In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...


So talking about Roundup safety. The anti-Roundup people can
emphasize its effect on salmon, pets, and monarch butterflies and stay
shy of human beings (IF, it is indeed safe for humans). The
pro-Roundup people can emphasize the chemical is 100% safe on human if
used as directed and stay shy of its effect on salmons which
eventually go to human stomachs. When the anti-Roundup people carry
out experiments trying to prove the toxicity of Roundup on human
beings, they might do 1000 experiments and find nothing, and they
would not say it (if they do they made the experiments more
conclusive). Similarly, the pro-Roundup people, including Monsanto,
might have done 1000 experiments, and they find some "questionable"
results or "suspicious" data which deserve another look, but they
won't tell unless there is a whistleblower.


Well, no. First, you assume that someone is either "pro-Roundup"
or "anti-Roundup." Many people are neither. Second, particularly
for academia and government, if someone funds a large study, there
better damn well be a publication at the end of the tunnel or there
won't be any more funding. Nobody is going to spike a large
multicenter study on Roundup because of the results. Third, I
have no problem with people "emphasizing" one thing or another.
I have a problem with people saying that articles say things they
don't say. I have problems with people saying a study proves
ill effects in humans when the authors explicitly state they
aren't even testing it. I have a problem with people trotting
out studies on cells and claiming that proves a danger when the
authors themselves note that such an inference cannot be made.
That's not "emphasizing." That's deceit.

I am not "pro-Roundup." I am anti-deceit.

billo

(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...

So talking about Roundup safety. The anti-Roundup people can
emphasize its effect on salmon, pets, and monarch butterflies and stay
shy of human beings (IF, it is indeed safe for humans). The
pro-Roundup people can emphasize the chemical is 100% safe on human if
used as directed and stay shy of its effect on salmons which
eventually go to human stomachs. When the anti-Roundup people carry
out experiments trying to prove the toxicity of Roundup on human
beings, they might do 1000 experiments and find nothing, and they
would not say it (if they do they made the experiments more
conclusive). Similarly, the pro-Roundup people, including Monsanto,
might have done 1000 experiments, and they find some "questionable"
results or "suspicious" data which deserve another look, but they
won't tell unless there is a whistleblower.

Well, no. First, you assume that someone is either "pro-Roundup"
or "anti-Roundup." Many people are neither.

Today John Smith discusses the performance of New York Yankee and
Boston Red Sox with you, and you claim John Smith thinks there are
only two baseball teams in MLB?

This observation is wrong on your part. I only stated what
pro-Roundup people will likely do and what anti-Roundup people will
likely do. This does not imply I believe no one fits in the "neither
pro-Roundup nor anti-Roundup" category.

Second, particularly
for academia and government, if someone funds a large study, there
better damn well be a publication at the end of the tunnel or there
won't be any more funding. Nobody is going to spike a large
multicenter study on Roundup because of the results.

That is right. I think someone else has already pointed out this
issue, and I do not remember anyone objecting to that view.

And unfortunately, the organizations/corporations/individuals who are
likely to fund such studies are also those which tend to have a
prejudice on either "Roundup is safe" or "Roundup is dangerous". The
organizations/corporations/individuals who are more impartial might
take less interest to fund such studies -- they might see farther
about *ALL* pesticides.

Third, I
have no problem with people "emphasizing" one thing or another.
I have a problem with people saying that articles say things they
don't say. I have problems with people saying a study proves
ill effects in humans when the authors explicitly state they
aren't even testing it. I have a problem with people trotting
out studies on cells and claiming that proves a danger when the
authors themselves note that such an inference cannot be made.
That's not "emphasizing." That's deceit.

I am not "pro-Roundup." I am anti-deceit.

In that case, next time when you write "up to now Roundup is not found
dangerous for human beings when used as directed", please add a
comment about the other domestic and wild animals, and anything which
could eventually go into human bodies through the food chain (unless
Roundup is expected to decompose well before that stage), otherwise
you are emphasizing the human part and playing down on the effect on
other plants and animals. You should write "up to now Roundup is not
found dangerous for human beings, plants (except weeds) and wild
animals when used as directed", or "up to now Roundup is not found
dangerous for human beings when used as directed, as for wildlife we
do not have conclusive results yet".

And you might want to address the situation when Roundup is used with
other fertilizers or pesticides, say, you applied Sluggo here and then
you immediately apply Roundup. "Used as directed" might not include
this scenario, but gardeners might likely do this and the scientific
researches should also test this. It is like plastic bags for
toddlers. You cannot say they are safe for toddlers when used as
directed. You also have to test some scenarios which are NOT as
directed by ordinary users might do.

And finally when several people argue with you that Roundup is bad,
you should not treat them into a team and believe they are the same
thing, that if Mr. A applies to deceit then you claim all others do
too. Please try to treat each other individually.

In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...

In that case, next time when you write "up to now Roundup is not found
dangerous for human beings when used as directed", please add a
comment about the other domestic and wild animals, and anything which
could eventually go into human bodies through the food chain (unless
Roundup is expected to decompose well before that stage), otherwise
you are emphasizing the human part and playing down on the effect on
other plants and animals.

I am a physician and a pathologist. I know about effects on humans.
I tend to stick to topics I know.


And finally when several people argue with you that Roundup is bad,
you should not treat them into a team and believe they are the same
thing, that if Mr. A applies to deceit then you claim all others do
too. Please try to treat each other individually.

I have. I have not, for instance, accused *you* of deceit. The
people I have accused, I have accused for a reason.


billo

and you think that qualifies you as a scientist? Ingrid

(Bill Oliver) wrote:
I am a physician and a pathologist. I know about effects on humans.
I tend to stick to topics I know.


