On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:17:08 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
<gcouger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:u447c0thlr74chjuptk2jtalt3ppivnmv6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 6 Jun 2004 09:20:43 -0700, ta33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(ta) wrote:
>>
>> >Torsten Brinch <iaotb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:<l8e5c0d9g62ltit1rbcg54onkkjuu401c2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:01:30 -0400, "ta" <ta33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >rick etter wrote:
>> >> >> And that means also not cruelty-free. Just what I've been
saying...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "...some organic pesticides have mammalian toxicities that are
far
>> >> >> higher than many synthetic pesticides..."
>> >> >> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pubs/Natures_Toxic_Tools.pdf
<..>
>> >> The quoted statement is rather vacuous, ta, but not controversial..
>> >
>> >Of course, you're right. I wasn't referring to the claim about the
>> >toxicity of non-synthetic pesticides per se; everyone knows that
>> >organic farming employs non-synthetic pesticides. I was referring to
>> >CFGI's critique of organic farming in general, as laid out in the
>> >referenced PDF file.
>>
>> It is crude propaganda (as so much is, that come out of the Averys
>> at Hudson Institute.) Nancy Creamer has an article on it in OFRF
>> Information Bulletin, summer 2001, which you may be interested in
>> reading.
>>
>> http://www.ofrf.org/publications/news/IB10.pdf
>
>Hi Torsten,
>
>Before swallowing the yield claims of organic corn being 94% of
conventional
>corn I would like to see the trials.
Huh? But, I am not referring to that article in the bulletin. We are
taking about Avery's plump piece 'Nature's Toxic Tools', Gordon.
And Nancy Creamer's scathing critique of said. Is that hard for you
to read. (Perhaps if you took off your welding glasses .... :-)
(But, if you SO much like to see those trials mentioned in some other
article you've stumbled over, tell me, what have you actually -done-
to get to see them? Nothing .... right?)
<..>
>In a publication that discusses chemotherapy for veterinary uses I would
not
>put much stock in the stuff published there. <..>
Suggesting guilt by association? How fallacious of you :-) Well,
that's yet another article in the bulletin which I did not refer to.
Tell me, are you trying to talk with me about -anything- but the
Creamer article, which is so straightforwardly relevant here in
the context, and which I -did- refer to?
|
