"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , (Bill
Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates
using
glyphosate as table salt...


This is, of course, untrue. You would be more convincing,
paghat, if you did not start off your screeds with an untruth,
and go downhill from there.

Better go back & read your own posts. It was your FIRST shot out the
gate
repeating Monsanto's outdated table salt canard. It's what happens
when
you take your perspective solely from Monsanto -- you end up
repeating
their stupidist tacts.

Again... you are shooting yourself in the foot...

"Safe as table salt" is NOT the same as "using glyphosate as table
salt".

At this point, you are the only one stating that people should be
using this stuff instead of salt.

(Bill Oliver) wrote in :

In other words, you cannot provide a *single* article in the
scientific peer-reviewed literature that claims to show
that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. Thank
you very much.

Bill,

I admire your persistence in pressing this point and I agree that if one
is not able to do this (show literature) there is hardly any reason to put
Roundup in a bad light.

Still, I find it hard to believe that you are not worried a bit about the
proven (!) dishonesty by MS in dealing with lawmakers, watchdogs and the
congress. Surely you would find it as uncomfortable as most ppl that a
moneyloaded company like MS is able to get away with a reputation like
that? Especclaily since we are at a major turning point in human history
( GM-tech) in which they have such large interests.

I may be a bit filosophical and it may even be OT to discuss the morality
issue here, but I'm sincerely interested in your views on that; it might
help me to put your other statements in context. Thanks for the lively
debate anyway,

Ursa..

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

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:52:49 -0700, Tom Jaszewski opined:

Ecofundamentalist? Cyberstalking?
Your jig is up, you defend from a vested interest and it's public
information, no different here than reading newspaper accounts in a
library. The advantage to the internet is the ability to more easily
reveal the reasoning behind the overly defensive stand.


And your jig is up.

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.


Well, since we are in such a sharing mood, and since the
bunch here is such a fan of open disclosure, why don't
you tell us who *you* work for and what *your* qualifications
are?

Who do *you* work for?

What are *your* qualifications?


And, of course, my challenge stands. One article. One.


billo

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

In other words, you cannot provide a *single* article in the
scientific peer-reviewed literature that claims to show
that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed. Thank
you very much.

Bill,

I admire your persistence in pressing this point and I agree that if one
is not able to do this (show literature) there is hardly any reason to put
Roundup in a bad light.

Still, I find it hard to believe that you are not worried a bit about the
proven (!) dishonesty by MS in dealing with lawmakers....


It is irrelevant. My claims, and my challenge do not rely on
Monsanto.


I may be a bit filosophical and it may even be OT to discuss the morality
issue here, but I'm sincerely interested in your views on that; it might
help me to put your other statements in context. Thanks for the lively
debate anyway,



It is a different debate. It is one thing to claim that one should
not buy German cars because they all used to collaborate with
Nazis in the 1930s.

It is *another* to claim that all German cars have bad brakes
because they all used to collaborate with Nazis in the 1930s.

For the first, you can use all the philosophical arguments you
want. For the latter, you test the cars.

Feel free to argue that one should not use a Monsanto product
because you don't like the company. I have no opinion on that.
That does not, however, say anything at all about Roundup.


billo

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 11:32:23 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

As a Pathologist, I am competent to read the environmental
pathology and toxicology literature, and as as Forensic
Pathologist, I have a pretty good handle on what poisoning
entails.

And qualified to defend the very generous support Monsanto has
given your employer. Oops no wait, you are in no way tainted by your
self interests. My bad!

Curious how simply searching public information is called stalking
when the self interest behind your overly defensive posture is
revealed.

Your jig is up.



Well, Tom, since we are all about being out in the open
and all that, why don't you tell us who your employer
is and what your qualifications are.

Who is your employer?


What are your qualifications?


billo

In article ,
paghat wrote:

Thanks Tom. It was the one query he most kept avoiding, though I asked
quite nicely a couple of times -- what his emotional investment was in
loving Monsanto so wholeheartedly...



Well, since we are so open nowadays, let's hear from you.

Who is your employer?

What are your qualifications?

I am a licensed physician with training in microbiology,
molecular biology, cellular pathology, anatomic pathology,
clinical pathology, and forensic pathology.

What about you?

I have published in the peer reviewed scientific literature
that you are so fond of. Have you? I'll tell you what,
why don't we match publication by publication.

You first.


billo

So it isn't a triple-dark-fudge brownie with a scoop of vanilla bean icecream on top, but Phrederik did write something interesting in :

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , (Bill
Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates
using
glyphosate as table salt...


This is, of course, untrue. You would be more convincing,
paghat, if you did not start off your screeds with an untruth,
and go downhill from there.

Better go back & read your own posts. It was your FIRST shot out the
gate
repeating Monsanto's outdated table salt canard. It's what happens
when
you take your perspective solely from Monsanto -- you end up
repeating
their stupidist tacts.

Again... you are shooting yourself in the foot...

"Safe as table salt" is NOT the same as "using glyphosate as table
salt".

At this point, you are the only one stating that people should be
using this stuff instead of salt.

The quote wasn't even "safe as table salt". And, Dr. Oliver
could have used "purified water" for the purposes of the
argument he used and still have been accurate.

Here is the quote paghat is referencing:

Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce
mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly
poison. -- Bill Oliver Message-ID:

See also: http://tinyurl.com/kdgn

Saying that table salt is deadly is nowhere near the same as saying
"safe as table salt", nor even "using glyphosate as table salt."

Paghat's argument is not helped when she alters what was said
in order to support her statements.


--
gekko

For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 02:29:34 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Ecofundamentalist? Cyberstalking?
Your jig is up, you defend from a vested interest and it's public
information, no different here than reading newspaper accounts in a
library. The advantage to the internet is the ability to more easily
reveal the reasoning behind the overly defensive stand.


And your jig is up.




You don't understand. I am quite proud of where I work,
and I have no problems with you knowing that I am a
board-certified physician and have a MS in Computer
Science. I only object to this bullshit diversion
of you trying to attack me personally because you have
no science to back you up.

But, Tom, since we are all so open and eager to
put our cards on the table, what's good for the
goose is good for the gander.

Who is your employer?

What are your credentials?


Please, let's see your qualifications.



billo

In article , Tom Jaszewski
wrote:

On 18 Aug 2003 02:29:34 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:08:08 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:

. As you deny being the same Bill Oliver who services
Monsanto through the American Chemical Society,

Check out some of the staff at the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Billo's employer. Lots of Monsanto links there. Nothing
like defending your buddies and their interests.

( oh oh Ashcroft's bullies are probably reading this)


Pretty pathetic, this. A *complete* loss of any attempt
to provide a *single* peer reviewed scientific journal
article demonstrating that Roundup is dangerous to
humans when used as directed.

Instead, you slide to a pure campaign of personal
attack and cyberstalking. The ecofundamentalist
inquisitors are certainly out tonight.

But, since you have decided to drag my employer
into this, my views are my own and do not necessarily
reflect those of the United States Government,
the Department of Defense, the Armed Forces
Instituted of Pathology, or any entity
other than myself.


And my challenge stands.


billo


Ecofundamentalist? Cyberstalking?
Your jig is up, you defend from a vested interest and it's public
information, no different here than reading newspaper accounts in a
library. The advantage to the internet is the ability to more easily
reveal the reasoning behind the overly defensive stand.

And your jig is up.

I am really tempted to killfile him, but I've only killfiled about four
people in five years, & as a rule when someone becomes boring I can easily
delete their unread posts without resorting to the killfile, which is an
admission of an otherwise unavoidable fascination for the killfiled. The
temptation is not because I no longer like him. I assume he'll come back
to his senses on other topics if never this one. But I really am foolishly
tempted to keep reading him & replying, & it's just no longer any fun now
that he has sunk to the level of calling honest people liars while he
tells whoppers, & believes a single post from you stating a single obvious
reality makes you a "cyberstalker" (at least that rather extreme response
is an indirect confession you got it right). If I do as an admission of
fascination killfile him, I'll let him out of it in a week or two, or when
he changes his account again, whichever comes first. But when someone
who's been lying calls their betters liars & cyberstalkers, they really do
reduce themselves to flame fodder unworthy of being taken seriously at
all, & I am just not up for that this week. I did enjoy arguing the issues
with him, his empty & frustrating repetitions included, but when he
degenerated into calling reasonable people lairs & cyberstalkers he lost
his entertainment value as well as any lingering shred of credibility.

-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 ,
paghat wrote:
In article , Tom Jaszewski
wrote:


I am really tempted to killfile him, but I've only killfiled about four
people in five years, & as a rule when someone becomes boring I can easily
delete their unread posts without resorting to the killfile...



Feel free.

But in the meantime, since we are all so concerned with
being open and above board with our affiliations and
qualifications, why don't you tell us who you work for
and what your qualifications are?


Who do you work for, paghat?


What are your credentials?



After all, *you* thought it was *so* important to bring it up
when personally attacking me, since you have no science to
back up your position.

And, of course, my challenge stands. One single articles
in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to show
that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed.
One. You can't do it, can you?

And, of course, my challenge to your other claim also stands.
Please post where I wrote that one should use Roundup like
table salt or that it was as safe as table salt. Please.


You can do neither. All you have are personal attacks.



billo

(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Psalm 110 wrote:
"Dave Gower" "Nature-Hating Republican Liar" wrote in message
...
"Bill Oliver" wrote

... Smashing
in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity.

In fact, studies which look at real criteria repeatedly have found that
it is safe when used properly.

I think this is an succinct and definitive rebuttal to the hysterical
dogmatism of Paghat and other unthinking haters of big business.

Nature-Hating Republican Liar:


Ah, yes. If you can't argue the science, argue the person. Please
feel free to provide a single peer-reviewed published scientific
article that states that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed.

Trotting out articles that show that Roundup is toxic at very
high doses doesn't mean squat. The same thing is true of almost
all substances known to man.

Please provide a single article in a peer-reviewed journal
that claims that Roundup is dangerous when used as directed.


billo

Nature-Hating Toxic-Spewing Republican Liar snips the citations of
Peer-Reviewed published toxicity data, then ACCUSES ME of attacking
the liar without providing the proof which the liar snipped.

The integrity of the PERSON deserves arguing because the peer-reviewed
studies are settled beyond debate. Read the frigging MSDS required by
the EPA you damned fool gibbering idiot. The poison has a 22 year
halflife, meaning that whatever you use, one eight of it will still be
hanging around 30 years after you're dead.

The gift that keeps on poisoning, brought to you by the peer-reviewed
certified SATAN organization Mon-S(AT)AN-to.

In article ,
Psalm 110 wrote:

Nature-Hating Toxic-Spewing Republican Liar snips the citations of
Peer-Reviewed published toxicity data, then ACCUSES ME of attacking
the liar without providing the proof which the liar snipped.

In fact, none of the peer-reviewed articles you posted made
the claim that Roundup was dangerous to humans when used
as directed.

But, please, if I am wrong, feel free to point out the article
that does that.

Of course, you cannot do that. All you have are
personal attacks.


The integrity of the PERSON deserves arguing because the peer-reviewed
studies are settled beyond debate. Read the frigging MSDS required by
the EPA you damned fool gibbering idiot. The poison has a 22 year
halflife, meaning that whatever you use, one eight of it will still be
hanging around 30 years after you're dead.


One, just one, article in a peer-reviewed scientific article
that states that Roundup is dangerous to humans when used
as directed.

Nobody has argued that one cannot overdose or get acute
toxicity from overexposure. And the articles you posted
do a good job of showing that high doses are toxic -- as
is true with aspirin, salt, sugar, water, etc.

*None* of the peer-reviewed scientific articles you
posted, however, claim to show that Roundup is dangerous
to humans when used as direct. However, if you have such
an article, trot it out.


Please. Feel free.


Here, I'll help you. Just fill in the blanks:

Authors:
Title:
Journal:
Year:
Vol:
Pages:


Otherwise, it's not *me* who has a problem with truth.


billo

In article , "Phrederik"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , (Bill
Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
I'm sure there aren't many who believe Billo when he advocates
using
glyphosate as table salt...


This is, of course, untrue. You would be more convincing,
paghat, if you did not start off your screeds with an untruth,
and go downhill from there.

Better go back & read your own posts. It was your FIRST shot out the
gate
repeating Monsanto's outdated table salt canard. It's what happens
when
you take your perspective solely from Monsanto -- you end up
repeating
their stupidist tacts.

Again... you are shooting yourself in the foot...

"Safe as table salt" is NOT the same as "using glyphosate as table
salt".

Fascinating. And what else is table salt used for precisely that would
make the parallel even marginally sensible? I can well imagine that in
your world, if you were thinking a bit mroe clearly, "No more dangerous
than table salt" which Billo claims for glyphosate, & my close paraphrase
"Safe as table salt," are nowhere near the same statements. Yet here you
are admitting "safe as table salt" IS a reasonable statement for Billo to
have made -- you addmitted this as an accident? or from your decision not
to avoid honesty? I suppose Billo himself pretends "no more dangerous than
table salt" is entirely a different statement so he can pretend he isn't
just lying big-time when he lies about having said it. So keep playing
Phred. When Billo makes a dumbass statement, then lies about even saying
it, we do need you as his champion. Just don't be too obvious about it;
someone's bound to figure out you are sneakily on our side of the debate
intentionally making Monsanto whores look increasingly bad. I love your
spelling of Phrederik, by the by.

-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 ,
paghat wrote:

Fascinating. And what else is table salt used for precisely that would
make the parallel even marginally sensible? I can well imagine that in
your world, if you were thinking a bit mroe clearly, "No more dangerous
than table salt" which Billo claims for glyphosate, & my close paraphrase
"Safe as table salt," are nowhere near the same statements.


I never made that claim, and I continue to challenge you to
provide a reference to it. You have abandoned any attempt
to use science, and now you are merely lying about what I
wrote in a vain attempt at a personal attack.


When Billo makes a dumbass statement, then lies about even saying
it, we do need you as his champion.


I did not, of course, write it. You could easily prove me
wrong by providing the quote, but you cannot.

Why do you persist in this lie?


billo

Bill,

I admire your tenacity with regard to this thread. I've learned a lot and
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to debate (really debate, instead
of the ad hominem attacks you are experiencing in replies) the issue.


Dave

Ditto
Laura B.