Re: Waiting for answers, Caoimhin

More | Report Post

Mr. Weatherman:

Be patient, please. Possibly the audible warning system is
being scolded, or fed? Who knows, maybe he was carted off
for a hunting trip and was cut loose on another mold trail?

I'd like to see some comment from Mr. Connell as to whether
he would be willing to visit Dr. Shoemaker or other
designated physician. I think it should be of interest,
significant to researchers, to have a participant such as
Mr. Connell. By way of his hundreds of past investigations
and hopefully future investigations, he has a lot to offer.
Especially, if he is routinely exposed and yet unaffected.

I have seen cases where, say, ten people visit a site, and
three get sick. The seven unaffected could be of value in
finding out what hit the three affected?

The problem comes when the unaffected dismiss the others for
whatever reasons, but usually because they do not have the
benefit of immediate feedback. If for example, Mr. Connell
walked out onto a site with nine others, three fell over
dead, and then this was repeated several times, he might
conclude there was an as yet unidentified problem that
affects only certain people.

However, if the people did not immediately fall over dead,
and they just became ill (and progressively worse), he might
just "laugh it off" like he does the claims from those who
visit this board for help. But, regardless, we need an
answer. If the alleged exposure related illnesses are real,
then why don't the problems show up in all exposed?

ff

On 1/06/04, Greg Weatherman wrote:
> Caoimhin,
>
> 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
> pandering
>> for my favour by slavishly praising me for what you
> perceive
>> as my superior logic and knowledge, and for the aplomb
> with
>> which I have dispensed some poster by a particular
> argument.
>
> *********************************************
>
> 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
> chatboard.
>
> 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
> you
>> 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
> you
>> may be able to pick up a few crumbs they may drop along
> the
>> way without due regard for what the association may do to
> any
>> desires you may have had to develop a respectful
> reputation.
>
> *********************************************
>
> 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
> a
>> single scientific article as though you somehow had
> something
>> 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
> since
>> you misunderstood the work.
>>
>> It’s curious you somehow take credit for me being aware
> of
>> the article; I have hundreds upon hundreds of similar
>> articles. Greg, my boy, its not the ownership of an
> article
>> that empowers one with wisdom – rather the ability to
> speak
>> 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
> to
>> argue against it; I believe now that you never actually
> read
>> 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
> to
>> 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
> coverage.
>
> ********************************************
>>
>> I find it curious that you made the above claim in light
> of
>> the fact that also on this very board, you announced with
>> conviction that air and light killed mold and that all
> one
>> needed to do to remediate a mold problem was expose the
> mold
>> to air and light. I find it curious that you actually
> held
>> 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
> became
>> a labour regulations expert making wild and outlandish
> claims
>> regarding the OSHA HazComm standard and heavily
> criticized me
>> for correcting you – only to later end up apologizing to
> me
>> 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,
> who
>> would be embarrassed by such events continues in exactly
> the
>> same vein, apparently never learning by those mistakes
> and
>> 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
> to
>> read your posts (or reply to your personal emails) you
> felt
>> the only way to get me to take notice of you was by
> leaving
>> your name off the leader of this post. And it almost
> worked,
>> Greg, I actually read through the first paragraph before
> I
>> 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
> so
>> 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
> to
>> take this up on another board, say a moderated IAQ board,
> I
>> would be happy to enlighten you... and the other board
>> members, who may get a kick to find out a little more
> about
>> 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
> information
>> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg Weatherman
> gw@aerobiological.com
> 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
> retired.
>

MCS/MCSS Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST