Weeds on greens?
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Did idiot Tiger give Elin a new and MUCH more generous pre-nup??
Next: Question for RSG tunamint organizers / players
From: John B. on 28 Apr 2010 09:22 On Apr 28, 8:55 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 5:53 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >news:alangbaker-CA12CD.01203628042010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > In article > > > > > Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure. > > > > I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For > > > > example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.. > > > > Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll. > > > Speaking of a troll, read the following..... > > > > You said (and I quote): > > > > "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of > > > millions would not get malaria" > > > > How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that > > > water quality *does* have something to do with malaria? > > > > -- > > > Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > -Greg > > I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely > refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts. > > If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their > problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good > example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level > of consciousness thing, IMHO.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 28 Apr 2010 10:56 On Apr 28, 9:22 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 8:55 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 28, 5:53 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >news:alangbaker-CA12CD.01203628042010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > In article > > > > > > Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure. > > > > > I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For > > > > > example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria. > > > > > Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll. > > > > Speaking of a troll, read the following..... > > > > > You said (and I quote): > > > > > "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of > > > > millions would not get malaria" > > > > > How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that > > > > water quality *does* have something to do with malaria? > > > > > -- > > > > Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > > -Greg > > > I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely > > refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts. > > > If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their > > problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good > > example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level > > of consciousness thing, IMHO.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would > reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either > explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than > suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it? I can't do anything if you don't understand what I write. It's clear to me, and that's the best I can do. But IMHO your problem isn't so much that you are stupid as you are a political dupe. You just by the party line "liberal". The pesticide issue is a good example of the harm this sort of approach causes, as well as an example of selfish behavior and even the nobility of many greens-keepers (ie golf content!). While DDT is hardly begin, it's not even close to the most toxic of insecticides in use. One can look at a crop like cotton, which classically needs 10 sprayings of pesticides per crop. It also is very hard on the soil, and fertilizers are also needed. It can easily be argued that cotton is the most environmentally damaging of all crops...so why not ban it? It does more harm that DDT ever could..so ban it, right...no wait, the minions at earth cookie central like their cotton clothing. They hate things like polyester! Yuk! Being anti-DDT as your means of being anti chemical costs your basic upper east side twit nothing. We can use other pesticides to replace DDT, and so what if they may be more harmful...they aren't DDT! So onto the DDT bandwagon we go, and so what if millions in developing countries die...we can come up with alternatives...nets and bug zappers..there ya go! Think you will see the upper east side earth cookie living 24/7 the lifestyle of some poor person in a malaria infested part of rural Africa, relying on nets and bug zappers to protect him from malaria. If we spent the money on malaria that we spend on cotton pesticidewise, I doubt anyone would get malaria...but Johnny cares about his cotton shorts more than he cares about the lives of people in malaria infested parts of the world, and that is an observable matter of fact for which laments of opinion ring totally hollow. Would it or would it not be an interesting and worthwhile experiment to have people from malaria infested parts of the world choose which pesticides to ban, and where to invest our pesticide resources...rather than people in the US and western Europe? Would probably save a lot of lives, and put Johnny in polyester shorts...a trade he would not actually make, as we can observe. The golf content here is that greenskeepers have an interesting challenge. They have to keep weeds of Johnny's green's, we can't have that! But those pesticides are expensive and toxic. I cannot imagine a greenskeeper wanting to use pesticides if they didn't have to because of the toxicity issue, nor a golf course owner wanting to use them because of the cost. But your upper east side earth cookie golfer will not stand for weeds on the greens...so what to do? Find less toxic, cheaper alternatives that you don't have to use as much...and I suspect they have! Ordinary market economics solving a problem!
From: bknight on 28 Apr 2010 11:57 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: >On Apr 28, 9:22�am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 28, 8:55�am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 28, 5:53�am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >> >> > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> > > > You said (and I quote): >> >> > > > "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of >> > > > millions would not get malaria" >> >> > > > How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that >> > > > water quality *does* have something to do with malaria? >> >> > If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their >> > problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It's patently clear what you said. "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of millions would not get malaria". Ergo; water quality is a cause of malaria. >> >> �The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would >> reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either >> explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than >> suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it? > >I can't do anything if you don't understand what I write. It's clear >to me, and that's the best I can do. That's the problem, the best you can do is try to bend what you've actually said into something else. You do this consistently; make statements that you can't back up and then stonewall it with BS. You'll do this for a couple of days, hoping that your misstatement will be forgotten. <clip 40 lines of obfuscatory BS> BK
From: Alan Baker on 28 Apr 2010 14:35 In article <12c2b7be-ddf5-45af-80de-20e6f48d2f9f(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 9:22�am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 28, 8:55�am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 5:53�am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > > >news:alangbaker-CA12CD.01203628042010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for > > > > > > sure. > > > > > > I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For > > > > > > example, I never said water quality had anything to do with > > > > > > malaria. > > > > > > Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll. > > > > > > Speaking of a troll, read the following..... > > > > > > > You said (and I quote): > > > > > > > "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of > > > > > millions would not get malaria" > > > > > > > How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that > > > > > water quality *does* have something to do with malaria? > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal > > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely > > > refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts. > > > > > If Al or John don't understand what I said in that post, that's their > > > problem. It's pretty clear what I am saying. It just stands as a good > > > example of why you shouldn't respond to such people at all...a level > > > of consciousness thing, IMHO.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > �The fact is that you said increased spending on water quality would > > reduce the incidence of malaria in the developing world. Either > > explain it or admit that it's wrong. That's a little tougher than > > suggesting that I'm dumb or obstuse, isn't it? > > I can't do anything if you don't understand what I write. It's clear > to me, and that's the best I can do. Not "can't", "won't". -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 28 Apr 2010 15:41
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message news:98161d23-4033-4f17-b463-6b49fdd38cea(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Apr 28, 5:53 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-CA12CD.01203628042010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > In article > > > > Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure. > > > I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For > > > example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria. > > > Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll. > > Speaking of a troll, read the following..... > > > You said (and I quote): > > > "if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of > > millions would not get malaria" > > > How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that > > water quality *does* have something to do with malaria? > > > -- > > Uncle Al, the kiddy's pal > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > -Greg I generally don't read Baker. He is one of those people who absolutely refuses to understand what people are saying in their posts. --------------------------------------------------------------- Good decision. I'm glad you don't take his bait. If only KP would do the same, Uncle Al would be forced to go elsewhere to play his kiddy games. -Greg |