Follow us!

    Post: Waiting for answers, Caoimhin

    Posted by Greg Weatherman on 1/06/04


    Stick to facts and answer the initial questions, please.
    Quit obfuscating, redirecting and running interference with
    peripheral subjects that are of no consequence or curiosity
    to the general public. I don't think you can answer the
    questions in a way that spares the validity of your web
    pages concerning mold and IAQ. I bet you are furiously
    reading material to see if there is a snare. How often do
    you go to the University of Denver Library?

    I will give concise answers to each point below the
    appropriate paragraph. I will not beat a dead horse. I do
    not suffer from "logorrhea". Does the culture of your
    rearing make you write in the style of Herman Melville and
    the Brontes? Get to the point, please! This is America.


    On 1/06/04, Caoimhín P. Connell wrote:
    > Good Morning, Mr. Weatherman:
    > I find it curious that you send me private emails
    > for my favour by slavishly praising me for what you
    > as my superior logic and knowledge, and for the aplomb
    > which I have dispensed some poster by a particular


    I congratulated your posting about the problems with carpet
    sample interpretations. I also let you know a better way to
    collect carpet samples with a common sterile bag used in
    healthcare instead of a common sterile cassette used in
    environmental microbiology. Your reply was, "Not bad for a
    rock with lips".

    I sent another email congratulating you for using
    scientific references on the IAQ List in an argument about
    UV lighting for antimicrobial benfits. You listed articles
    dating back to the 1920's. You must have got them from
    a "periodic journal" in library. Most people do not even
    attempt to give reference for their statements on a

    I guess I'm strange to you since I give credit where credit
    is due. Try it. Your religeous researches are greatly
    misunderstood until you grasp the simple truth.

    > I find it curious that you then pander for the favour of
    > those very same people by openly criticizing me on boards
    > were unaware I monitored with ad hominem attacks for
    > making the very same argument.


    I made a disparaging comment about your inability to be
    reasonable on the OSB chatboard more than one year ago -
    1st ammendment, dude. Doug Haney is fine with me. He made
    mistakes in statements. He owned-up to them like a mature
    person does. He got a little to angry in some of his
    postings directed at you. He was going through a very
    emotional time since someone he has known for years was
    suffering health problems that may have been partially
    caused from mold - cancer. He was kicked-off for a period
    of time from this chatboard. Yes he got angry and said some
    things he should not have posted. But, Doug Haney is not so
    ugly he needs pork chops hung aroung his neck to get dogs
    to play with him. This is just a peculiar saying we
    have "Down South".

    Do you know I never called your employer like you have
    called other people's employer. Let me refresh your memory.
    You threatened Dr. Ken Hudnell, Lead EPA Neurotoxicolgy
    Researcher, after he gave everyone text book answers
    concerning toxicolgy while posting arguments to your
    general statements about toxic mold and toxicity. You
    threated him on the phone. You threatened to cause him
    trouble by calling his employer, the EPA, to complain about
    him. He told me all about it. Dr. Hudnell helps fix people.
    He and Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker have peer-reviewed papers and
    both can testify about human health in
    court. Can you?

    > I find it curious that you pander for the favour of
    > unscrupulous consultants who are known charlatans with
    > fraudulent academic credentials because you perceive that
    > may be able to pick up a few crumbs they may drop along
    > way without due regard for what the association may do to
    > desires you may have had to develop a respectful


    Dr. Richard Lipsey has passed Daubert and Frye examinations
    in courts. He also testifies for plaintiffs or defense
    depending on the truth. He does not lead clients to believe
    they have a case when they don't - while bilking them of
    money better spent in other areas. He also does not answer
    all your attacks since he is busy and has many customers.

    If anyone wants to know why porous furniture (irreguardless
    of growth in the upholstery) can not be saved in some moldy
    homes, call Dr. Lipsey. His background makes him "uniquely
    qualified" to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt. He has the
    scientific references.

    If anyone wants to know why mold outdoors is very different
    from mold indoors with respect to toxicity, call Dr.
    Lipsey. He has the scientific references.

    Don't expect him to post his knowledge that gives him
    the "professional edge". He charge very little for
    investigations compared to competent investigators. His
    income comes from courtroom testimony on human health.

    > I find it curious that you parade aloft with such bravado
    > single scientific article as though you somehow had
    > to do with its “discovery” or its content; without ever
    > realizing that the article in question didn’t, as you
    > supposed, support the argument you were attempting to
    make at
    > the time. Indeed, for sometime thereafter, your opinions
    > were quite contrary to the work provided in the article
    > you misunderstood the work.
    > It’s curious you somehow take credit for me being aware
    > the article; I have hundreds upon hundreds of similar
    > articles. Greg, my boy, its not the ownership of an
    > that empowers one with wisdom – rather the ability to
    > with authority comes from understanding the strengths and
    > weaknesses of the information contained therein.
    > I find it curious that in spite of your strange claims
    > regarding the Ahearn paper, you continued for some time
    > argue against it; I believe now that you never actually
    > it until recently – or certainly didn’t understand it.


    Your Statement: Stachybotrys is in the outddor air and
    therefore normal and a "pollutant" (legal term).

    Price, Ahearn study: Stachybotrys is in the paper backing.
    Therefore, it is not a "pollutant" (legal term)!

    Your Statement: Use Lysol for dust suppression.

    Price, Ahearn study: Quaternary Ammonium is the worst for
    mold. Lysol also has used cresol, o-chlorophenol and o-
    phenylphenol in the past in different versions. Which
    product were you advertising?

    > I find it curious that here, on this very board, you
    > declared to the world with great humility that you were
    > NOT a mold expert, but rather you were a self
    > proclaimed expert mold remediator. (You should have stuck
    > that claim).


    The experts are usually experts for a small area of
    microbiology. They might be and expert for 1 to 5 genuses
    of mold that share some ability to produce certain
    mycotoxins, cause food spoilage, harm animals or produce
    certain antibiotics. There is no person in the world who is
    an expert for "MOLD" or "BACTERIA".

    I knew my limitations and pursued the knowledge to make me
    better and hopefully solve my customers problems with their
    properties. The people I encountered who are "real experts"
    will not go into areas outside their research. Dr. Bean
    will tell a person to speak to Dr. J. Pitt or Dr. J.D.
    Miller if they want to know about Penicillium. Dr. Bean
    will give knowledge about Stachybotrys, Fusarium,
    Myrothecium, Memnoniella or anything that produces
    macrocyclic thrichothecenes or aflatoxins.

    I learned a lot from remediation that investigators don't
    see due to lack of knowledge in building sciences or
    inability to tear-out building materials since the
    customers are apprehensive. I became very good at
    investigating by default since you have to know where the
    problems are, what caused the problems and how to resolve
    the moisture sources.

    I learned investigation and sampling since you have to know
    the limitations of the results and plans given by others. I
    also pay for inhouse research to verify my suspicions that
    gives me a "professional edge".

    I carry "professional" insurance (E & O insurance)for
    environmental investigation to include "microbial
    pollution" (legal term). I also carry comercial general
    liability insurance (CGL) for "microbial remediation" and
    a "pollution" policy to also include "microbial
    pollutin". "Instant experts" do not get this insurance

    > I find it curious that you made the above claim in light
    > the fact that also on this very board, you announced with
    > conviction that air and light killed mold and that all
    > needed to do to remediate a mold problem was expose the
    > to air and light. I find it curious that you actually
    > the opinion that mold grew inside walls because, in your
    > opinion, there was no air inside walls.

    I love it when you misquote with such chest-beating gusto
    to the point of sounding authoritative. You could write for
    the "Enquirer" with your ability ot "pontificate". Got any
    ideas on "Area 54"?

    Growth is affected by light patterns. Some mold grow better
    in areas with less airflow. This has to do with their
    ability to attain their nitrogen from substrates. I won't
    go further with this basic fact.

    > I find it curious that on this very board you briefly
    > a labour regulations expert making wild and outlandish
    > regarding the OSHA HazComm standard and heavily
    criticized me
    > for correcting you – only to later end up apologizing to
    > on this very board (much to your credit).


    I was mistaken about that standard. Appaerntly many people
    have been according to OSHA's new webpage...........

    I err, ergo, I'm human. I go back and verify. I can admit
    mistakes. I'm not so egotistical or lacking in self
    confidence that I can't do this normal behavior. Try it.

    > I find it curious that a person of normal self respect,
    > would be embarrassed by such events continues in exactly
    > same vein, apparently never learning by those mistakes
    > indeed now seems to think that you command some kind of
    > authority to demand answers of me. Greg, your history and
    > actions have already defined your credibility.
    > I find it curious, knowing that I normally don’t bother
    > read your posts (or reply to your personal emails) you
    > the only way to get me to take notice of you was by
    > your name off the leader of this post. And it almost
    > Greg, I actually read through the first paragraph before
    > became aware of the proverbial wafting of a rodent.


    It must have worked. You spent a good deal of time
    answering the echos in your mind.

    Answer the initial questions or lose the credibility you
    claim to have.
    > I find it curious that I bothered to reply to one of your
    > posts… 'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Caoimhín (he was
    > much surprised, that for the moment he quite forgot how
    > futile such a reply was). With apologies to Lewis Carroll
    > and Alice.
    > I consider the matter closed. However, if you would like
    > take this up on another board, say a moderated IAQ board,
    > would be happy to enlighten you... and the other board
    > members, who may get a kick to find out a little more
    > you.
    > Cheers,
    > Caoimhín P. Connell
    > (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my
    > personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my
    > professional opinion, opinion of my employer, peers, or
    > professional affiliates. The above post is for
    > only and does not reflect professional advice and is not
    > intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)
    > AMDG

    I guess you consider me a rat for asking tough, scientific
    questions. Ce la vie. See spot run. Spot is a bulldog.


    Greg Weatherman
    A professional guy who does not have the personality or
    appearance of a "door knob"

    p.s. To all the long suffering Boudreouxs that watched LSU
    go all the way, "WHODAT"!

    The days of the "Aints" paperbag masks can be peacefully

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.
The Counsel.Net ChatBoardsm. All Rights Reserved.