I really, really, REALLY dislike the anti-intellectual climate in this
country ...
BUT (and science is my business, livelihood, love, entertainment by the by)
Just because something is not yet known does not mean that it proves a null
hypothesis.
I grew up in a decade when cigarettes were advertised as "Good for your well
being", when kids rode their bicycles behind DDT trucks because the DDT
smelled good, when women regularly had hysterectomies because all their
problems stemmed from "bad uteruses/female problems"....

Round up may or may not be a serious health hazard. I don't know what
evidence there is out there for it or against it. I do know to think twice
about ANY information coming out of a company that benefits from my buying
their product. I do know that if it does not do good things to the plant
then I should wonder about what it is doing to me. I do believe that every
individual has the right to endanger their own life and it is no ones
business if they do but that they do not have the right to do so to others.

My 2 cents. DKat


"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...

Uh huh. Please provide the EPA document that states that Roundup
is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.

OK. Provide the document where the EPA says that Roundup
is not safe when used as directed. You cannot.

They are not calling Roundup a dangerous neurotoxin. Provide
a WHO document that states that Roundup is not safe for humans
when used as directed. You cannot.

Fine. Provide a WHO document that states that Roundup is
not safe for humans when used as directed. You cannot.
Ah, yes. The NCI -- another Monsanto shill as far as you're
concerned.

No science, once again. Just cult ranting. Provide a single
article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims that
Roundup is not safe for humans when used as directed. One.
Just one.

billo

In article ,
D Kat wrote:
I really, really, REALLY dislike the anti-intellectual climate in this
country ...
BUT (and science is my business, livelihood, love, entertainment by the by)
Just because something is not yet known does not mean that it proves a null
hypothesis.


And just because someone wants to believe in an unproven risk doesn't
justify lying about what the science actually says. It's one thing
to note that Rounup has no proven danger to humans when used as
directed; it's another to claim that there is a proven danger and
lie about the scientific data.

billo

--

Outgoing email checked by Norton AV
"D Kat" wrote in message
...
I really, really, REALLY dislike the anti-intellectual climate in this
country ...
BUT (and science is my business, livelihood, love, entertainment by the
by)
Just because something is not yet known does not mean that it proves a
null
hypothesis.
I grew up in a decade when cigarettes were advertised as "Good for your
well
being", when kids rode their bicycles behind DDT trucks because the DDT
smelled good, when women regularly had hysterectomies because all their
problems stemmed from "bad uteruses/female problems"....

Round up may or may not be a serious health hazard. I don't know what
evidence there is out there for it or against it. I do know to think
twice
about ANY information coming out of a company that benefits from my buying
their product. I do know that if it does not do good things to the plant
then I should wonder about what it is doing to me. I do believe that
every
individual has the right to endanger their own life and it is no ones
business if they do but that they do not have the right to do so to
others.

My 2 cents. DKat

My respect to you, a well reasoned position and post. Sadly, reasoning with
glyphosate shills is pointless since they only have a single agenda. After
dozens of such instances, it should be clear that all they will do is
tartishly demand "proof" and if anyone is fool enough to submit anything
even remotely contrary to their agenda, the predictable result is discredit
and obfuscation. Monsanto shills are about as ingenious as a slug after you
pour salt on them, yet they persist in posting their "scientific
justifications" in gardening groups.

Every pesticide, herbicide, 'cide period, was designed to kill. With such
big hits as Agent Orange and Aspartame to their credit, the source of
glyphosate and their shills are toxic entities, period. No doubt that there
are rare instances and circumstances where the use of glyphosate or similar
chemicals are warranted but to err on the side of caution is wise indeed.
As to what widespread misuse of chemicals will do to the individual is a
matter of public record. And yes, they have the right to kill themselves by
degrees. But not to kill me. And their garbage is floating around the
planet, so their products are killing me by degrees as well.

It is a matter of sustainability, really. Products such as RoundUp are the
lazy way out, the instant results syndrome. And if it all results in a few
percentage points of increase in cancer rates, well, blame those eyerackies.
People like this particular shill are the lowest of the low, far below
pondscum. They invariably claim impeccable qualifications, Doctors,
Scientists, Dermatologists, etc. Why any professional would spend time to
defend a product without admitting that they have been bought and sold by
the corporations should be considered as an insult to the intelligence of
anyone here.

Pesticides are poisons, regulated by the bought-and-sold EPA. SuperRoundUp
is the weapon of choice when it comes to CIA operations in central America.
Anyone using cides is a fool and certainly not a gardener. And that sums it
up.

Don't bother, Brillo. You are scum, so stop trying come-backs.

John H. Immink
Canuckistan

I was hoping you could have also made reference to black helicopters as
well.. it's the only thing that's missing from your rant...

Dave

"enoughluncheonmeat!" wrote in message
news:nxbab.9285$CU3.483@pd7tw3no...


