Okay, so, like, there was this, um, you know, animaux
, who was all, "You go girl," and then went:


On 23 Aug 2003 01:04:44 GMT, (Bill Oliver) opined:


Well, I guess that pretty much does it for any effort at rationa
discussion with someone like you. Sorry to have offended
your cult.

Will you at least tell me what the cult is I'm supposed to
subscribe to?


Of course not. It's against your religion. Science be damned.

What religion? I'm an atheist. What are you talking about? Oh,
the science of the mind? How would you know anything about that?
Don't you need a functioning mind in order to know the science
behind it?


I love this. You lose on science, you lose on demonization, and
now you stoop to pathetic, infantile threats. Pathetic.

Nah, just having a laugh. I didn't really save your post. Just
kidding. But sheesh, it sure did get you to sit up straight.

Oh, and when you run of to whine, be sure and include the
accusations that they are owned by Monsanto. They'll love that
one, too.


billo

Land Grant Universities are owned by the agchem industry. The
only one I know of which remotely has come to their senses is
Texas A&M, which finally did a study on turf grass fertilization
and which products work the best. Well, ding dong, the 8-2-4 of
certified organic fertilizer outperformed them all.


gawd. whoosh.

--
gekko

Today I will gladly share my experience and advice, for there are no
sweeter words than "I told you so".

On 28 Aug 2003 01:35:52 GMT, gekko opined:

Victoria wrote:
Land Grant Universities are owned by the agchem industry. The
only one I know of which remotely has come to their senses is
Texas A&M, which finally did a study on turf grass fertilization
and which products work the best. Well, ding dong, the 8-2-4 of
certified organic fertilizer outperformed them all.

gekko responded:
gawd. whoosh.

Mind telling me what:

gawd. woosh.

means?

On 26 Aug 2003 11:44:22 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

First I am not a gardener, I just plant a few things
now and then. But I am a retired ironworker, and several years
back worked at a plant locally that made 'roundup'. It is a chemical
that has to be respected. One of the workers got it on his arm, and
by the time he "knew it" he was burned very bad. Like I said, I was a
consturction worker there, we were making revisions. I still don't
know the makeup of roundup, but if I am around it I'm very careful.
Just my two cents, C. L.

Hi, animaux ! I'm responding to your message
, which you posted to
rec.gardens on 27 Aug 2003:



Mind telling me what:

gawd. woosh.

means?


Certainly.

"gawd" is a dialectical pronounciation of the word "God", which is
often used as an expletive to indicate an emotional response ranging
anywhere from awe to disgust. In this specific case, its intent was
to indicate incredulity.

"whoosh" (note correct spelling) is an onomatopoeic word. In this
case, it is being used to suggest the sound of a rushing passage of
air as though something went whisking over your head.

HTH.

HAND.

--
gekko

Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -- Jules
de Gaultier

On 29 Aug 2003 00:26:17 GMT, gekko opined:


"gawd" is a dialectical pronounciation of the word "God", which is
often used as an expletive to indicate an emotional response ranging
anywhere from awe to disgust. In this specific case, its intent was
to indicate incredulity.

Oh, so in other words, you had nothing to add or debate, so you used some silly
words. I see.

"whoosh" (note correct spelling) is an onomatopoeic word. In this
case, it is being used to suggest the sound of a rushing passage of
air as though something went whisking over your head.

HTH.

HAND.

Yeah, over my head. More like, out of the radar of the living.

Becky Sue, goddess of rec.gardens, hit the spitoon and done told me that animaux said in ...
On 29 Aug 2003 00:26:17 GMT, gekko opined:


"gawd" is a dialectical pronounciation of the word "God", which is
often used as an expletive to indicate an emotional response ranging
anywhere from awe to disgust. In this specific case, its intent was
to indicate incredulity.

Oh, so in other words, you had nothing to add or debate, so you used some silly
words. I see.

Nothing to add? How can anyone add anything worth reading to
that mishmash of high-toned incomprehension you composed?



"whoosh" (note correct spelling) is an onomatopoeic word. In this
case, it is being used to suggest the sound of a rushing passage of
air as though something went whisking over your head.

HTH.

HAND.

Yeah, over my head. More like, out of the radar of the living.

You really ought not diminish yourself so. I'm sure you're a
fine gardner, for example.


--
gekko

So I said, 'shouldn't that be 'hello, world wide web!' -- punchline that proves software engineers should be banned from telling jokes, much less making them up.

(paghat) wrote in message ...

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.


gardening has been hard this year with the weird weather
we're supposed to have a sunny day for the first time in 20 days (but
i
guess the weather has been equally dreary also elsewhere?)
my parents are going to help me clean my pond tomorrow i have empty
it (2500 gallons), catch all the fish, move them to a
holding tank, vaccuum the sludge from the bottom, scrub the liner,
refill, replace fish.

i will be doing all the cleaning and associated labor
dad will be supervising
mama is vice president in charge of catching fish-- times like this i
wish i had a video camera

mk5000


"First century - Spoke by turn (1 Cor. 14:27)
Today - All speak together today in mass confusion
First century - No interpreter? - Silence
(1 Cor 14:28)"--sensei shaolin

wrote in message . ..
On 26 Aug 2003 11:44:22 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

First I am not a gardener, I just plant a few things
now and then. But I am a retired ironworker, and several years
back worked at a plant locally that made 'roundup'. It is a chemical
that has to be respected. One of the workers got it on his arm, and
by the time he "knew it" he was burned very bad. Like I said, I was a
consturction worker there, we were making revisions. I still don't
know the makeup of roundup, but if I am around it I'm very careful.
Just my two cents, C. L.

