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: Billy on 29 Apr 2010 11:08 In article <15e09b22-77d6-4c3a-9cca-dd9fd5de7cdf(a)y36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 5:43�pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote: > > In article > > <38785119-fcc1-4662-8ded-b2227cb24...(a)d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > �Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 2:53�pm, Billy <wildbi...(a)withouta.net> wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > > snippitall > > > > > If you read UN propaganda, the idea is for the ban to be universal. > > > That's what they really want. > > > > > As for the effectiveness of chemical agriculture, you would have to go > > > back to the studies of the 1940's and 1950's and look at Norman > > > Borlaug and his work, it's rationale and how well it did in fact work. > > > One can spin the issues after the fact, but the fact remains that > > > prior to the green revolution many parts of the world could not feed > > > themselves, and now they can, because of chemical agriculture. > > > > > As for our culture, the rationale is simply that you get higher yields > > > with the chemicals, and that more than offsets to costs. Grow food to > > > feed to bugs or grow it to feed to people. Again, you would have to go > > > back to the mid 20th century and look at agriculture literature for > > > that time. > > > > > Resistance comes from overuse. The solution is simply, you use a > > > variety of pesticides over time. When resistance to one emerges, you > > > switch to another. If you are co-ordinated in your use you can deal > > > with the issue. We take the time to deal with the problem and use the > > > chemicals, with cotton, but not malaria. The only reason for this, and > > > this is a fact to me, is that we value cotton far more than the lives > > > of people in regions infested with malaria. > > > > > We probably use DDT so much because it is relatively begin, and it was > > > discovered early on. We could use other chemicals just as easy I > > > suppose. As for chemical use in general, I can't see free farmers > > > using chemicals without reason. If they could get the yields without > > > the chemicals, they would do it; as evidenced by the popularity of > > > GMOs that reduce chemical use. > > > > > I personally do not doubt that if we stopped using chemicals we would > > > have to spend a lot more of our time and wealth on agriculture. Get > > > more urban deadbeats out of their mom's basement and out in the field > > > harvesting crops. A Khmer Rouge like society I suppose. > > > > > We live how we live at the end of the day. Cheap food gives us extra > > > wealth to support more and more people doing nothing and being fed, > > > clothed and housed; even get health insurance! Make food more > > > expensive, and we have less to waste on deadbeats. No real problem for > > > me, but others might not like it so much if food prices started going > > > up! > > > > > Other than direct sources, like say a government bill or UN resolution > > > that you can get online, I don't put too much stock in online sources > > > for complex highly politicized issues like this. More spin than fact, > > > and I don't buy politics in general. FWIW, I'm fairly "conservative" > > > on fiscal issues and considered very "liberal" on social issues. In my > > > experience, liberal sycophants are more aggressive in tearing me down > > > for my views than conservatives, even though I almost totally reject > > > the conservative social agenda. > > > > So, the long and the short of it is, you don't have a citation. You have > > nothing to base your conjecture on. You just pull it out of the air. > > -- > > - Billy > > "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the > > merger of state and corporate power." - Benito > > Mussolini.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUghttp://www.thirdworldtra > > veler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html > > So you are just trolling after all. Fool me once..... Excellent choice of quote: There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again. - "The Worst President Ever" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 29 Apr 2010 18:26 On Apr 29, 9:42 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 10:56 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(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. > > > 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in > developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing > countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of > malaria. > > Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid > of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm > that the absence of DDT has caused. What a foolish statement. You obviously have no idea about the DDT ban or the effect on malaria levels. Fact is the DDT ban is absurd. It is not a particularly dangerous pesticide, compared to others we use, and the well established fact of the deaths caused by the reductions in DDT use can only be question by unaware dupes who simply buy into some party line. In any event I apologize for debating anything with you. there is no point at all to discussing anything with uninformed people. I am sorry that I cannot teach you about pesticide use in a usenet post, but I can't. In any event, I won't bother with such things with you again. Continue on with your liberal transition of character assassination of those who disagree with you on some political point. It doesn't mean a thing, because the politics of liberal vs conservative (for example) mean nothing, and such wasting of your time keeps people like you from have a real impact, ie making real trouble!
