On 21 Aug 2003 00:56:44 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

In article ,
animaux wrote:
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.


It's a little late in the game to pretend you haven't read the
thread. But little deceits is what you three are made of, so
I'm not surprised.

billo

Billo, I truly do not know where you work. There are many parts of this thread
I have not read. I have no reason to be dishonest with you. I am not made of
deceits, sorry to say.

On 21 Aug 2003 11:09:25 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


How's this then. You don't know shit about human pathology.

How do you know what I know?

The questions is not whether or not Roundup is bad for roses.

Well, I can answer that one. Yes, it will kill roses to the ground, dead.

The question is whether or not Roundup is dangerous to humans
when used as directed.

The question is, how many people use anything as directed? I also contend that
human life is not the only form of life on the planet. I have respect for all
life.

That's a pathology/toxicology question.

That's fine. You still don't know anything about gardening, and still continue
to post to a garden newsgroup

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 11:09:25 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


How's this then. You don't know shit about human pathology.

How do you know what I know?



You certainly don't know the science. The only credentials
you trotted out was a religious catechism and the admission
that you made a career out of pushing this hysteria and are
now retired on the proceeds. You have condemned rational
and scientific examination as, in your sexist and bigoted
way, merely my "silly little man world of knowing."

But hey, if you want to trot out some bona fides in human
pathology, trot them out. I'm willing to see them.



The question is whether or not Roundup is dangerous to humans
when used as directed.

The question is, how many people use anything as directed? I also contend that
human life is not the only form of life on the planet. I have respect for all
life.



No, my claim is, and always has been, that Roundup is safe to
humans when used as directed. If you agree that this is true,
then say so. Otherwise, don't try to play word games and
diversions.


That's a pathology/toxicology question.

That's fine. You still don't know anything about gardening, and
still continue to post to a garden newsgroup


Indeed. Only anti-science fanatics should be able to opine
about Roundup on a gardening newsgroup, eh?


billo

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 20 Aug 2003 11:55:19 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


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

I'm not trying to shut you up. I did a very fast search on Ask Jeeves and this
is what I came up with.


There's a very nice utility for shortening these. See

http://www.tinyurl.com



Note that your site does *not* claim that Roundup is not safe
to humans when used as directed, and provides no evidence that
it is.



So, while I can easily find peer reviewed proof that RoundUp is safe if used
properly,...


Oh, then why have you denied it and spent all this time demonizing
me for noting the facts? Why the religious fanatacism in the face
of the facts? Why lie and claim that proof that it is not safe when
used as directed exists? Why the deceit?


Why the:



Billo is like my neighbor who went out and bought as many bags of diazinon he
could so he would never run out when it is pulled off the market.

I don't understand how people could possibly be so ignorant. It boggles my
mind."


Maybe I'm not as ignorant as you claim?


Why the:




Of course you can't [provide scientific evidence of the danger].

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



See how easy that was?
Your turn [to provide scientific evidence of the danger].
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?


Maybe it *hasn't* already been done?


billo

On 21 Aug 2003 14:40:35 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 11:09:25 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


How's this then. You don't know shit about human pathology.

How do you know what I know?



You certainly don't know the science. The only credentials
you trotted out was a religious catechism and the admission
that you made a career out of pushing this hysteria and are
now retired on the proceeds. You have condemned rational
and scientific examination as, in your sexist and bigoted
way, merely my "silly little man world of knowing."

Catechism? Religious? Shit man, I don't believe in god, so how can that be? I
am not now, nor was I ever "hysterical" about this, nor did I push it. I merely
joined it and continue to be part of the organic community as I'm intelligent
enough not to need synthetic fixes in order to have a garden. A rather large,
critically acclaimed garden at that.

I'm glad to see I struck a nerve on the "silly little man..." comment! I knew
you were a little man, oh Wizard of Oz.


No, my claim is, and always has been, that Roundup is safe to
humans when used as directed. If you agree that this is true,
then say so. Otherwise, don't try to play word games and
diversions.

In all good conscience I cannot say your assertion that RoundUp is safe to
humans when used as directed. Personally, I don't believe any organophosphate
is safe for anybody. So, I would agree that you "said" it is safe for humans if
used properly, but will contend that humans rarely use synthetic chemicals
properly. If they knew much about their destruction, they'd never use them.
Then again, people are lazy. More is always better. That's the mentality.

