In article ,
animaux wrote:
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.


Except, of course, that's not how you used it. Taking a line
right out of Robin Morgan, you invoked "little man way of knowing"
as a generic.

But that's OK, wiggle out of it.


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.


Blah blah blah. You jump in on the *very conversation* where
Tom plays his games and now you pretend to be Snow White.

Talk to the hand.


billo

"paghat" wrote in message
news
It could be that the little "EPA never banned CCA" chappy was lying on
purpose,

I guess you're referring to me with your snide label, so I'll respond: No,
I'm not lying, purposefully or otherwise. If you have any evidence to refute
the claim that the EPA never banned CCA treated lumber, please feel free to
post it.

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.

'convoluted semantic games avoiding actualities'.... interesting.

"In early 2002, the CCA manufacturers, or registrants as we call them,
approached EPA about their individual decisions to voluntarily phase-out
virtually all CCA residential uses, including CCA intended for use in
treating wood destined for decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers,
gazebos, residential fencing, patios, walkways and play structures."

I guess 'individual decisions to voluntarily phase out virtually all CCA
residential uses'='convoluted semantic games avoiding actualities' in
Paghat's book. I'm glad she was never my editor!

The industry did a
proper end-run in agreeing with EPA to voluntarily stop selling the
product -- thereby making any EPA ban a unecessary.

The EPA never approached CCA lumber manufacturers *to* stop selling their
product paghat. It never happened.

Dave

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:17:40 GMT, Lar opined:

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...

Uh, yeah, which is why a judge mandated they immediately pull the ad campaign.


(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.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:23:52 GMT, Lar opined:

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!!

I do not do the killing of the cicada killers. My husband does it. We still
have them, but not the many hundreds of them we used to have. There was a
lethal infestation on our property. I still have respect for them. I merely
didn't want to be stuck in the house for most of May, half of June...when they
do their thing.

On 21 Aug 2003 18:59:45 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:

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.

Little man, get a life.

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

Oy. I am seeing a trend of insanity here. Rain man, that you?

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.

You are getting paranoid.


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

billo

None that you would read. Do you know what compost tea is? Can you name,
without looking ten of the species of biota involved in healthy soil?

Didn't think so.

On 21 Aug 2003 19:02:07 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


Except, of course, that's not how you used it. Taking a line
right out of Robin Morgan, you invoked "little man way of knowing"
as a generic.

No, I pretty much meant quite literally, little man, as in tiny, short, needle
dick, short, baby hands, maybe even high heeled cowboy booted, too.


But that's OK, wiggle out of it.

Wiggle out of what? And the term okay is not spelled, "OK," for future
reference. Yeah, why not. I pulled it out.


Blah blah blah. You jump in on the *very conversation* where
Tom plays his games and now you pretend to be Snow White.

Talk to the hand.


billo

Huh? I don't know how aware you are, nor do I know you from this or any other
newsgroup, but Tom and I were constant bickering fighters on this newsgroup for
years. Then I think we realized we are on the same side and spoke at length and
he gave me very good information which now has my garden much healthier and I
notice a certain deficit of most noxious weeds as a result of very healthy,
overflowing with biota; soil.

I would never pretend to be Snow White. I wouldn't know how. I assure you that
though I'm 47 years old I'd never to date seen the Disney torture film, Snow
White. I mean, I am white. But I really don't like snow.

You're annoying at best, but if this is YOUR sacred cow, so be it. When will
you be spraying. Maybe you can share you RoundUp forays with the rest of us.
Tell us all about how you use it in the garden.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:22:09 GMT, "David J Bockman"
opined:


The EPA never approached CCA lumber manufacturers *to* stop selling their
product paghat. It never happened.

Dave


Prove it.

"animaux" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:17:40 GMT, Lar opined:

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...

Uh, yeah, which is why a judge mandated they immediately pull the ad
campaign.

No, that's not accurate animaux. The case was settled out of court. There
was no mandate from the court. There was no 'immediate order'.