--

Outgoing email checked by Norton AV
"D Kat" wrote in message
...
I really, really, REALLY dislike the anti-intellectual climate in this
country ...
BUT (and science is my business, livelihood, love, entertainment by the
by)
Just because something is not yet known does not mean that it proves a
null
hypothesis.
I grew up in a decade when cigarettes were advertised as "Good for your
well
being", when kids rode their bicycles behind DDT trucks because the DDT
smelled good, when women regularly had hysterectomies because all their
problems stemmed from "bad uteruses/female problems"....

Round up may or may not be a serious health hazard. I don't know what
evidence there is out there for it or against it. I do know to think
twice
about ANY information coming out of a company that benefits from my
buying
their product. I do know that if it does not do good things to the
plant
then I should wonder about what it is doing to me. I do believe that
every
individual has the right to endanger their own life and it is no ones
business if they do but that they do not have the right to do so to
others.

My 2 cents. DKat

My respect to you, a well reasoned position and post. Sadly, reasoning
with
glyphosate shills is pointless since they only have a single agenda. After
dozens of such instances, it should be clear that all they will do is
tartishly demand "proof" and if anyone is fool enough to submit anything
even remotely contrary to their agenda, the predictable result is
discredit
and obfuscation. Monsanto shills are about as ingenious as a slug after
you
pour salt on them, yet they persist in posting their "scientific
justifications" in gardening groups.

Every pesticide, herbicide, 'cide period, was designed to kill. With such
big hits as Agent Orange and Aspartame to their credit, the source of
glyphosate and their shills are toxic entities, period. No doubt that
there
are rare instances and circumstances where the use of glyphosate or
similar
chemicals are warranted but to err on the side of caution is wise indeed.
As to what widespread misuse of chemicals will do to the individual is a
matter of public record. And yes, they have the right to kill themselves
by
degrees. But not to kill me. And their garbage is floating around the
planet, so their products are killing me by degrees as well.

It is a matter of sustainability, really. Products such as RoundUp are the
lazy way out, the instant results syndrome. And if it all results in a few
percentage points of increase in cancer rates, well, blame those
eyerackies.
People like this particular shill are the lowest of the low, far below
pondscum. They invariably claim impeccable qualifications, Doctors,
Scientists, Dermatologists, etc. Why any professional would spend time to
defend a product without admitting that they have been bought and sold by
the corporations should be considered as an insult to the intelligence of
anyone here.

Pesticides are poisons, regulated by the bought-and-sold EPA. SuperRoundUp
is the weapon of choice when it comes to CIA operations in central
America.
Anyone using cides is a fool and certainly not a gardener. And that sums
it
up.

Don't bother, Brillo. You are scum, so stop trying come-backs.

John H. Immink
Canuckistan

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:15:32 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

I was hoping you could have also made reference to black helicopters as
well.. it's the only thing that's missing from your rant...

Dave
Poor naive David uses poisoned wood in gardens and greenhouses and
now considers black helicopters paranoia! You've got it reversed as
usual.

Aw hell, Tom, we both should know better than to waste time on these morons.
Black helicopters indeed...
Back to gardening related topics! Being a prowd Canuckistani and as it's
legal and all that, I'm going to perform a marriage ceremony for 2 gay
clones in a special made hoophouse. No, really! Bwaaaaaaahaaaa!




--
msn messenger: Hortus Plasticus )
Outgoing email checked by Norton AV
"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:15:32 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

I was hoping you could have also made reference to black helicopters as
well.. it's the only thing that's missing from your rant...

Dave
Poor naive David uses poisoned wood in gardens and greenhouses and
now considers black helicopters paranoia! You've got it reversed as
usual.

What do I have reversed Tom?

Dave

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:15:32 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

I was hoping you could have also made reference to black helicopters as
well.. it's the only thing that's missing from your rant...

Dave
Poor naive David uses poisoned wood in gardens and greenhouses and
now considers black helicopters paranoia! You've got it reversed as
usual.

In article , "David J Bockman"
wrote:

What do I have reversed Tom?

Dave

I wondered that too. Black helicopters are poisonous & pressure treated
wood is paranoid.

I once had a black helicopter hover over my house perfectly stationary for
a great length of time in the middle of the night. It really was
unnerving, especially when one peers from the bedroom window pondering all
the paranoid theories, & it's just hovering there, hovering, hovering,
making a muted fuf-fuf-fuf-fuf sound endlessly.

Later in the paper I by mere chance caught a note on what that was about.
They were taking heat-sensitive photographs of local neighbhorhoods to
establish which houses had inadequate insulation.

-paghat the ratgirl

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:15:32 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

I was hoping you could have also made reference to black helicopters as
well.. it's the only thing that's missing from your rant...

Dave

Poor naive David uses poisoned wood in gardens and greenhouses and
now considers black helicopters paranoia! You've got it reversed as
usual.

--
"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/