM fungi live and without fungi, many
plants could not exist. But do use it, drink it, baths are good too. Just not
in my house, please.