"Rick" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:47:16 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Rick wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious
cult that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They
will spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science.
Interesting cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the
responses I have seen are referring to scientific studies not
religious texts. You might want to reply with some facts instead of
a broad generalisation with no obvious evidence. So far you are
exhibiting the very thing you criticise.

David


Sure.
scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not
normally...

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

You of course, love to eat food that has been sprayed with roundup.
Personally,
I am not.

There is plenty of evidence that GMO foods have been insuficiently tested
for
safety. I want very strongly to be able to know what I am eating, and
current US
law does not make that possible. So take you condescending dribble and
shove it
back where the sun don't shine.


No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO
with the practices of a company named Monsanto.

You have no evidence to make that statement.

In his first sentence, Bob threw in a strawman that relates to a Monsanto
product. Bob then started a new paragraph that mentioned GMO.

Even if English is not your first language, you should realise that unless
or until Bob conjoins the two thoughts in one sentence then you are leaping
to a conclusion for which you have no evidence. Bob may very well confused
about the two but until you have more evidence to confirm bob's thoughts ont
he subject you can't logically make the claims that you have done.

You sir are a
woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin.

You are abusive and pretentious. You don't demonstrate logic or simple
analytical skills.