"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick" > wrote in message news:EbUzf.6837>
> ==========================
>> So, as a typical 'expert' here on usenet you'll dispute things
>> that you know nothing about, and won't even bother to
>> research.
>> You must be veg*n, they're the willfully ignorant ones on most
>> subjects.
>>
>
> You made a claim that I hadn't heard anything about so I asked
> you to give
> me a reference for it. Thankyou.
> ============================
The point was that like many that tout organics, they do so from
propaganda. They, like you apparently, have done no real
research into organics, you just like the propaganda you've heard
an feel that that is all you need to know.
And, you're welcome...

>>
>> "...The potato contains a naturally occurring chemical that's
>> quite toxic, called a glycoalkyloid. Those glycoalkyloids in
>> some
>> potatoes, as a matter of fact, have caused severe human
>> poisonings and near death. When you breed potatoes, it's
>> possible
>> to breed in high levels of that toxin into a potato. And as a
>> matter of fact, there are a number of breeds of potatoes that
>> have high levels. Fortunately, they did not make the
>> marketplace
>> for that reason.
>> Another great example of the risks of traditional breeding is
>> celery. Celery naturally contains a chemical, when it hits
>> sunlight, becomes toxic. There was a case in California where
>> a
>> new variety of celery was bred. It had, unknown to the people
>> who
>> bred it, high levels of this toxin in it. It was planted, and
>> the
>> workers who harvested this came out with a very severe skin
>> rash.
>> So normal kind of breeding can produce risks, just as any
>> other
>> genetic or other kinds of breeding can produce risks..."
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/etc/script.html
>>
>> If you were really interested in knowledge, you could look
>> things
>> up, but it appears you just want to remain willfully ignorant.
>
>
> I am interested in you making a case to support your
> assertions. There are
> quite enough crazys about who will claim anything to win an
> argument, I have
> no idea if you fit that description or not, so why would I
> spend time
> looking for what could be a chimera? Now that you have
> supplied some
> material I have something to go on.
=====================
The point, again, was that the information is available to anyone
that wants the *facts* about that which they promote.
Most organic-only proponents do NO such research into all aspects
of the 'religion.' They feed off each other, reciting the same
lys and delusions over and over about benefits that aren't there.
As to why you wouldn't look into 'drawbacks' to a religion you
promote is the basis of all faiths.

>
> David
>
>