Putting Roundup on our arms is not "used as directed" so Roundup is
not considered toxic at all according to Bill Oliver's insisting on
"used as directed" condition

(That means sulfuric acid H2SO4 and hydrofluoric acid HF are pretty
safe if we use them "as directed")

Anyway, if you can provide more information about the case in the
plant, including dates, locations, and else, others might find more
about the safety of Roundup. It is not documented in a scientific
journal as Bill demanded, but that provides something the gardeners
are looking for.

Roundup is sprayed in such a manner that it is entirely probable that it will come
into contact with skin, it does get inhaled. Humans and animals are very likely to
come into contact with sprayed plants as well and get transfer contact.
Neither sulfuric nor HF are sprayed in that manner, it is not directed to be used in
that manner.
The safety of products is tested not just for the majority of people, but the vast
majority and for children, who are often much more sensitive. And products must not
be safe only for occasional use, but must be safe for those who are using it all the
time. A reason many pesticides can only be used by people licensed to do so. Those
who's work is applying these pesticides are at the highest risk and why shouldnt they
be protected from high and cumulative toxic effects? The only way to assess risk of
toxicity is in animals who are given high and cumulative doses. There is very good
scientific reasons for the methodology. Past experience with toxins that have
slipped thru lesser testing methods has been a painful lesson to the science
community. DDT and thalidomide and DES and PCBs not to mention HRT and the long term
effect on women. The tests have to get more stringent, not less. But what is
sprayed and dumped into the environment has a much greater likely hood of getting
into the water supply, a much greater likely hood of persistence and poisoning for
generations compared to pills taken by some individuals. This is the poisoning of
earth just so a few companies can make some humongous short term profits.
Ingrid


(Siberian Husky) wrote:
Putting Roundup on our arms is not "used as directed" so Roundup is
not considered toxic at all according to Bill Oliver's insisting on
"used as directed" condition

(That means sulfuric acid H2SO4 and hydrofluoric acid HF are pretty
safe if we use them "as directed")


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

wrote in message ...
Roundup is sprayed in such a manner that it is entirely probable that it will come
into contact with skin, it does get inhaled. Humans and animals are very likely to
come into contact with sprayed plants as well and get transfer contact.
Neither sulfuric nor HF are sprayed in that manner, it is not directed to be used in
that manner.

That's not my point My point is basically -- you cannot judge the
safety or danger of something purely by what the
directions/instructions say, or on a "used as directed" condition.
Sometimes you have to assume the worst case scenario. For a child
toy, you have to assume the child breaks it and therefore any small
piece inside is deemed dangerous.

The safety of products is tested not just for the majority of people, but the vast
majority and for children, who are often much more sensitive. And products must not
be safe only for occasional use, but must be safe for those who are using it all the
time. A reason many pesticides can only be used by people licensed to do so. Those
who's work is applying these pesticides are at the highest risk and why shouldnt they
be protected from high and cumulative toxic effects? The only way to assess risk of
toxicity is in animals who are given high and cumulative doses. There is very good
scientific reasons for the methodology. Past experience with toxins that have
slipped thru lesser testing methods has been a painful lesson to the science
community. DDT and thalidomide and DES and PCBs not to mention HRT and the long term
effect on women. The tests have to get more stringent, not less. But what is
sprayed and dumped into the environment has a much greater likely hood of getting
into the water supply, a much greater likely hood of persistence and poisoning for
generations compared to pills taken by some individuals. This is the poisoning of
earth just so a few companies can make some humongous short term profits.
Ingrid

Thank you for making the point clear, and I agree to your words above
100%.

So far I support 100% of Bill Oliver's claim that Roundup is "safe"
when used as directed (or to put it another way, more correctly put,
no scientific evidences have found it "dangerous"). However, I myself
am not interested to try Roundup at all, because of the reasons you
gave above for DDT and thalidomide. We never know whether something
considered "safe" today will be found "dangerous" later, though we do
know something considered "dangerous" will likely remain that way
later. My yard is quite small and my fingers are the best tool to
deal with the weeds and other "unwanted" plants -- fortunately so far
blackberries and poison ivy did not grow in my yard and I do not need
to pull them out

Now before I conclude my participation on Roundup discussions, I
wonder whether other netters in the Pacific Northwest can do something
if they do use Roundup. It is now September, and the rainy season for
Seattle area will arrive soon. This means a bunch of slugs, several
inches long, will appear after a rain, munching on the lawn, the
flower, and anything which grows. At that time I wonder if someone
curious can spray Roundup onto the slugs and let us know what happens.
That might tell us "something" about the toxicity of Roundup......

(I do understand being toxic for the slugs and being toxic for human
beings might be totally different)





(Siberian Husky) wrote:
Putting Roundup on our arms is not "used as directed" so Roundup is
not considered toxic at all according to Bill Oliver's insisting on
"used as directed" condition

(That means sulfuric acid H2SO4 and hydrofluoric acid HF are pretty
safe if we use them "as directed")