I dont think this has anything to do with Monsanto or defending them. I havent seen
any attempt to defend Monsanto. Ingrid

Ann wrote:
Go right ahead and believe your Monsanto gods. :::shaking
head:::: I really don't see why people defend Monsanto so
ferverently. M


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:18:16 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:


"Tom Jaszewski" wrote

And pathologists with vested intersts.....

References?


Oops forgot to mention the 50,000 Monsanto shares and 45,000 shares
of Syngenta Ag valued at 5.8 million CD held by the CPP Investment
Board. How many more nefarious, peccant purveyors of soil destroying
chemicals are a part of CPP investments? Now there's a job for
STATCAN!

In article , "Dave Gower"
wrote:

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote

Talk to those dry wheat
boys and find out what years of working with Monsanto has gotten them.

I live in an area surrounded by farmers and they think Roundup is great
providing (here we go again, take a deep breath) IT IS USED ACCORDING TO
INSTRUCTIONS.

That MIGHT "limit" the extravagant harm done. Unfortunately the
"instructions" are based on tests (fudged by Monsanto) of breakdown rates
of glyphosate at room temperature in a microbe-rich environment. These
tests are not on the actual mix of chemicals used, & do not take these
issues into consideration:

1) In alkaline or low-organic content soils or soils with fewer microbes
the glyphosate can remain active for over a year.

2) In colder zones (usda 5 & below) the glyphosate can remain active for
well over a year, up to indefinitely alpine gardens.

3) If breakdown does occasionally happen as rapidly as the (fudged)
lab-test-based results indicate, & upon which recommendations for safe use
are founded, the results in no way actually apply to gardens where, unlike
in a lab, Roundup breaks down into toxins such as formeldahyde, plus:

4) A percentage of the glyphosate bonds with the soil in such a manner as
to be released for at least three months as still toxic, as shown by the
clover tests with clover stunted by "properly" used glyphosate when
planted three months after the glyphosate was "properly" used.

5) "Properly" used near trees & shrubs decreases winter hardiness of
shrubs, & renders trees & especially maples more susceptible to fungal
disease.

6) The surficant in RoundUp does find its way to watersheds & rivers no
matter how carefully used.

7) The recommendations for proper use do not even take into consideration
the increased toxicity of glyphosate when mixed with surficant, but are
based on a "best case" (fudged) scenario based on pure glyphosate's
break-down under ideal labratory conditions.

All of the above are major problems when "used as directed," even before
considering the very real fact that it is rarely used as directed so that
there are additional problems of use near water, of drift that has been
shown in England to "accidentally" kill hedges at considerable distances
from where used, the use of stronger mixtures & even application from
airplanes, & use on & around edible crops intentionally altered to
withstand glyphosate exposure & so ending up in human diet -- & the fact
that every other product Monsanto ever claimed to be 100% safe as directed
turned out to be unsafe to the nth degree. But discounting all that
greater reality, & restricted to the things that make it UNSAFE as
directed, this is the only factual conclusion:

USED RIGIDLY WITHIN THE PROPER GUIDELINES & INSTRUCTION, GLYPHOSATE IS
NEVERTHELESS UNSAFE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT & CAUSES LASTING HARM.

So even your narrow argument for supporting a bad company & bad product
simply does not apply. You either lie intentionially or more likely yoyu
delude yourself & pass on your delusion, hoping to convince others as
you've convinced yourself that the exact same company that brought us
"safe" Agent Orange & "safe" PCBs & "safely" made its own company town the
most poisoned in America is in this one & only case totally honest about
"safe" glyphosate -- because liars proven to have falsified data time &
again are, on your say-so, totally honest for the first time in their
history, when it comes to the product YOU want to slather around "as
directed."

-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 , "Dave Gower"
wrote:

"Ann" wrote

the major point is....we can't and shouldn't
believe what Monsanto says. About anything. Roundup or PCBs.

As I said in another post, no corporation "says" anything. People do. To
talk that way reveals your infantile delusion.

Under law, alas, corporations are persons, with the individual rights of
free speech (or expensive speech in paid advertising) & suchlike that
SHOULD belong to individuals but are purchased by corporations so that
rights become increasingly the province of Corporations that can afford
these rights, & not of individuals. The spokespersons & legal teams &
bought-&-paid-for research teams get paid to speak for the corporation,
not for themselves.

When you make these infantile deluded arguments as you persistant in
doing, you just make yourself sound sillier projecting your own failings
onto Ann & others.

-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/

Cache-Post-Path:
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 41
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!chi1.webusenet. com!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!soggy72.drizzl e.com!user
Xref: kermit rec.gardens:247422

In article , zxcvbob
wrote:

paghat wrote:
In article , "Dave Gower"

I will continue to point out your ignorant, agenda-driven drivel as much as
I want.


Except, of course, when the agenda is driven by Monsanto; when decade by
decade their "previous" agenda of "facts" turned out to be all lies, & the
critics turned out to be all right, & you seriously believe a company that
did nothing but lie for fifty years is going to be telling the truth THIS
time...

But how does hijacking a gardening discussion and ranting endlessly about
the evils of Monsanto do any good?

Seriously,
Bob

How would talking about Shrapnel apply to a discussion of Bombs?
How would talking about Illness apply to a discussion of Disease?
How does talking about companies that encourage dangerous chemicals be
poored in gardens & crops apply to discussion of gardens & crops?

Well, if in your alternate universe simple logic does not apply, I guess
it's all inapplicable.

Even you ranting about your sentiment that gardening & garden chemicals
aren't related topics is fine by me. If you get TOO boring I don't
actually have to open those posts do I.

-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/

"Dave Gower" wrote in
:


"Salty Thumb" wrote

Newsgroup cop says "What the hell does this have to do with
gardening?"

I'm glad to see that at least one eco-loony agrees with me that
discussions of corporate behaviour are off-topic for this newsgroup.
I'll respect that if all you do.



I think the irony of the comment went flying right over your [obligatory
derogatory adjective] head.

expounded:

I dont think this has anything to do with Monsanto or defending them. I havent seen
any attempt to defend Monsanto.

Then you didn't read David Grower's reply to me.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

"Dave Gower" wrote in
:


wrote

1. is roundup safe?
2. probably not, it is made by Monsanto who does not put consumers
first, monsanto, you know, the people made PCBs since 1930

Most of us are not that stupid. We know that an issue from another
time, about another chemical, when the company was run by different
managers, faced different laws, was operating with different
scientific knowledge, cannot be used to answer a question about a
garden chemical sold in 2003.

When 'answers' are of dubious veracity, it common to use whatever
information is available assess the veracity of the 'answers'. To say
Monsanto is a totally different entity now is ridiculous. If anything,
they have retained all the lawyers who know exactly what loopholes in the
laws they can exploit. I suppose you think jailing a common criminal
results in the rehabilitation of the criminal, when in all likelihood, he
has just as much chance of learning new ways to break the law while in
jail.

You bunch are obviously abysmally ignorant of how corporations work
(and of course you would be if you relied on 60 Minutes for your
information). Monsanto and other primary producers do not normally
sell directly to the public. They sell to other companies;
wholesalers, manufacturers, exporters, processors. As such they are
dealing with hard-nosed and often very savvy purchasing managers and
agents. Such professionals ask tough and precise scientific questions
about the safety and other characteristics of the materials they
purchase. This is especially true of wholesalers, whose employers
directly face legal consequences for selling harmful substances.

I wonder if some of these same "hard-nosed, savvy purchasing managers" were
responsible for the introduction of anti-bacterial soap. I suppose the
industry only hires Ph.Ds in chemical engineering to manage their
purchasing departments, even it would be so much cheaper to just hire yokel
off the street who can point at a random 'scientific' journal and say,
"well that says such-and-such, so it must be true", which by the way, will
hold up in court. But, at the end of the day, the only thing that really
counts is whether are not there are any marks who will buy the product.

Another elementary bit of information. Companies cannot "lie", or
indeed make utterances of any type. Only people can do that. The fact
that you anthropomorphise an abstract legal entity in such a way shows
how infantile your delusions are. But even using your words, any
company that "lied" to professional purchasers would be dead in a
year.

Yes, I totally agree. Companies cannot "lie" any more than they can create
"products" Only people can do that. If there are any problems, the
people operating the factory machinery should be held accountable, not
Monsanto, which really doesn't even exist.

-- Salty

And, oh yeah, I did a search back to 1789(!), and no one in rec.gardens has
ever asked about the purchasing habits Monsanto's corporate customers.
hmm, off-topic or not? I hope no one goes crying to the topic police.

Try not to let the irony or sarcasm in this reply go flying over your head
this time.

"Dave Gower" wrote in
:


"Salty Thumb" wrote

If anybody disagrees with that, feel free to voice you support by
adding "Dave Gower You Are My Hero Thank You For Saving Me From The
Evil Crazy Radical Lunatic Organic Hippie Anti-business Did I Mention
Evil Nutjob Salinated Disembodied Finger Crackpot Crazy Rodent-loving
Freak-shows!"

Nah. A simple high-five will suffice.


Try not to let your arm get a cramp while you're waiting.