"animaux" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:22:09 GMT, "David J Bockman"
opined:


The EPA never approached CCA lumber manufacturers *to* stop selling their
product paghat. It never happened.

Dave


Prove it.

Prove a negative? Logically, impossible, however we *can* look at the sworn
testimony of Jack E. Housenger, Associate Director, Antimicrobials Division
Office of Pesticide Programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(whom I have previously quoted), who testified before the Consumer Product
Safety Commission Hearing on Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood,
March 17, 2003:

"In early 2002, the CCA manufacturers, or registrants as we call them,
approached EPA about their individual decisions to voluntarily phase-out
virtually all CCA residential uses, including CCA intended for use in
treating wood destined for decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers,
gazebos, residential fencing, patios, walkways and play structures. EPA
accepted the registrants' actions..."

His entire testimony is he
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsh...estimony1.htm.


Dave

PS: Your ad hominem attacks on Bill Oliver are really despicable.

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

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.

No Billoboy I never challenged your credentials. What I challenged
was your ability to review Monsanto and its policies given your close
proximity to it's funding. As religious as your fervor is to defend
Monsanto it's obvious to some here you have some sort of interest in
defending a first class bunch of chemical pukes, charlatans and liars.
Personally I'm glad educations of your level are functioning in the
capacity you are. Fact remains you don't know shit about gardening,
soil, soil biology, and the effects of herbicides. Science and real
peer reviewed research is horribly lacking as many mainstream
herbicides go. What those of us who are stewards of gardens clearly
see daily are the ill effects of the products you defend. Read some
research on the effects of roundupon soil biology. Last I checked the
foods we eat (those of us who eat grocery store nutrient lacking crap)
is grown in those damaged soils. Science defended DDT and good science
will reveal glyphosphate for what it is.

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski tomj wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 15:49:01 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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.

No Billoboy I never challenged your credentials. What I challenged
was your ability to review Monsanto and its policies given your close
proximity to it's funding.

Which you asserted, but never demonstrated. Yet another lie.

Nonetheless, since you are so convinced that oppenness and disclosure
are important, why not display the same?


Where do you work?


What are your scientific credentials?


As you said, "the jig is up."


As religious as your fervor is to defend
Monsanto it's obvious to some here you have some sort of interest in
defending a first class bunch of chemical pukes, charlatans and liars.

Actually, I never once defended Monsanto. My claim is, and
always has been that Roundup is not dangerous to humans
when used as directed. You have not shown otherwise, while
I have provided multiple studies that show that it is safe
at these dosages, and requires very high dosages for damage.

You cannot refute that, so you stoop to primitive personal
attack, and lies at that.


Personally I'm glad educations of your level are functioning in the
capacity you are. Fact remains you don't know shit about gardening,
soil, soil biology, and the effects of herbicides.

I know about the human pathology. And I don't dismiss sicence
simply because it conflicts with my religion -- and my
personal cash flow.

Tell me, Tom, how much money do you make pushing your
anti-science agenda?

Science and real
peer reviewed research is horribly lacking as many mainstream
herbicides go. What those of us who are stewards of gardens clearly
see daily are the ill effects of the products you defend.

Oh, really? Do you have any documentation of the human patients
you've treated?


Read some
research on the effects of roundupon soil biology. Last I checked the
foods we eat (those of us who eat grocery store nutrient lacking crap)
is grown in those damaged soils. Science defended DDT and good science
will reveal glyphosphate for what it is.

It already has. It has revealed it to be safe for humans when
used as directed.

And all the personal villification and all the diversion in
the world doesn't change that.

And all your ducking about your conflict of interest makes
you no different than what you claim of Monsanto.

Hypocrite.

billo

In article ,
wrote:

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.

What a spaztard lizard. You may be abused, but you're not a language. And
I was a medical editor, not a flunky copyeditor. Even if I were to
copyedit it wouldn't be on UseNet -- roughdrafted at 100 words per minute,
hit post. You may rewrite four times & your blatherings still don't make
sense, but I can be totally wise even with typos, all in one swell foop.
Plus, you wannabe writers trolling from misc.writing inevitably prove Mark
Twain's dictum: "Who can spell can't write." 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, you might change your context
sufficiently to finally learn the difference between those of us who do, &
folks such as yourself who simply can't.

-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/

On 22 Aug 2003 01:35:31 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Which you asserted, but never demonstrated. Yet another lie.


Interesting, Billoboy. Anyone can review the record and find the
link. Too bad you have to hide behind smoke and mirrors. What about
the former leadership of your lab being employed by Monsanto? What
about Monsanto funding to the computer department where you recieved
your MS.

The jig is up...now be gone...plonk

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:13:29 -0700, Tom Jaszewski
opined:


No Billoboy I never challenged your credentials. What I challenged
was your ability to review Monsanto and its policies given your close
proximity to it's funding. As religious as your fervor is to defend
Monsanto it's obvious to some here you have some sort of interest in
defending a first class bunch of chemical pukes, charlatans and liars.
Personally I'm glad educations of your level are functioning in the
capacity you are. Fact remains you don't know shit about gardening,
soil, soil biology, and the effects of herbicides. Science and real
peer reviewed research is horribly lacking as many mainstream
herbicides go. What those of us who are stewards of gardens clearly
see daily are the ill effects of the products you defend. Read some
research on the effects of roundupon soil biology. Last I checked the
foods we eat (those of us who eat grocery store nutrient lacking crap)
is grown in those damaged soils. Science defended DDT and good science
will reveal glyphosphate for what it is.

I have this funny feeling this is too much information for some to fully
process. I don't know how many ways there are to try and inform people that it
is not ONLY the use of glyphosate pesticides, but the mentality of those who
over use it, never read the labels and don't follow directions of use at all.

Very cleverly, Monsanto has marketed this crap with its own nozzle and tube
coming from the bottle. I wonder how many people just start to spray around
and I wonder how many perfectly healthy plants are now dead from the drift. I
wonder how many non-label-readers have used it on windy days.

That said, we were watching our DVD of "Bowling for Columbine," which was
delivered two days ago from our amazon shopping cart. Michael Moore put it so
much more eloquently than I could put it, but in essence he was saying of our
culture of fear and consumerism, what we are saying about the mentality of
people how use glyphosate improperly.

It's not the glyphosate, necessarily (though I contend it is a huge part) but
it's the very closed off way of thinking and lack on knowledge, compiled with
the great inability of many to think outside the box to see the much bigger
picture. I'm not sure I can articulate it here, or anywhere. All I can say is
that, in this life, I am glad I get it. There are many more people who don't
get it, who will most likely never get it. In order for me to live a better
life, I give it a good shot and have to let go of it. Nothing is forever.

Victoria

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski tomj wrote:
On 22 Aug 2003 01:35:31 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Which you asserted, but never demonstrated. Yet another lie.


Interesting, Billoboy. Anyone can review the record and find the
link. Too bad you have to hide behind smoke and mirrors. What about
the former leadership of your lab being employed by Monsanto? What
about Monsanto funding to the computer department where you recieved
your MS.

The jig is up...now be gone...plonk


Hide behiind smoke and mirrors?


Who do you work for?


What are your credentials?


Talk about hiding!


Indeed, the jig is up -- you have nothing but empty assertions,
personal attack, and perhaps the most stunning hypocrisy I have seen in
20 years of being on USENET.

And talk about how hard you have to try. Not being able to find dirt
on *me* in spite of your cyberstalking efforts, you have to attack the
entire Computer Science department of the University of North
Carolina! And even then, only with empty assertions. Pathetic.

But what happens when I ask for trivial simple disclosure from you?
Funny, it's *so* important where I work and what my credentials are,
but you? Nah. Secrecy is key for you. You can only exist in the dark
and in ignorance.

You have no science to support you. You have no truth to support you.
All you have is secrecy and demonization.

billo