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

In article ,
wrote:
and you think that qualifies you as a scientist? Ingrid

(Bill Oliver) wrote:
I am a physician and a pathologist. I know about effects on humans.
I tend to stick to topics I know.


It answers the question as to why I discuss effects on humans
as opposed to other things. Thank you for your interest.

billo

In article , wrote:

and you think that qualifies you as a scientist? Ingrid

Well, if you & he were in a race to see who could cut up a corpse the
fastest, he'd win.

-paghat the ratgirl

(Bill Oliver) wrote:
I am a physician and a pathologist. I know about effects on humans.
I tend to stick to topics I know.

--
"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/

Damn! Here I go and get a life for a few months, chilling out and detoxing
the last Monsanto whore's posts out of my system, then I slide back and
check the posts in rec. gardens and what shows up? Another lying scumbag
Monsanto shill doing the same old "show me the peer-reviewed proof" crap.
Amazing how these cocksuckers keep popping up, must be a whole program to
keep cranking out more and more of them. Hey Billo, whoever the **** you
are, FOAD. Your type has been seen before and will be seen again. There is
no 'arguing' with scum like you. Drink your hallowed glyphosate and choke,
****wad.

new attitude! No more polite exchanges with poison vendors
--
msn messenger: Hortus Plasticus )
Outgoing email checked by Norton AV


"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
and you think that qualifies you as a scientist? Ingrid

(Bill Oliver) wrote:
I am a physician and a pathologist. I know about effects on humans.
I tend to stick to topics I know.


It answers the question as to why I discuss effects on humans
as opposed to other things. Thank you for your interest.

billo

In article KwQ8b.3621$AD1.3011@pd7tw2no,
enoughluncheonmeat! wrote:
Damn! Here I go and get a life for a few months, chilling out and detoxing
the last Monsanto whore's posts out of my system, then I slide back and
check the posts in rec. gardens and what shows up? Another lying scumbag
Monsanto shill doing the same old "show me the peer-reviewed proof" crap.

Yeah, who needs science when you have found the *true* religion, eh?
There is no greater need for personal attack than to put down
someone who doesn't show enough blind respect for cult orthodoxy.
I don't care if you ecofundamentalist cultists choose to use or
not use Roundup for whatever religious reasons you have;
I only object to you lying about what the science says.

billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article 9nR7b.24740$n94.17204@fed1read04,
Just another fan wrote:
Why bother Henry, Dr. Shill will continue without ever understanding.
He
is best enjoyed in your kill file.....



Another sock puppet. Pathetic. You really are a stunning
coward, Tom.

billo

No shillo, the same ip address, you egocentric gardening failure. Do you
know the definition of sock puppet? Are you so incredibly inept that you
assume anyone else can't mask their identity? Can you identify newsreaders?
Oh but that would require reading the message header and in your little
world of shills would qualify as stalking! Putz!

In article SvM9b.38453$n94.25758@fed1read04,
Just another fan wrote:

No shillo, the same ip address, you egocentric gardening failure. Do you
know the definition of sock puppet? Are you so incredibly inept that you
assume anyone else can't mask their identity? Can you identify newsreaders?
Oh but that would require reading the message header and in your little
world of shills would qualify as stalking! Putz!


You do get testy when you get caught, don't you?

billo

On 17 Sep 2003 01:48:36 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article SvM9b.38453$n94.25758@fed1read04,
Just another fan wrote:

No shillo, the same ip address, you egocentric gardening failure. Do you
know the definition of sock puppet? Are you so incredibly inept that you
assume anyone else can't mask their identity? Can you identify newsreaders?
Oh but that would require reading the message header and in your little
world of shills would qualify as stalking! Putz!


You do get testy when you get caught, don't you?

billo

Caught?

Shillo you ignorant egocentric. Now be a good little asshole and
learn to use your news reader. Notice I posted from the same computer
and responded to both Pam and Paghat refering to a thread where I was
clearly identified. I'll happily call you the arrogant egotistical
asshole you are without a nom de plume. God bless the person that
incouraged you to practise medicine on dead souls, we all feel much
safer!



justanotherfan

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:

Caught?

Yes, caught. Posting under a anonymousely or with pseudonym
from another domain to support your position == sock puppet.
And deceit. And cowardice. But I don't expect better from you.

billo

The post was NOT from another domain and any idiot could see that. Since the
domain and IP were not masked please let me know how I posted anonymously?
Previous threads and interchanges with Paghat clearly identified me. I have
no reason to fear or hide from a Monsanto shill!



"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:

Caught?

Yes, caught. Posting under a anonymousely or with pseudonym
from another domain to support your position == sock puppet.
And deceit. And cowardice. But I don't expect better from you.

billo

Apparently you know as much about usenet as you do about gardening and
roundup. Another arrogant Phd, living the life of a gardening shill.

Now please point out the anonymous IP I used?


On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:07:57 -0700, "Just another fan"
wrote:

NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.108.40.241
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: fed1read04 1063843513 68.108.40.241 (Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:05:13 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:05:13 EDT
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: east.cox.net rec.gardens:354631
X-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:05:11 EDT (news1.west.cox.net)

from: Tom Jaszewski

NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.108.40.241
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: fed1read04 1063764864 68.108.40.241 (Tue, 16 Sep 2003
22:14:24 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:14:24 EDT
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: east.cox.net rec.gardens:354565
X-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:14:24 EDT (news1.west.cox.net)

On 17 Sep 2003 01:48:36 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:

Apparently you know as much about usenet as you do about gardening and
roundup. Another arrogant Phd, living the life of a gardening shill.

Now please point out the anonymous IP I used?


I said "different domain" not "anonymous IP."

cssa.com != livesoil.com

nslookup cssa.com

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: cssa.com
Address: 205.206.32.64

nslookup livesoil.com

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: livesoil.com
Address: 66.209.74.9


billo