If you are so unread about gardening, why are you here in this newsgroup? Do
you have a garden? Did you ever have one? Do you use RoundUp? Would you
spray it with your child sitting in the weed patch, provided you used it
properly?

Indeed. Only anti-science fanatics should be able to opine
about Roundup on a gardening newsgroup, eh?


billo

Oooo, the big words. "Opine." Ooooo. I'm far from anti-science. I'm not for
paid for science. Big difference. My study of sciences are more directed at
learning self-sustaining agriculture, state of the art compost leachate (sp?),
how to make it, how to provide what plants need so stress isn't obvious to the
insect pests. Also, a healthy soil, for the most part, will not support weeds
in great numbers. Certain weeds which are highly successional will do well in a
fertile soil, but for the most part, weeds are generally indications of poor or
infertile, dead soil. Nature puts them there, somehow, to restore the dead soil
with organic matter. It's natural science in action.

So, please, do continue to blather and yell and brag, and bray. It suits you.
Continue to use synthetic pesticides. I'd expect nothing else. I have nothing
to prove. I have my own life, thank you, and it's a life which doesn't include
the poisoning of soil biota or anything for that matter. I provide the
environment which is self-sustaining by the wildlife and occasionally some water
till plantings are established.

Do as you will. Heeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

In article ,
animaux wrote:


Oooo, the big words. "Opine." Ooooo. I'm far from anti-science.


That's right. You love science as long as it agrees with your
preconceptions. Otherwise, toss it out.


billo

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 14:40:35 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


I'm glad to see I struck a nerve on the "silly little man..." comment! I knew
you were a little man, oh Wizard of Oz.



Yeah, you should try using "******" a few times. You'll have
loads of laffs striking nerves with that. Bigotry is always
a chuckle.



So, please, do continue to blather and yell and brag, and bray. It suits you.


I love this. You guys cyberstalk to find out where I work and
what I do in order to challenge my credentials and try
to discredit me. Now you whine when I turn it back on you.
What a bunch of hypocrites.

billo

On 21 Aug 2003 15:00:19 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

There's a very nice utility for shortening these. See

http://www.tinyurl.com

Very nice.

Note that your site does *not* claim that Roundup is not safe
to humans when used as directed, and provides no evidence that
it is.

Used as directed being the key phrase. It's not used as directed in most cases,
and that misuse is indeed harmful to humans. Maybe you need to think outside
the box a little.

Oh, then why have you denied it and spent all this time demonizing
me for noting the facts? Why the religious fanatacism in the face
of the facts? Why lie and claim that proof that it is not safe when
used as directed exists? Why the deceit?

I never deceived you. If I have, you didn't quote it here. I merely said that
RoundUp is not safe for humans. Prove to me it is safe. Prove to me humans use
it correctly. Prove to me RoundUp Ready Soy and Corn is safe to consume. Tell
me how the world is better off having it than not having it. All thoughts which
go well outside the tiny corridor within which you make your scientific claims.

What religious fanaticism? What the hell are you talking about?


Maybe I'm not as ignorant as you claim?

I wouldn't know. I actually don't really care, either.

Maybe it *hasn't* already been done?


billo

What's in this for you? Must be something. I can't wrap myself around this
silly notion that because a label says something, you actually believe people
read it and follow it.

That is silly.

On 21 Aug 2003 15:35:01 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

In article ,
animaux wrote:


Oooo, the big words. "Opine." Ooooo. I'm far from anti-science.


That's right. You love science as long as it agrees with your
preconceptions. Otherwise, toss it out.


billo

No, I'm for state of the art science which shows time and again to be superior
to the old conventional ways of growing plants and suppressing weeds. That you
are unaware of this entire huge world of knowledge puts you more in the
singular, rather dogmatic box than I will ever be.

That you know virtually nothing of how to garden without synthetic chemicals,
yet claim to be a this or that (put title here) is seriously endangering to the
science world. Your backwater scientific studies which overlook about 90% of
the damage because it is not directly linked to damage to humans shows me that
you are of no mind regarding life in its many forms.

That you claim I am fanatically religious is even funnier.

Did it ever occur to you that the big Monsanto engine has hidden the scientific
data? Do you ever watch Bill Moyers? Are you so swooned by the lies the agchem
industry sells to you that you are drunk on the Vicks you swath beneath your
nostrils?

