In article ,
Rick wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:59:57 +1000, "Farm1"
wrote:

"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,
It is not, but I am comfortable with it.
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.
Cite please (as you are wont to ask). I've certainly never seen this
assertion before.
Bob may very well confused
That is quite clear.
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.

What does onthe mean?
You sir are a
woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin.

You are abusive and pretentious.
And very tired of ignorant religious based thinking destroying our
world
You don't demonstrate logic or simple
analytical skills.

Rick
Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
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!
------
Bill
Rick, face it, you offer no facts, and seem to assert that just because
they are religious, they are wrong. In fact, the article made no
religious appeal, but simply drew attention to a non-GMO wheat that
yielded 30% more that standard wheat.

Real science is based on facts, yet you offer none. You seem more
interested in disproving that a non-GMO, can out produce a GMO.
Scientists aren't partisan. When their views are colored by ego, or
money they cease to be scientists.
=======

RIck
Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:05:44 -0400
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.
-----
Bill
You didn't show our alleged ignorance of DNA. Perhaps you would care to
allay our fears by explaining how genetic and epigenetic regualtion
[sic] of gene expression preclude the production of exotic proteins that
may lead to allergic reactions.
Sexual breeding plants isn't genetic manipulation. Polyploids happen
naturally.
Mutagenesis is a reason for concern, and fortunately, is mostly
restricted to rice.
====

Rick
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013
No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO
with the practices of a company named Monsanto. You sir are a
woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin.
You probably believe in JEEBUS. Good luck with that.

If you eat anything that is processed in any way (including food in
most restaurants), you are consuming GMO. Why do you need a lable to
tell you that? I certainly don't much care about labels, but find
them pretty useless. What does the label "organic" tell you? Do you
"believe" such food is safer or more nutritious than GMO? Why? You
have no basis to compare, and not enough intellectual curiosity to
investigate with an open mind. Boooooooring.
-------
Bill
Where to begin? Can you site a definition for "typical aged Usenet
numbskulls"?
What study are you referring to? Monsanto has a high profile because of
its amount of lobbying, and it legal practices against farmers.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
What is your basis for characterizing David as ignorant, and
deliberately uneducated. You must realize that such statements are the
statements of trolls, or at best someone exceedingly adolescent. You
know that you can't possible justify them without claiming to be
omniscient and omnipresent. I'm pretty sure that is out of your league.
What is GBUS?

As far as processed foods, the man is a gardener. His only weakness for
processed food that is Bonne Maman Raspberry Jam which has no
preservatives, no additives, no corn syrup, is sulfite-free and non-GMO.
Personally, I rarely eat in restaurants, and I avoid processed foods. My
bread is a locally baked baguette made from organic flour. The markets I
go to either have organic sections for meat and produce, or the product
is labeled with that information, and where it came from. Whether you
find labels useful or not, is immaterial to me. As far as being able to
compare I direct you to
http://www.agricultureinformation.co...ng/18027-organ
ic-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...toxins-blood-9
3-unborn-babies.html#
and
http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Nutritional_Content_of_Organic_Food

You say its boring, but do you grow food? Do you know what fresh food
tastes like?
When your plants have a problem, what do you do, change the environment,
or go for a chemical fix?

In any event, boring isn't an argument. It's an invitation to a flame
war (not very good for arguments).
========


Your dazzling display of illogic has taken my breath away! Still,
once in a while you post something worth reading, and so a response
may be worthwhile.
I like bread and pasta made with wheat. Many people do. In fact
wheat accounts for a rather large percentage of human food. If you
are one who eats wheat, what will you do if (realistically when) the
only bread available is GMO?
…"The other thing to bear in mind, said Akhunov, is that "the pathogen
races are evolving very fast." Since the discovery of Ug99, another
five or six derivative races have emerged, he said. So not only must
the search for new resistance genes continue, he said, but also "we
need to come up with faster ways of responding.""…
Faith based fear is ignorant. Ignorance is a fatal flaw. This is a
fight we cannot allow ignorance to win. Believe in your gods if you
must, but at least try to understnd the science behind GMO in the
absence of irrational fear.
http://bit.ly/12pqJYC
For those who wisely distrust mini-links:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...e/Fungus-Fight
ing-Genes/
Bill
Again, more combative words, and nothing to buttress your argument that
GMO's are good for you.

You pose a hypothetical question about when GMO bread is the only bread
to eat. Organic food is the fastest growing section of the market. GMOs
don't yield more. GMOs are more resistant to some insects, but you will
have to eat the toxins. GMOs have more resistance to glyphosate, which
is toxic, and causing their targets plants to become resistant. I belie
they are called Frankenweeds.

The is a more professional article on the Wheat Gene Sr35 at
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-resistance-gene-ug99-wheat-stem.html#nRlv
There is no need to use GMO technology as the gene come from wheat, but
it will still need to go throughout he trial phase as would ant other
new cultivar. The Wheat Gene Sr35 could be breed into the new high
yielding wheat from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany to
give higher yield and greater resistance to rusts. This can be done with
normal sexual breeding, and seeds selected by polymerase chain reaction
(PCR). This would be more marketable to countries that won't import GMO
produce.

You might take your own advice. "Faith based fear is ignorant.
Ignorance is a fatal flaw. This is a fight we cannot allow ignorance to
win. Believe in your gods if you
must, but at least try to understnd [sic] the science behind GMO in the
absence of irrational fear.

If you care to explain why GMOs are innocuous, please do so, but don't
presume to be above reproach as authority needs to be questioned. So far
you haven't made any scientific arguments in favor of GMOs, until you do
I'll presume that you have none.

Your "content free" post hasn't added anything to the conversation,
except to raise the specter of Lysenkoism. Please explain the influence
of splicosomes on "epigenetic regualtion of gene expression" (DNA
methylation, or histone modifications?). Or was this term used
stochastically to obfuscate the lack of content in your post?

More to the point, you haven't refuted the work of Dr. Arpad Pusztai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai

You haven't refuted the work of Jeffrey M. Smith.
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370652274&sr=1-1&keywords=S
eeds+of+deception

You haven't refuted the concerns of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agric...d-system/genet
ic-engineering/

As for not communicating with, or educating
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm
that is a similar approach taken by the Church in the Middle Ages,
whereas today's Catholics accept a heliocentric solar system, and
Evolution.

If you truly believed in GMOs, you would have no fear of double blind
feeding trials for GMOs. This is the gold standard for determining the
safety of food products. Yet, to date there have been no double blind
feeding trials for GMOs. We, the American public are the guinea pigs.

If you can reason, fine, but another personal attack will just find you
in my KF.

GMOs, or at least some of them "may" be just fine, but at the present we
are consuming them on blind faith. Isn't that what you were against?
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg