Re: Posted Without Comment
Frank
>
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
Good balanced article to me.
Billy
Derald <der...@invalid.net> wrote:
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-o
> rganic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
Comment: A blog is too brief to be accurate on such a complex subject.
This article is, in my opinion, misleading in its choice of examples,
and counter-examples abound, as I noted here. While I agree with the
general point that the organic label can be misleading, as another
ecologist, I'd say this article provides more heat than light on the
subject.
<http://www.rodaleinc.com/newsroom/michael-pollan-tells-emorganic-gardeni
ngem-magazine-organic-danger-being-co-opted>
Pollan on what's truly organic...
"Organic is in danger of being co-opted. I've been on "organic factory
farms", and if most organic consumers went to those places, they would
feel they were getting ripped off. I think organic risks a real crisis
of perception if the values that they're selling don't accurately
reflect the practices they're engaging in. They're organic by the
letter, not organic in spirit."
- Michael Pollan
--
- Billy
Obama is now backing a bipartisan Senate budget plan that would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. In addition to entitlement cuts, the so-called "Gang of Six" plan would eliminate a number of popular tax breaks and deductions, including write-offs for home mortgage interest and employer-provided health benefits. The savings would help offset the cost of then lowering the top individual and corporate tax rates from 35 percent to at least 29 percent.
America is not broke.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street. That's all it would take. Just once.
Vote 3rd Party
songbird
>Derald wrote:
>>
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
>
> Good balanced article to me.
the comments section is a much
more interesting read.
songbird
songbird
> Derald <der...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-o
>> rganic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
>
> Comment: A blog is too brief to be accurate on such a complex subject.
> This article is, in my opinion, misleading in its choice of examples,
> and counter-examples abound, as I noted here. While I agree with the
> general point that the organic label can be misleading, as another
> ecologist, I'd say this article provides more heat than light on the
> subject.
yes, the following is a good critique, but there are
several other well thought responses in the comments
section besides this:
http://www.grist.org/organic-food/2011-07-21-in-defense-of-organic
><http://www.rodaleinc.com/newsroom/michael-pollan-tells-emorganic-gardeni
> ngem-magazine-organic-danger-being-co-opted>
>
> Pollan on what's truly organic...
>
> "Organic is in danger of being co-opted. I've been on "organic factory
> farms", and if most organic consumers went to those places, they would
> feel they were getting ripped off. I think organic risks a real crisis
> of perception if the values that they're selling don't accurately
> reflect the practices they're engaging in. They're organic by the
> letter, not organic in spirit."
> - Michael Pollan
yeah...
songbird
Billy
songbird <song...@anthive.com> wrote:
> Billy wrote:
> > Derald <der...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-10
> >> 1-o
> >> rganic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
> >
> > Comment: A blog is too brief to be accurate on such a complex subject.
> > This article is, in my opinion, misleading in its choice of examples,
> > and counter-examples abound, as I noted here. While I agree with the
> > general point that the organic label can be misleading, as another
> > ecologist, I'd say this article provides more heat than light on the
> > subject.
>
> yes, the following is a good critique, but there are
> several other well thought responses in the comments
> section besides this:
>
> http://www.grist.org/organic-food/2011-07-21-in-defense-of-organic
Excellent article.
Scientific American has interviewed a number of representatives of
biotech companies, and never asked any hard questions. There are things
that could be done to improve "organic" food and its distribution, but
this article seemed bent on confrontation, which is understandable if
you want to get published. If you say the same thing as everyone else,
who cares?
"Tastes better"? Come on. Where does that come from? Fresh will trump
every time. Organic only produces 80% of factory farms output? Maybe in
grain production, but not in mixed plantings, and then the reference she
gave was for Eastern Europe. Maybe organic gardening is wrong, but you
couldn't prove it with this hit piece.
She never talked about top soil.
She never talked about CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS, MUTAGENIC EFFECTS,
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS, or DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY of pesticides.
She nodded at contemporary industrial farming polluting the water, and
organic being better for the soil, but doesn't mention that contemporary
industrial farming is based on petroleum, and natural gas.
She doesn't mention that when Bt is used "organically", it is used to
address a problem at that moment in time. Leaving Bt plants out for the
bugs to attack is going to result in Bt resistant bus.
All in all, I was very depressed for prestige of Scientific American,
that I've been reading since I was a kid. I guess they had to make some
editorial changes to keep the magazine viable, sort of like our
politicians.
fsadfa
(organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
David Hare-Scott
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
This is a rather complex issue without writing an essay longer than the
original it is hard to cover all the important points so forgive me if I
skim.
#1 Organic farms use sprays.
By many organic standards one can be certified organic and still use some
insecticides and fungicides. Typically these are not as risky for humans as
the synthetics but how do you know what is being used? How do you define a
forbidden spray? Is (say) diluted milk [used to combat fungi] permitted
because it comes out of your kitchen or cow? Is the extract of daisies you
make yourself less dangerous than pyrethrum out of a factory? Standards
seem to want to make all inputs 'natural' whatever that means.
Many standards allow potassium sulphate as an input (fertiliser) but forbid
ammonium nitrate despite the fact that both are entirely synthetic. So
point of origin is just as confused as the processes permitted to make the
inputs.
Not all organic farms use such sprays even if they are permitted and those
who do use them often use them as a last resort. There is a difference
between what large commercial growers do (who nevertheless pass the
standard) and the smaller growers that I know. The only way to be sure
there is no spray that you disapprove of is on your produce is to grow it
yourself or know the grower.
This section comes down to showing two things, organic standards are a
hopeless confusion of compromises between various ideologies and
practicality and conformance with a standard does not guarantee quality or
purity. How the problems with organic standards relate to any real benefits
of organic growing (or not) I leave to you.
#2 Organic produce is healthier and tastier
This one will turn into a battle of scientific studies, some say yes, some
say no, I have never gone into it because taste is not why I mainly avoid
synthetic fertiliser and spray. One study the author relies on (Fillion)
seems quite inconclusive to me. I believe that people can delude
themselves about this, people delude themselves about many things. If
double-blind statistically significant tests were applied to the claims made
about all commercial products and only those that passed were allowed in the
supermarket or pharmacy there wouldn't be much on the shelves.
One thing for sure, old produce that has been in the supply chain for weeks
and was picked unripe to allow it to travel better is in most cases not as
healthy or tasty as produce picked fresh at its peak regardless of its
organic status. The way to taste a peach or stick of asparagus at its best
is to pick it at full ripeness minutes before you eat it. For this you
don't need a statistical study, anybody can tell the difference.
Not all produce degrades quickly enough to make a difference. I am pretty
sure a pumpkin I have had in storage for 3 months will not taste much
different to the same pumpkin that has been in storage at the supermarket
for the same time. The market one may possibly be better than mine because
they have temperature and humidity controlled storage that I don't have.
#3 Organic is better for the environment.
The author wanders off into the pros and cons of GMOs which is slightly
related but a distraction from the main point of the value of organic
growing so I will leave it out.
If what he says, that organic farms are less efficient and so take up more
land is true everywhere then potentially there is a problem. Firstly I
don't think we have yet seen conclusive studies on this topic - more on that
later. Secondly, if you look at organic agriculture and come to the
conclusion that it takes more land per ton of produce than conventional are
you also considering the off-farm requirements and effects of both systems?
For example if a conventional farm uses a whole lot of inputs whose
manufacture is detrimental to the environment and if it produces outputs
(pollution) that are harmful off farm are these included in the comparison
of which is better for the environment?
The only study he identifies (Maeder) does not appear to support his case,
here is the extract:
"An understanding of agroecosystems is key to determining effective farming
systems. Here we report results from a 21-year study of agronomic and
ecological performance of biodynamic, bioorganic, and conventional farming
systems in Central Europe. We found crop yields to be 20% lower in the
organic systems, although input of fertilizer and energy was reduced by 34
to 53% and pesticide input by 97%. Enhanced soil fertility and higher
biodiversity found in organic plots may render these systems less dependent
on external inputs. "
He seizes on the 20% figure and ignores the rest.
Thirdly the situation where the agriculture is happening is significant.
The whole world does not raise corn in vast chemical-fed monoculture and
feed it to cattle. In poorer countries chemical fertiliser and sprays are
expensive or not available and the people grow crops to eat themselves.
Which is better to teach them organic growing which uses inputs they are
more likely to have and to be able to afford or to tell them to go without?
#4 It's all or none.
Unsuprisingly he concludes that the straw man falls over.
I was disappointed by the end of the article, this seems mainly due to poor
scholarship not concealed bias. I suppose the title should have given me a
hint.
David
songbird
...
> All in all, I was very depressed for prestige of Scientific American,
> that I've been reading since I was a kid. I guess they had to make some
> editorial changes to keep the magazine viable, sort of like our
> politicians.
it's a blog, thus the implication is that it
is not peer reviewed or editorially controlled.
the magazine itself seems ok last i checked.
songbird
songbird
i'm speaking of the USoA only (as that
is the only one's regulations i've actually
looked into) and the standards it uses
for organic farming which involves
certification (and $$$). i think this is
the stuff that she was writing about in
her blog post.
the trouble is that there is a lot of
difference between organic farming (and
being organically certified) and your every
day sort of small time organic gardening
as many people practice it. taking the
word "organic" and using it as they did
really made matters worse. if they'd made
up a new word/brand/trademark and used
that instead at least we would not have
such a rotten jumble going on.
until the basic language is sorted out
i really don't expect the level of discourse
to improve. too many people talking about
different things. all science is best
done when the basics/axioms/definitions
are at least clarified or sorted out.
...
> I was disappointed by the end of the article, this seems mainly due to poor
> scholarship not concealed bias. I suppose the title should have given me a
> hint.
"blog" is enough.
songbird
David Hare-Scott
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
Derald wrote:
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
#2 Organic produce is healthier and tastier
I was disappointed by the end of the article, this seems mainly due to poor
scholarship not concealed bias. I suppose the title should have given me a
hint.
David
Billy
<6b97d2bd-fef9-4ca3...@y13g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
fsadfa <bungalo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards. You
can't keep cows in a pen and feed them "organic" hay, and call the milk
"organic" when the advertising shows cows in green pastures. People like
Whole Foods (Texas based) try to cash in on organic, but really are only
running the old factory farm distribution system.
Organic not only builds top soil, but needs to support humane treatment
of animals. Locally, a reporter visited such a farm and was stunned at
the kind treatment of the animals. They were treated as pets. Isn't that
the way you would want your dinner to be treated?
Gunner
> Derald wrote:
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbust...
Who is "he" ?
fsadfa
> Not all organic farms use such sprays even if they are permitted and those
> who do use them often use them as a last resort.
That attitude is shared among non organic farmers too, if for no other
reason that it costs money to spray!
fsadfa
> In article
> <6b97d2bd-fef9-4ca3-9be9-b2240713c...@y13g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
>
> fsadfa <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> > (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
>
> No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards. You
> can't keep cows in a pen and feed them "organic" hay, and call the milk
> "organic" when the advertising shows cows in green pastures. People like
> Whole Foods (Texas based) try to cash in on organic, but really are only
> running the old factory farm distribution system.
>
> Organic not only builds top soil, but needs to support humane treatment
> of animals. Locally, a reporter visited such a farm and was stunned at
> the kind treatment of the animals. They were treated as pets. Isn't that
> the way you would want your dinner to be treated?
> --
I don't know, If I treated you like a pet would that make it ok to eat
you? :)
I believe the organic movement came about to increase the safety of
food produce and animal well being due to the early use of nasty
chemicals like DDT and industrial farming practices, initially the
attitude was if it's natural it must be ok, which is quite naive and a
knee jerk reaction, but better then nothing I guess. If a synthetic
pesticide becomes chemically inert after 24 hours, interferes less
with the environment then copper or sulfur, then what is wrong with
using that?
The goals should be more results oriented (maximize safety and
minimized harm) then process oriented, and this type of farming
requires a different name as strict organic farming doesn't isn't
results oriented.
Bill who putters
<968934cc-c02c-471a...@a2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
fsadfa <bungalo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One small idea often over looked is harmony. Left alone what does the
environment do. Just clumsily stumble by or is there intelligences
in place? Our oaks are attacked by gypsy moths and next year the tannin
or taste changes to deter.
Since the two legs are obviously real smart it is OK to drink from
local streams and value foods by appearance especially when packaged
prettily.
--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
FarmI
news:Wildbilly-47F0B...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <_5WdnfYbksPD3rPT...@earthlink.com>,
> Derald <der...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-o
>> rganic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
>
> Comment: A blog is too brief to be accurate on such a complex subject.
> This article is, in my opinion, misleading in its choice of examples,
Read it again Billy. The author is not describing backyard growers. Her
choice of wording is very carefully done.
Billy
<968934cc-c02c-471a...@a2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
fsadfa <bungalo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 11:17 pm, Billy <Wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6b97d2bd-fef9-4ca3-9be9-b2240713c...@y13g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > fsadfa <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> > > (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
> >
> > No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards. You
> > can't keep cows in a pen and feed them "organic" hay, and call the milk
> > "organic" when the advertising shows cows in green pastures. People like
> > Whole Foods (Texas based) try to cash in on organic, but really are only
> > running the old factory farm distribution system.
> >
> > Organic not only builds top soil, but needs to support humane treatment
> > of animals. Locally, a reporter visited such a farm and was stunned at
> > the kind treatment of the animals. They were treated as pets. Isn't that
> > the way you would want your dinner to be treated?
> > --
>
> I don't know, If I treated you like a pet would that make it ok to eat
> you? :)
You may want to look up what fear does to the endocrine system, and what
that in turn to the meat.
You are what you eat.
>
> I believe the organic movement came about to increase the safety of
> food produce and animal well being due to the early use of nasty
> chemicals like DDT and industrial farming practices, initially the
> attitude was if it's natural it must be ok, which is quite naive and a
> knee jerk reaction,
That is not a position taken by any organic grower that I have ever read.
If you want to prove it to yourself, try a plate of Amanita ;O)
> but better then nothing I guess. If a synthetic
> pesticide becomes chemically inert after 24 hours,
I'm game, name one.
> interferes less
> with the environment then copper or sulfur, then what is wrong with
> using that?
>
> The goals should be more results oriented (maximize safety and
> minimized harm) then process oriented, and this type of farming
> requires a different name as strict organic farming doesn't isn't
> results oriented.
If it was left to U.S.D.A., there would be no standards, except for
cosmetic standards, i.e. municipal waste sludge used on organic crops.
Organic grower have to fight to keep factory farmers from debasing what
is essentially the Rodale approach to agriculture. If a problem can be
found, it should be corrected in a manner that maintains the goals of
organic farming (healthy food, healthy soil, and healthy people), as
when it was determined that rotenone was poisonous.
Billy
Maybe the drugs haven't worn off, Fran, but I can't see the difference.
Myth #1: Organic Farms Don�t Use Pesticides
Here in rec.gardens.edible we have suggested pyrethrins, copper, sulfur
anti-fumigants, and the naturally occurring Bt toxin although cultural
practices, and biological vectors are usually recommended for
controlling pests. As difficult as it is, if you get an annual
infestation, leaving it alone may be the best answer. All insects have a
predator, and it is only a matter of time before they find that you are
hosting a buffet, and come to eat, thus solving your problem. In any
event, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is to be recommended, which
incorporates cultivation practices, attracting beneficial insects, and
lastly, minimal use of chemicals which may harm soil, plants, or people.
This is not intended to leave the door open for DDT, organophosphates,
salts, or other environmentally damaging compounds.
Myth #2: Organic Foods are Healthier
It has been stated before that some fruits, like peppers seem to show no
difference in nutritional composition, if organic and factory farmed are
grown side by side, and others, like carrots, show marked differences.
Anti-oxidants are never mentioned in the article. Different food
production methods may result in differences in the content of secondary
metabolites such as polyphenolic compounds. The present study compared
conventionally (CPD) and organically produced (OPD) diets in a human
crossover intervention study (n = 16) with respect to the intake and
excretion of five selected flavonoids and effect on markers of oxidative
defense.
COMMERCIAL VS ORGANIC FOOD
Date: Mon., 17 Jan 2000
SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD!
Researchers at Rutgers University set out to disprove the claim that
"Organic Is Better". They purchased selections of produce at
supermarkets and health food stores and analyzed for mineral content.
Organic foods were those grown without the use of chemical pesticides or
artificial fertilizers. Non-organic foods, referred to here as
"commercial," were grown with a variety of chemicals that enhance growth
or destroy pests, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens
(cancer-causing) and which cause greater erosion to the environment and
wildlife. The idea that organic crops are nutritionally superior has
been accepted largely on faith. There has been very little hard evidence
to support this supposition. Rutgers researchers expected the organic
produce to be maybe slightly higher in comparison, but the results were
astounding! The amount of iron in the organic spinach was 97% more than
the commercial spinach, and the manganese was 99% greater in the
organic. Many essential trace elements were completely absent in the
commercial produce whereas they were abundant, comparatively, in their
organically grown counterparts.
Then Christie Wilcox wanders off into GMOs, whose worth to farmers and
consumers has yet to be established.
Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment
Christie Wilcox doesn't address the damage of chemferts, water
pollution, loss of biodiversity caused by factory farming. She simply
says "GMOs have the <<POTENTIAL>> to up crop yields, increase nutritious
value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic
chemical use". Organic farming is already doing this, and getting better
at it. The most famous GMO crops (Round-up Ready, and Bt corn) will lead
to resistant insects in a shorter period of time. And may have
unintended consequences as these chemicals interact with our bodies.
(<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-
93-unborn-babies.html#>
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies)
Myth #4: It�s all or none
I believe that when factory farmed produce is no longer based on
petroleum, and when its pesticides and residues no longer pose health
risks, and when it is no longer poisoning the environment, and when GMOs
are shown to be safe, factory farmed food will be welcomed on to the
dinner table by all.
So, Fran, what did I miss beside the scale of the operations?
FarmI
> In article <4e30e9cd$0$3032$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
>
>> "Billy" <Wild...@withouta.net> wrote in message
>> news:Wildbilly-47F0B...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
>> > In article <_5WdnfYbksPD3rPT...@earthlink.com>,
>> > Derald <der...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-10
>> >> 1-o
>> >> rganic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
>> >
>> > Comment: A blog is too brief to be accurate on such a complex subject.
>> > This article is, in my opinion, misleading in its choice of examples,
>>
>> Read it again Billy. The author is not describing backyard growers. Her
>> choice of wording is very carefully done.
>
> Maybe the drugs haven't worn off, Fran, but I can't see the difference.
?????
Gunner
bunch of crap that uses most all of Segan's Baloney detection kit
The usual ad hominem attacks appear to be over and since the the
cherry picking has begun, 'll see your 2000 Report and raise you a
2008.
Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the
Issues (Part I)
Annual Review of Plant Biology
Vol. 59: 771-812 (Volume publication date June 2008)
First published online as a Review in Advance on February 19, 2008
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
Peggy G. Lemaux
Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California,
Berkeley, California 94720; email: lema...@nature.berkeley.edu
..."A 2007 review by the British Nutrition Foundation stated, “There
appears to be a perception among many consumers that organic foods are
more nutritious and therefore healthier than conventionally produced
foods. However, to date there are limited data to support this
view” (248)." ...
Gunner
> In article
> <968934cc-c02c-471a-bff3-4910bdb08...@a2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Anecdotal feel goods do not make good science.
C. Sagan:
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
o Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
o Argument from "authority".
o Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision
maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable"
decision).
o Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence).
o Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
o Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is
phrased).
o Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the
misses).
o Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from
inadequate sample sizes).
o Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower
expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of
all Americans have below average intelligence!)
o Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case
scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers
thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
o Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
o Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by"
- confusion of cause and effect.
o Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets
an immovable object?).
o Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of
possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
o Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue
fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
o Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted
extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
o Confusion of correlation and causation.
o Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it
easier to attack..
o Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
o Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as
"police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An
important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions
which under old names have become odious to the public"
Gunner
> In article <sn83g8-lg6....@ID-306963.user.uni-berlin.de>,
>
>
> She doesn't mention that when Bt is used "organically", it is used to
> address a problem at that moment in time. Leaving Bt plants out for the
> bugs to attack is going to result in Bt resistant bus.
>
> All in all, I was very depressed for prestige of Scientific American,
> that I've been reading since I was a kid.
ahhh, which fallacies are these two?
Gunner
political diatribe which was snipped.
You and the other sophists are losing market share billy boy, again I
advise you review your approach to include some more of these common
fallacies of logic and rhetoric. I think you guys and gals got most
of them in this thread!
o Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
o Argument from "authority".
o Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision
maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable"
decision). { The writer Pollen is good for this.... sells more books
to the apocalyptic doom and gloom group }.
o Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence).
o Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
o Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is
phrased). You really like to pull this one:
o Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the
misses).
o Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from
inadequate sample sizes).
o Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower
expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of
all Americans have below average intelligence!)
o Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case
scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers
thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
o Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
o Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by"
- confusion of cause and effect.
o Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets
an immovable object?).
o Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of
possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
o Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue
fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
o Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted
extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
o Confusion of correlation and causation.
o Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it
easier to attack..
o Suppressed evidence or half-truths. like your continious GoM dead
zone BS, completely ignoring the P bloom caused by manures or the ~$B
Chesapeake clean up caused by manure runoffs????
o Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as
"police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An
important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions
which under old names have become odious to the public",
Gunner
> In article>
> > guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> > (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
>
> No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards.
Got have standards first. Perhaps it is time to roll out the old the
Eco Baggers Manifesto?
You know pseudo science talking points will not stand up to
Science's scrutiny which even you guys can't agree on. Maybe ya
gotta get more exciting book writers as "experts"!
BTW, You also fail to understand IPM if you think Organies are the
only one using it and other BMPs. But hey that doesn't sell copy does
it.
Gunner
> In article
>Our oaks are attacked by gypsy moths and next year the tannin
>or taste changes to deter.
Unique tidbit, but hows that bit of fact working out for ya, BwP?
Seems Oaks throughout US still in decline in record numbers, seems to
have hit the Down Unders as well:
http://www.fhrc.org.nz/documents/2001-05.pdf
maybe its time to use science?
Gunner
Yea something kinda weird about someone that would coo and cuddle
with an animal just before you slaughter and bleed it out, but hey,
the world is made up of all kinds. Kinda makes ya all touchy feely
doesn't it?
Gunner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> fsadfa <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 11:17 pm, Billy <Wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <6b97d2bd-fef9-4ca3-9be9-b2240713c...@y13g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > fsadfa <bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> > > > (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
>
> > > No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards. You
> > > can't keep cows in a pen and feed them "organic" hay, and call the milk
> > > "organic" when the advertising shows cows in green pastures. People like
> > > Whole Foods (Texas based)
????? Would being CA based make it all better? ...A little subtle
poisoning of the well, huh billy?
>> but really are only
> > > running the old factory farm distribution system.
>
> > > Organic not only builds top soil, but needs to support humane treatment
> > > of animals. Locally, a reporter visited such a farm and was stunned at
> > > the kind treatment of the animals. They were treated as pets. Isn't that
> > > the way you would want your dinner to be treated?
> > > --
>
> > I don't know, If I treated you like a pet would that make it ok to eat
> > you? :)
>
> You may want to look up what fear does to the endocrine system, and what
> that in turn to the meat.
>
> You are what you eat. T
This statement along with your pound-me-in-the-ass comment is a really
TMI for this NG. Your lifestyle choices are not relevant here .
>
> > I believe the organic movement came about to increase the safety of
> > food produce and animal well being due to the early use of nasty
> > chemicals like DDT and industrial farming practices, initially the
> > attitude was if it's natural it must be ok, which is quite naive and a
> > knee jerk reaction,
>
> That is not a position taken by any organic grower that I have ever read.
> If you want to prove it to yourself, try a plate of Amanita ;O)
Nor any other farmer but your continuous denigration and gross
misrepresentation of honest hardworking farmers and government workers
is pure BS
>
> > but better then nothing I guess. If a synthetic
> > pesticide becomes chemically inert after 24 hours,
>
> I'm game, name one.
>
> > interferes less
> > with the environment then copper or sulfur, then what is wrong with
> > using that?
>
> > The goals should be more results oriented (maximize safety and
> > minimized harm) then process oriented, and this type of farming
> > requires a different name as strict organic farming doesn't isn't
> > results oriented.
>
> If it was left to U.S.D.A., there would be no standards, except for
> cosmetic standards, i.e. municipal waste sludge used on organic crops.
Always thought those decisions were left up to the States. WA State
has had standards for years, yet maybe your not as progressive as you
think you are.
> Organic grower have to fight to keep factory farmers from debasing what
> is essentially the Rodale approach to agriculture.
You know I have heard the reverse of that argument also. The
Greenhouse Associations finally walk out on organic standards talks
when there got to be so many non stakeholder granolas who took over
the agenda.
> found, it should be corrected in a manner that maintains the goals of
> organic farming (healthy food, healthy soil, and healthy people), as
> when it was determined that rotenone was poisonous.
> Vote 3rd Party
still the old commie way or no way billy?
Gunner
A common fact billy et. al. wishes to keep secret least it deflate
their book writer's pseudo science approach . For some unknown reason
the billy bunch uses the doom and gloom to make their point. and wants
the neophyte to assume IPM is an Organo idea
Gunner
>
> COMMERCIAL VS ORGANIC FOOD
> Date: Mon., 17 Jan 2000
>
> SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD!
>
> Researchers at Rutgers University set out to disprove the claim that
> "Organic Is Better".
I will see your 2000 Rutgers and raise you a Berkely 2008:
Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the
Issues (Part I)
Annual Review of Plant Biology
Vol. 59: 771-812 (Volume publication date June 2008)
First published online as a Review in Advance on February 19, 2008
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
Peggy G. Lemaux
Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California,
Berkeley, California 94720; email: lema...@nature.berkeley.edu
".....A 2007 review by the British Nutrition Foundation stated, “There
appears to be a perception among many consumers that organic foods are
more nutritious and therefore healthier than conventionally produced
foods. HOWEVER, TO DATE THERE ARE LIMITED DATA TO SUPPORT THIS VIEW
(emphasis added) (248). This perception has led in part to increases
in the world market for certified organic foods to $34 billion in
2005 (111). A 2007 poll showed that 57% of polled consumers strongly
believed that science had proven that organic food was healthier than
conventional (182, figure 17). Because of the paucity of scientific
data, the UK Food Standards Agency decided in October 2007 to seek a
contractor who will evaluate relevant studies and compare the nutrient
and non-nutrient content of organic and conventional foods to
determine if any compositional differences have nutritional or other
health effects in the context of the complete diet (86)."
(the usual billly extraneous political BS snipped)
FarmI
> still the old commie way or no way billy?
You obviously have trouble remembering what you write from one post to the
next - either that, or you should go and look up the meaning of the word
'hypocricy'.
David Hare-Scott
> On Jul 26, 9:22 am, Billy <Wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote his usual
> political diatribe which was snipped.
>
> You and the other sophists are losing market share billy boy, again I
> advise you review your approach to include some more of these common
> fallacies of logic and rhetoric. I think you guys and gals got most
> of them in this thread!
>
Be specific if you think you actually have something of value to contribute
otherwise you are joining Brooklyn in his generalised (and pointless) raging
and insults.
David
phorbin
199.per.connect.net.au>, Wild...@withouta.net says...
> You may want to look up what fear does to the endocrine system, and what
> that in turn to the meat.
>
> You are what you eat.
...so if one eats pesticide laden meat, one becomes a pest.
Billy
phorbin <phor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bored? Eating pesticide laden food, will make you laden with pesticides.
Any questions?
Any answers?
Biocides aren't good for the biosphere.
In the natural world, biocides are only used to make a species toxic to
another species, not in fumigating the landscape.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.
Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
<http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/28/dennis-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/>
[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it's not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don't get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
<http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis>
phorbin
199.per.connect.net.au>, Wild...@withouta.net says...
> In article <MPG.28a1bb3a4...@127.0.0.1>,
> phorbin <phor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <Wildbilly-E70575.16261728072011@c-61-68-245-
> > 199.per.connect.net.au>, Wild...@withouta.net says...
> >
> > > You may want to look up what fear does to the endocrine system, and what
> > > that in turn to the meat.
> > >
> > > You are what you eat.
> >
> > ...so if one eats pesticide laden meat, one becomes a pest.
>
> Bored? Eating pesticide laden food, will make you laden with pesticides.
Maybe a little bored.
Maybe a little facetious too.
Billy
phorbin <phor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <Wildbilly-97CAC8.08102302082011@c-61-68-245-
> 199.per.connect.net.au>, Wild...@withouta.net says...
> > In article <MPG.28a1bb3a4...@127.0.0.1>,
> > phorbin <phor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Wildbilly-E70575.16261728072011@c-61-68-245-
> > > 199.per.connect.net.au>, Wild...@withouta.net says...
> > >
> > > > You may want to look up what fear does to the endocrine system, and
> > > > what
> > > > that in turn to the meat.
> > > >
> > > > You are what you eat.
> > >
> > > ...so if one eats pesticide laden meat, one becomes a pest.
> >
> > Bored? Eating pesticide laden food, will make you laden with pesticides.
>
> Maybe a little bored.
>
> Maybe a little facetious too.
Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't ;O)
Gunner
So David, Is a “Brooklyn” kinda like a “billy”? Yes?, No?
Actually old Sheldon has made some very good points in the past if you
read them but you read billy instead.
Ok, my goal is to bring attention to the blathering of billy et al and
their latest diatribe on being questioned about the myths. Talk
about building strawmen to go bowling with and cherry-picking.
But, let’s dance. Start with HE is actually a SHE, not a biggie,
but it shows a little lack of detail on your critiquing ability,
especially since her pic is down by the Mader reference you give. Just
know not all problems have an easy soultation I don’t think you
diss’ed her on purpose, You and this group all seemed to agree with
her until you didn't, but the fact that you ended up in the
inevitable dogpile is a bit indicative of one’s thought process.
By chance did ya catch her Academics? Those were there as well. ( My
reason for the pic question) Well, she is not a famous Book Author
but she has got some real bona fides, just not a Masters in
journalism or an Internet BS degree. Perhaps there is a Doctoral
candidate among the bunch here that will speak up about the flaws in
her “research”. Yet maybe we do have someone:
"seems mainly due to poor
scholarship not concealed bias"
I suppose the title should have given me a
hint. "
Ahh, so it’s also the title that discredits her? Ohhhhh, that’s bad
huh????.
Well, here is another poor
scholarship to practice sophism on:
The Myth of Organic Superiority:
"Organic products are safer than chemicals"
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Organic%20superiority.pdf
“All in all, I was very depressed for prestige of Scientific
American,
that I've been reading since I was a kid.
Oh, so SA had to compromise their integrity to accommodate her, did
they? I hate it when the science guy does that to us!
Just like that, a childhood hero image is destroyed. Say it ain’t so
Joe! ( an American Baseball thing)
I guess they had to make some dumb-down editorial changes to keep the
magazine viable, sort of like tolerating BS fringe political garbage
that comes with the specious doom and gloom from some book writer
expert teaching pseudoscience…Yet I digress…
“People like Whole Foods (Texas based)”
Oh hell that explains it,…. They are not from Foster Farms, …their
from Texas!!! And you all know what comes from Texas, right! You may
not get the joke but I think ya got the point, David!
“If it was left to U.S.D.A., there would be no standards, except for
cosmetic standards, i.e. municipal waste sludge used on organic
crops”.
…”Organic grower have to fight to keep factory farmers from debasing
what
is essentially the Rodale approach to agriculture”…
Specificity? These smell more like subterfuge and a bit too global,
don’t ya think? Especially when you’re trying to call me out about
being specific and not being an old curmudgeon? I see it as you being
a bit cautiously selective in speaking out as well as reluctant to
call a spade a spade? But that is a mob mentality and a good starting
for a different time.
…“If a problem can be found, it should be corrected in a manner that
maintains the goals of
organic farming (healthy food, healthy soil, and healthy people), as
when it was determined that rotenone was poisonous.
Help me understand this, Is it farmers are not growing healthy food,
healthy soil and healthy people but if your organic you are?
Isn't rotenone still a poisonous non synthetic ( or as you folks like
to say; Organic) substance that can be approved for use in NOP
applications like so many others?
The problem seems a self inflected wound David, mainstream folks and
the real farmers are pulling out of talks because the Granola group
hijacked the agenda. The lie of anyone who disagrees is a corporate
shill has about run its shelf life. Along with the pseudoscience
trying to establish bragging rights is not going to help. The world
is not going to stand still while a bunch of old thinks try to
readjust their comfort zone. Oh and the doom and gloom!!, really a
buzz kill.
Now this is good: "This section comes down to showing two things,
organic standards are a
hopeless confusion of compromises between various ideologies and
practicality and conformance with a standard does not guarantee
quality or
purity. How the problems with organic standards relate to any real
benefits
of organic growing (or not) I leave to you".
So you did agree w/ her before ya didn't , yet the other "partners"
don't see it that way so you gel dragged you in and you get me when I
call BS.? Is it something like that?
Regardless, Sagan's baloney detection kit is still a good guide to
use to sort billy BS and his use of pseudoscience from more reality
based science. Besides I got lot more actual training/application in
PsyOps than the Brothers bill Internet sophism with their emphasis on
Vitalism and pseudoscience combined. Its easy to see the deception
coming.
I still think you are the better source of common sense information
but for some reason you just can't call billy on BS. Perhaps its the
English sense and sensibility. He just chews you up and leaves you
in the dirt. Again, just a non-relevant observation, but do answer
me this David;
do you really believe "evil chemferts" kill soil?
David Hare-Scott
> On Aug 1, 3:07 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Gunner wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 9:22 am, Billy <Wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote his usual
>>> political diatribe which was snipped.
>>
>>> You and the other sophists are losing market share billy boy, again
>>> I advise you review your approach to include some more of these
>>> common fallacies of logic and rhetoric. I think you guys and gals
>>> got most of them in this thread!
>>
>> Be specific if you think you actually have something of value to
>> contribute otherwise you are joining Brooklyn in his generalised
>> (and pointless) raging and insults.
