Subject: Re: Roundup
From: michaelross@mindspring.com (Michael E Ross)
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 04:42:02 GMT
Message-ID: <MOD$970923.10790@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
References: <MOD$970912.25120@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970917.22772@rec.gardens.ecosystems>


bum@mail.utexas.edu (Caleb Rounds) wrote:

>What we've seen in this debate is that there are two sides to this issue,
>both have "facts." The "facts" disagree;this is probably true b/c of
>different sorts of experimental conditions. Now each of us can make
>his/her own decision.
I am not so sure the facts "disagree." Have you got an example?
But as you say we all make our own decesions. One reason why it keeps
getting air time is because somebody's toes will get stepped on
whether it is status quo from here on out or a change. This makes it
a worhty topic of repeated conversation. Besides a lot of us didn't
have the benefit of earlier hashings out.

>Roundup can be harmful. So can apple seeds. So can a guitar string if used
>incorrectly. (like around the guitarist's neck).
The PANNA papers by Caroline Cox lead me to believe that even
"correct" use has some problems associated with it (which for some
reason are less commonly known). And perhaps a new "correct" use
might be in order.

>I happen to believe that using synthetic chemicals is a gamble. I also
>believe that what's on the line in this gamble is the water, air, soil and
>life of this planet. Ultimately we can't know the long term effects of
>anything we do. This newsgroup though is called rec.gardens.ecosystems. I
>assume we are supposed to talk about the net effect of gardening choices
>we make on the ecosystems we all share. This said, there is no definite
>answer on these debates. Thus, I love the debate, I liek to see the
>different sides. But, folks, let's try to stay civil.
>
>Caleb Rounds
>Austin, TX
>

Second that on the civil, Caleb.