I don't care if you agree with your perception or my accused pre-conception.
Since the fact is RoundUp is legal, this is a rather moot discussion. Go, use
it. Have fun. Yay.

On 21 Aug 2003 15:49:01 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


Yeah, you should try using "******" a few times. You'll have
loads of laffs striking nerves with that. Bigotry is always
a chuckle.

You liken being called a little man, to the racist comment, "******?" Wow. My
mother is married to a black man. Not some latte colored black man, a deep,
dark, chocolate brown black man. Yeah, we are bigots. But you're a little,
tiny man.


I love this. You guys cyberstalk to find out where I work and
what I do in order to challenge my credentials and try
to discredit me. Now you whine when I turn it back on you.
What a bunch of hypocrites.

billo

Whoa who ha ha! I never stalked you, I have no idea where you work and I don't
really care about your credentials. I know many people with credentials who I
wouldn't trust to watch my macaw when I went on vacation.

The admission that you are turning it back on "you" (us) is childish on your
part. Doesn't do much to support all those credentials, now, do it? Oh, I got
that "do it" ebonics from my mother's black husband. He has credentials too.
Doesn't make him a scientist.

For one time in my life I think I'll join paghat. It would seem she's had
enough of your silly notions and claims. Your inane scientific evidence. Hey,
the blood in the Bronco was Nicole Brown, and Ron Goldman, mixed in with OJ
blood. The DNA evidence was overwhelming. He was found not guilty after almost
two years of trial, pre-trial and other assorted hearings. That was science.
Oh well.

In article ,
says...
I was the one who
said Monsanto's ad campaign where they say, "Roundup, safe as table salt..." was
pulled by a New York court and was being sued for a number of things. I don't
ever recall YOU saying the phrase

Why is it that Monsanto in New York courts is always
thrown about when in fact it was the total pest control
industry across the country that had to change. No
words or phrases such as "Safe As","Less toxic than",
"EPA registered", "Organic" even when true, are not
allowed to be used in advertising/ solicitation.
Here is part from Texas' laws and regulations...

(5) a statement directly or indirectly implying that a
pesticide or device is recommended or endorsed by any
agency of the state or federal government, such as "EPA
Registered" or "EPA Approved";
(6) a true statement used in such a way as to give a
false or misleading impression to the consumer;
(7) disclaimers or claims which negate or detract from
labeling statements on the product label;
(8) claims as to the safety of a pesticide or its
ingredients, including statements such as "free from
risk or harm", "safe", "non-injurious", "harmless", or
"non-toxic to humans and pets", with or without such a
qualifying phrase as "when used as directed";
(9) claims that the pesticides and other substances
the licensee applies, the application of such
pesticides, or any other use of them are comparatively
safe or free from risk or harm;
(10) claims that the pesticides and other substances
the licensee applies, the applications of such
pesticides, or any other use of them, are
"environmentally friendly", "environmentally sound",
environmentally aware", environmentally responsible",
pollution approved", "contain all natural ingredients",
"organic", or are "among the least toxic chemicals
known"; and
(11) claims regarding its goods and services for which
the licensee does not have substantiation at the time
such claim is made.

Not sure if it is just an old "exterminator tale", but
have heard that #11 was the strongest argument for the
change. How can a product be compared to table salt when
there has never been any long term studies of table salt
in the environment and who is going to spend the
millions to do the study simply for wording on a label
or advertising.

--

http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/owl1.jpg

Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!

In article ,
says...
on the planet. I have respect for all
life.


Unless of course you happen to be a harmless solitary
wasp that has decided to associate in large numbers on
your property, turning over enough dirt in a 24 hour
period that would make any ant green with envy..then
it's a case of break out the tennis rackets..tis time to
kill dem cicada killers!!
--

http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/spid2.jpg

Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!

In article , tomj wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:26:20 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

" EPA is reviewing CCA under two different tracks which will result in the
most rigorous risk assessment ever done on a wood preservative pesticide...
It is important to note.. that EPA has not concluded that CCA-treated wood
poses unreasonable risks to the public for existing structures made with
CCA-treated wood."



Effective December 31, 2003, the use of CCA-treated wood will be
limited to certain industrial and commercial applications. This change
reflects increased concerns in the marketplace about the safety of
treated wood containing arsenate and chromium, particularly in
applications such as playground equipment. Residential applications
affected by the change include play structures, decks, picnic tables,
landscaping timbers, residential fencing, patios, and
walkways/boardwalks


It could be that the little "EPA never banned CCA" chappy was lying on
purpose, or it may be like a lot of other arguing-in-favor-of-big-business
in this thread, if it is "true" the ban never occurred, it becomes so by
playing convoluted semantic games avoiding actualities. The industry did a
proper end-run in agreeing with EPA to voluntarily stop selling the
product -- thereby making any EPA ban a unecessary. This is how EPA usualy
gets bad stuff off the market, years & years of negotiation rather than
strong-arming. The industry comes out ahead on two levels, first, by
settlement they got to select the phase-out period & keep selling all
existing stocks of CCA lumber for a couple more years & even make more of
it for market right up to the end of 2003. Second, for lawsuits already in
progress & more certain to occur in the future, the industry won't have
the issue of the EPA having forced them against their will. A settlement
is not a ban -- a ban would only follow a failure to compromise --
therefore, semantically speaking, EPA having forced the industry to stop
poisoning people isn't the same as EPA banning the industry from doing so.
Semantics are feeble things for covering lies, but it permits the lies to
be carried over even into courts of laws without some judge slamming the
attorneys in the clink.

-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:

paghat wrote:

...

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.

Must have been a huge disappointment for you. And it sounds like a great
book -- are you sure there's no way you can resurrect it? Since the
publisher, in effect, defaulted on your agreement, it would seem that
you'd have some options of getting it published. It's such a shame to
just let the project die.

Unfortunately by the terms of work for hire an author loses all rights.
Work for hire should never be done. Author should always retain copyright.
In this case the idea wasn't strictly mine & I'd had such great dealings
with the publisher on two other projects (and did retain copyright on
those books since they were my ideas from the start). The publishers
became dear friends, & when one of them got extremely ill, I could hardly
add insult to injury demanding rights I'd signed away. I mentioned the
orphaned book to an editor at Sasquatch Books not to re-sell it, just
talking about projects that went astray, & she immediately asked to see
the manuscript -- but it just wasn't possible to do that legally & with
decency. I may someday ressurect the project under a different title and
write a whole new text, as the original text was keyed to available seeds,
and many of the available varieties have changed since. But for so long as
the publisher is issuing even a book a year, I feel it would be wrong to
step on any toes.

...

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.

I sometimes miss having a big yard where I can plant huge perennial
gardens ... but frankly, I don't miss the work involved. (Does that make
me a gardening misfit?) But I do get so much enjoyment out of all the
flowers I'm raising in planters and pots. Hey, wanna peek? He

http://www.pjparks.com/citygarden.htm

PJ

Nice pot jungle in those photos. I see lots of room to stack & expand. I
notice no windowboxes for instance. If attaching them is banned by the
condo they could still be stacked/freestanding to look like window boxes.
I see you go for floweriness -- I'd add a few things woody that might be
only leaves most of the year, then flowers packed in under, partly so that
there's something left over in winter. You could also train shade-vines
through the living room or over the bedboard. Could have a small
worm-compost in the kitchen. Hey, maybe i COULD readjust if I had to.....

-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 21 Aug 2003 15:35:01 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

No, I'm for state of the art science which shows time and again to be superior
to the old conventional ways of growing plants and suppressing weeds.


Oh? And what "state of the art science" is it that shows that Roundup is
dangerous to humans when used as directed?

None?

I thought not.


That you know virtually nothing of how to garden without synthetic chemicals,
yet claim to be a this or that (put title here) is seriously endangering to the
science world. Your backwater scientific studies ...


*My* backwater scientific studies? Please. You have *no*
scientific studies that show that Roundup is dangerous
to humans when used as directed.


Did it ever occur to you that the big Monsanto engine has hidden the scientific
data?


Oooh. And the big bad old Monsanto also bought off *all* the scientists
*everywhere* who have *ever* worked and published. Pretty impressive.
Right up there with the Zionist World Government. It's the Monsanto
World Order, the Great Monsanto Conspiracy that has taken over all
science everywhere.

Except, of course for that "state of the art" science that never
seems to get published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals.

billo