>
>
>
No, Brooklyn is somebody who is not very knowledgeable who criticises and
cusses for no good reason other than their own anger. Billy is a zealot who
is more knowledgable but doesn't know when to leave out his leftist
politics. Why are you trying to generalise them together?
> Actually old Sheldon has made some very good points in the past if you
> read them but you read billy instead.
>
I read them both.
> Ok, my goal is to bring attention to the blathering of billy et al and
> their latest diatribe on being questioned about the myths. Talk
> about building strawmen to go bowling with and cherry-picking.
>
> But, let�s dance. Start with HE is actually a SHE, not a biggie,
> but it shows a little lack of detail on your critiquing ability,
It shows I care about and studied the content and not the author.
> especially since her pic is down by the Mader reference you give. Just
> know not all problems have an easy soultation I don�t think you
> diss�ed her on purpose, You and this group all seemed to agree with
> her until you didn't, but the fact that you ended up in the
> inevitable dogpile is a bit indicative of one�s thought process.
>
> By chance did ya catch her Academics? Those were there as well. ( My
> reason for the pic question) Well, she is not a famous Book Author
> but she has got some real bona fides, just not a Masters in
> journalism or an Internet BS degree. Perhaps there is a Doctoral
> candidate among the bunch here that will speak up about the flaws in
> her �research�. Yet maybe we do have someone:
>
> "seems mainly due to poor
> scholarship not concealed bias"
> I suppose the title should have given me a
> hint. "
>
> Ahh, so it�s also the title that discredits her? Ohhhhh, that�s bad
> huh????.
>
No it's the drawing of the conclusion from a reference which is not
waranted. A matter which, despite all your words, you have carefully left
out.
> Well, here is another poor
> scholarship to practice sophism on:
>
> The Myth of Organic Superiority:
> "Organic products are safer than chemicals"
> http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Organic%20superiority.pdf
>
As I said there are papers that support both sides.
> �All in all, I was very depressed for prestige of Scientific
> American,
> that I've been reading since I was a kid.
>
> Oh, so SA had to compromise their integrity to accommodate her, did
> they? I hate it when the science guy does that to us!
> Just like that, a childhood hero image is destroyed. Say it ain�t so
> Joe! ( an American Baseball thing)
>
> I guess they had to make some dumb-down editorial changes to keep the
> magazine viable, sort of like tolerating BS fringe political garbage
> that comes with the specious doom and gloom from some book writer
> expert teaching pseudoscience�Yet I digress�
>
> �People like Whole Foods (Texas based)�
>
> Oh hell that explains it,�. They are not from Foster Farms, �their
> from Texas!!! And you all know what comes from Texas, right! You may
> not get the joke but I think ya got the point, David!
No I don't get it. I have no idea what the last few paragraphs are about.
It seems to be irrelevant stuff you have dreamed up plus some cultural
references that are beyond me.
>
> �If it was left to U.S.D.A., there would be no standards, except for
> cosmetic standards, i.e. municipal waste sludge used on organic
> crops�.
>
> ��Organic grower have to fight to keep factory farmers from debasing
> what
> is essentially the Rodale approach to agriculture��
>
> Specificity? These smell more like subterfuge and a bit too global,
> don�t ya think? Especially when you�re trying to call me out about
> being specific and not being an old curmudgeon? I see it as you being
> a bit cautiously selective in speaking out as well as reluctant to
> call a spade a spade? But that is a mob mentality and a good starting
> for a different time.
>
>
> ��If a problem can be found, it should be corrected in a manner that
> maintains the goals of
> organic farming (healthy food, healthy soil, and healthy people), as
> when it was determined that rotenone was poisonous.
>
> Help me understand this, Is it farmers are not growing healthy food,
> healthy soil and healthy people but if your organic you are?
> Isn't rotenone still a poisonous non synthetic ( or as you folks like
> to say; Organic) substance that can be approved for use in NOP
> applications like so many others?
>
> The problem seems a self inflected wound David, mainstream folks and
> the real farmers are pulling out of talks because the Granola group
> hijacked the agenda. The lie of anyone who disagrees is a corporate
> shill has about run its shelf life. Along with the pseudoscience
> trying to establish bragging rights is not going to help. The world
> is not going to stand still while a bunch of old thinks try to
> readjust their comfort zone. Oh and the doom and gloom!!, really a
> buzz kill.
I don't know what this is about either.
> Now this is good: "This section comes down to showing two things,
> organic standards are a
> hopeless confusion of compromises between various ideologies and
> practicality and conformance with a standard does not guarantee
> quality or
> purity. How the problems with organic standards relate to any real
> benefits
> of organic growing (or not) I leave to you".
>
> So you did agree w/ her before ya didn't ,
What? Since when should I agree or disagree100% with an article that
raises so many issues? I agree or disagree (or don't know) on each case one
by one.
yet the other "partners"
> don't see it that way so you gel dragged you in and you get me when I
> call BS.? Is it something like that?
I think you are accusing me of altering my position just to oppose you.
Sorry I don't do that for anybody and you are certainly not so important
that I would change my practice.
>
> Regardless, Sagan's baloney detection kit is still a good guide to
> use to sort billy BS and his use of pseudoscience from more reality
> based science. Besides I got lot more actual training/application in
> PsyOps than the Brothers bill Internet sophism with their emphasis on
> Vitalism and pseudoscience combined. Its easy to see the deception
> coming.
>
Now we get the point of my request. You quoted all these fallacies, now
specifically which ones were employed by somebody in this thread, show me
the quote(s) and identify the fallacy.
> I still think you are the better source of common sense information
> but for some reason you just can't call billy on BS. Perhaps its the
> English sense and sensibility. He just chews you up and leaves you
> in the dirt.
Huh? I disagree with him on many points but we also agree on many. As for
his political views I have prviously noted that they are a distraction but
he won't change so I leave it at that.
Again, just a non-relevant observation, but do answer
> me this David;
>
> do you really believe "evil chemferts" kill soil?
Not always. I use some synthetics such as potassium sulphate. You can use
synthetics if you use them carefully and maintain the content and texture of
the soil. If you misuse them and don't bother to look after the soil by
adding organic matter etc then they can be harmful to soil and to waterways.
Instead of trying to pigeonhole me into a for or against why don't you read
what I wrote.
David
Billy
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Gunner wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 3:07 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Gunner wrote:
> >>> On Jul 26, 9:22 am, Billy <Wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote his usual
> >>> political diatribe which was snipped.
> >>
> >>> You and the other sophists are losing market share billy boy, again
> >>> I advise you review your approach to include some more of these
> >>> common fallacies of logic and rhetoric. I think you guys and gals
> >>> got most of them in this thread!
> >>
> >> Be specific if you think you actually have something of value to
> >> contribute otherwise you are joining Brooklyn in his generalised
> >> (and pointless) raging and insults.
> >
> >
> > So David, Is a �Brooklyn� kinda like a �billy�? Yes?, No?
> >
>
> No, Brooklyn is somebody who is not very knowledgeable who criticises and
> cusses for no good reason other than their own anger. Billy is a zealot who
> is more knowledgable but doesn't know when to leave out his leftist
> politics. Why are you trying to generalise them together?
>
>
> > Actually old Sheldon has made some very good points in the past if you
> > read them but you read billy instead.
> >
>
> I read them both.
>
> > Ok, my goal is to bring attention to the blathering of billy et al and
> > their latest diatribe on being questioned about the myths. Talk
> > about building strawmen to go bowling with and cherry-picking.
> >
> > But, let�s dance. Start with HE is actually a SHE, not a biggie,
> > but it shows a little lack of detail on your critiquing ability,
>
> It shows I care about and studied the content and not the author.
>
> > especially since her pic is down by the Mader reference you give. Just
> > know not all problems have an easy soultation I don�t think you
> > diss�ed her on purpose, You and this group all seemed to agree with
> > her until you didn't, but the fact that you ended up in the
> > inevitable dogpile is a bit indicative of one�s thought process.
> >
> > By chance did ya catch her Academics? Those were there as well. ( My
> > reason for the pic question) Well, she is not a famous Book Author
> > but she has got some real bona fides, just not a Masters in
> > journalism or an Internet BS degree. Perhaps there is a Doctoral
> > candidate among the bunch here that will speak up about the flaws in
> > her �research�. Yet maybe we do have someone:
> >
> > "seems mainly due to poor
> > scholarship not concealed bias"
> > I suppose the title should have given me a
> > hint. "
> >
> > Ahh, so it�s also the title that discredits her? Ohhhhh, that�s bad
> > huh????.
> >
>
> No it's the drawing of the conclusion from a reference which is not
> waranted. A matter which, despite all your words, you have carefully left
> out.
>
>
> > Well, here is another poor
> > scholarship to practice sophism on:
> >
> > The Myth of Organic Superiority:
> > "Organic products are safer than chemicals"
> > http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/Horticultural%20Myths_fil
> > es/Myths/Organic%20superiority.pdf
> >
>
> As I said there are papers that support both sides.
>
> > �All in all, I was very depressed for prestige of Scientific
> > American,
> > that I've been reading since I was a kid.
> >
> > Oh, so SA had to compromise their integrity to accommodate her, did
> > they? I hate it when the science guy does that to us!
> > Just like that, a childhood hero image is destroyed. Say it ain�t so
> > Joe! ( an American Baseball thing)
> >
> > I guess they had to make some dumb-down editorial changes to keep the
> > magazine viable, sort of like tolerating BS fringe political garbage
> > that comes with the specious doom and gloom from some book writer
> > expert teaching pseudoscience�Yet I digress�
> >
> > �People like Whole Foods (Texas based)�
> >
> > Oh hell that explains it,�. They are not from Foster Farms, �their
> > from Texas!!! And you all know what comes from Texas, right! You may
> > not get the joke but I think ya got the point, David!
>
> No I don't get it. I have no idea what the last few paragraphs are about.
> It seems to be irrelevant stuff you have dreamed up plus some cultural
> references that are beyond me.
>
> >
> > �If it was left to U.S.D.A., there would be no standards, except for
> > cosmetic standards, i.e. municipal waste sludge used on organic
> > crops�.
> >
> > ��Organic grower have to fight to keep factory farmers from debasing
> > what
> > is essentially the Rodale approach to agriculture��
> >
> > Specificity? These smell more like subterfuge and a bit too global,
> > don�t ya think? Especially when you�re trying to call me out about
> > being specific and not being an old curmudgeon? I see it as you being
> > a bit cautiously selective in speaking out as well as reluctant to
> > call a spade a spade? But that is a mob mentality and a good starting
> > for a different time.
> >
> >
> > ��If a problem can be found, it should be corrected in a manner that
You know he never asserts a position. He only criticizes, bouncing
around like a little yapping dog, snapping at your ankles, keeping you
the target. If you think you can have an honest conversation with him,
you will soon discover your mistake. He wants to win. That is all it is
with him. No exploration.
FarmI
> Instead of trying to pigeonhole me into a for or against why don't you
> read what I wrote.
These days, that seems to be a bridge too far....... Strawmen are more the
vogue.
Gunner
thank you for playing, better luck next time Farmamanl.
billy is still an old think commie on viagra with a computer.
FarmI
> Blah, blah, blah,
> thank you for playing, better luck next time Farmamanl.
> billy is still an old think commie on viagra with a computer.
And you're still a waste of bandwidth since you never have anything useful
to say about gardens or gardening or plants or ..........
Gunner
Gunner
I am so glad you finally caught on farmal.
It is admirable that you so blindly follow your leader.