From: Alan Baker on 29 Apr 2010 18:53 In article <6aba85ee-cdda-4b93-aa39-4de97a318365(a)w36g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 9:42�am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 28, 10:56�am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(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. > > > > > 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!- Hide > > > quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in > > developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing > > countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of > > malaria. > > > > Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid > > of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm > > that the absence of DDT has caused. > > What a foolish statement. You obviously have no idea about the DDT ban > or the effect on malaria levels. He knows that DDT hasn't been banned in developing countries... ....which you are apparently incapable of grasping. > > Fact is the DDT ban is absurd. It is not a particularly dangerous > pesticide, compared to others we use, and the well established fact of > the deaths caused by the reductions in DDT use can only be question by > unaware dupes who simply buy into some party line. The problem with DDT is not simply in its immediate toxicity, but more in its *persistence*. > > In any event I apologize for debating anything with you. there is no > point at all to discussing anything with uninformed people. I am sorry > that I cannot teach you about pesticide use in a usenet post, but I > can't. In any event, I won't bother with such things with you again. You can't because you're a know-nothing. > > Continue on with your liberal transition of character assassination of > those who disagree with you on some political point. It doesn't mean a > thing, because the politics of liberal vs conservative (for example) > mean nothing, and such wasting of your time keeps people like you from > have a real impact, ie making real trouble! And when you can't, you launch into a deflecting little rant. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: John B. on 29 Apr 2010 22:00 On Apr 29, 6:26 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 9:42 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 28, 10:56 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(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. > > > > 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in > > developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing > > countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of > > malaria. > > > Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid > > of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm > > that the absence of DDT has caused. > > What a foolish statement. You obviously have no idea about the DDT ban > or the effect on malaria levels. > > Fact is the DDT ban is absurd. It is not a particularly dangerous > pesticide, compared to others we use, and the well established fact of > the deaths caused by the reductions in DDT use can only be question by > unaware dupes who simply buy into some party line. > > In any event I apologize for debating anything with you. there is no > point at all to discussing anything with uninformed people. I am sorry > that I cannot teach you about pesticide use in a usenet post, but I > can't. In any event, I won't bother with such things with you again. > > Continue on with your liberal transition of character assassination of > those who disagree with you on some political point. It doesn't mean a > thing, because the politics of liberal vs conservative (for example) > mean nothing, and such wasting of your time keeps people like you from > have a real impact, ie making real trouble! Yet again, all mouth and no substance. Not a single fact or emperical statement. If you could corroborate your assertions with evidence, you would. But obviously you can't.
From: Alan Baker on 29 Apr 2010 22:30
In article <3bb54267-3f45-4e40-b4c2-e547265627bf(a)o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Once again, the DDT ban has not increased mortality from malaria in > > > developing countries, because it is not in effect in developing > > > countries. DDT is still widely used in countries with high rates of > > > malaria. > > > > > Your little diatribe here is long on rhetoric and pretty well devoid > > > of facts. You have completely failed to demonstrate any material harm > > > that the absence of DDT has caused. > > > > What a foolish statement. You obviously have no idea about the DDT ban > > or the effect on malaria levels. > > > > Fact is the DDT ban is absurd. It is not a particularly dangerous > > pesticide, compared to others we use, and the well established fact of > > the deaths caused by the reductions in DDT use can only be question by > > unaware dupes who simply buy into some party line. > > > > In any event I apologize for debating anything with you. there is no > > point at all to discussing anything with uninformed people. I am sorry > > that I cannot teach you about pesticide use in a usenet post, but I > > can't. In any event, I won't bother with such things with you again. > > > > Continue on with your liberal transition of character assassination of > > those who disagree with you on some political point. It doesn't mean a > > thing, because the politics of liberal vs conservative (for example) > > mean nothing, and such wasting of your time keeps people like you from > > have a real impact, ie making real trouble! > > Yet again, all mouth and no substance. Not a single fact or emperical > statement. If you could corroborate your assertions with evidence, you > would. But obviously you can't. I'm honestly doubtful that he even knows how... -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |