On Wed, 14 May 2003 10:42:09 +0100, Someone who spammed me
wrote:



paghat wrote:
In article , "Kat" wrote:


"Vox Humana" wrote in message
. ..

[...]


Well, they ARE banned in Leviticus.

-paghat the ratgirl


Yes - but what isn't?

Interestingly (and disgustingly) enough, I was doing some research in
a book by a British scholar named, I think, Judith Morgan (not sure)
called "Women in the Mishnah" (Mishnah = compendium of commentaries by
the Sages on the Five Books of Moses).

Sexual relations between a whole range of blood and marriage relatives
are forbidden in Leviticus, but there is no mention of *daughters*
being forbidden. Of course this doesn't mean that daughters were
routinely raped by fathers; that would have been a cardinal sin.
Anyway that's more the style of the U.S. deep Saouth and rural France
(La Jument Verte by Marcel Ayme). But I have always wondered why
daughters were not among the "thou shalt not uncover the nakedness
of.."

Also, somebody in the "Mishnah" book was quoted as opining that it's
OK to penetrate a 3-year-old, because the hymen will regrow (and then
she will presumably be saleable).

I guess it was a man's world then, and still is in some cultures.

--

Researcher

On Wed, 14 May 2003 08:56:21 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

In uk.rec.gardening paghat wrote:

: I'd vastly prefer to correct the problem that caused the indoor air to be
: full of toxic chemical gasses.

Dispense with your material posessions and move to the country.

What, and breath the methane from all those cow farts?


--
Polar

On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:22:50 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family tartans.

Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers
that
glow in the dark.

Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA
experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, &
glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who
says science fiction can't happen?


I didn't see it, but I guess I have an active imagination! I can just see
entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim
that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability of
the nuclear family.

Speaking of the nuclear family, I guess you've noticed that Dubya
wants us to start manufacturing cute little battlefield-sized nukes.
Not, of course, to be classified as WMD!!

those flashing plants, they will be obliterated by blasts from our
new death-ray satellites, as we merrily proceed to weaponize space.
Well under way, as I am told...




--
Polar

"Sue & Bob Hobden" expounded:

I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile, as
all GM plants should be. (yes it precludes any fruiting plants)
Sweetcorn has to be the most dangerous plant to try GM on and is an
indication of the stupidity of the scientists/bean counters involved.
With sterility there is no chance of a cross escaping into the real world.
The thought that it may be my plant that contaminates the world is
horrendous.

I received a link to a newsletter about organic foods and all related
subjects: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm . I
printed out each one and am reading them now. Scary stuff.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

Speaking of the nuclear family, I guess you've noticed that Dubya
wants us to start manufacturing cute little battlefield-sized nukes.
Not, of course, to be classified as WMD!!

those flashing plants, they will be obliterated by blasts from our
new death-ray satellites, as we merrily proceed to weaponize space.
Well under way, as I am told...

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993414


And the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (nuclear "bunker buster")? yes, and
of course it doesn't fall under the nuclear proliferation treaty as it's
not a new weapon rather an "upgrade" to an existing one. Bit of a dodgy
argument there if you ask me.
[http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993016]

Tim.

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:227214 uk.rec.gardening:142682

In uk.rec.gardening Polar wrote:
: On Wed, 14 May 2003 08:56:21 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:
:In uk.rec.gardening paghat wrote:

:: I'd vastly prefer to correct the problem that caused the indoor air to be
:: full of toxic chemical gasses.
:
:Dispense with your material posessions and move to the country.

: What, and breath the methane from all those cow farts?

They're better for you than those car exhaust fumes - but if they bother
you, I understand there's still cheap land on the west coast of Scotland.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:227221 uk.rec.gardening:142686

In uk.rec.gardening Sue & Bob Hobden wrote:
: "Tim wrote in message
: Bob wrote:

: : I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile,
: : as all GM plants should be.
:
: That's the luddite position.
:
: I don't think it will last - in the future most probably all living things
: will be "transgenic".

: Thanks for that, I'm therefore proud to be a "Luddite".
: Better than being responsible for the GM parsley fiasco in France, the GM
: Sweetcorn pollen fiasco in the UK. I wouldn't mind if it was an exact
: science but it isn't, even those doing it can't be certain about the outcome
: as the introduced gene often causes other dormant genes to react.
: I for one don't think we are knowledgeable enough yet to use GM outside the
: lab.

I think we are. There's no point in waiting forever.

GM plants have been quite successful outside the lab in some areas.

For example see this article on GM cotton:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/stor...891348,00.html

I also think GM food has great potential. For example, currently I suffer
from the effects of many natural pesticides our food plants employ - the
powerful acids in spinach - the phytoestrogens in legumes - and so on.

Personally I can't wait for scientisits to genetically engineer some
of the anti-nutrients out of the vegetables I eat - and use mechanical
barriers - instead of toxic poisons - to prevent pests.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:227222 uk.rec.gardening:142688

Stephen Howard wrote:

: That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
: regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
: for an incident. Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or
: some geezer in a lab clutching a degree?

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

"paghat" wrote in message
news

No, no -- transgenic EVERGREEN tomatos that produce cherry tomatoes in the
window all year round AND have gigantic blue clematis blooms to boot!


No, you've got it wrong too, we want ones that produce beefsteak, cherry and
tiger tomatoes all on one plant so I don't have to worry about which ones
I'm going to be able to fit in the greenhouse and which ones I can't!

Charlie.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03

On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:36:58 +0100, Charlie
wrote:


"paghat" wrote in message
news

No, no -- transgenic EVERGREEN tomatos that produce cherry tomatoes in
the
window all year round AND have gigantic blue clematis blooms to boot!


No, you've got it wrong too, we want ones that produce beefsteak, cherry
and
tiger tomatoes all on one plant so I don't have to worry about which ones
I'm going to be able to fit in the greenhouse and which ones I can't!

Actually I'd like a tomato plant that produces beefsteak as well. Perhaps
with some peas and carrots on alternate branches.
Tim.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:37:35 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

: That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
: regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
: for an incident. Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or
: some geezer in a lab clutching a degree?

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

Isn't that all the more reason not to screw around with it then?

Just because something's unpleasant to US doesn't mean it doesn't have
a valuable part to play in nature. We'd be knee deep in carcasses if
it wasn't for the 'nasty' bluebottle.

Regards,


--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Tim Tyler wrote in :

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

And bloody SLUGS! Grrr.

"Zizz" wrote in
:

Something tells me that sooner or later nature will turn around and
bite us on the bum for being so ignorant of her ways!

Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their disposal,
these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

What about a fruiting orange tree that's hardy in Aberdeen?

Victoria

On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:52:10 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:37:35 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

: That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
: regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
: for an incident. Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or
: some geezer in a lab clutching a degree?

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

Isn't that all the more reason not to screw around with it then?

Just because something's unpleasant to US doesn't mean it doesn't have
a valuable part to play in nature. We'd be knee deep in carcasses if
it wasn't for the 'nasty' bluebottle.

Absolutely. But the places these GMOs are likely to be used is on
agricultural land. Not really a natural environment is it.

And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in places
that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be negligable.
I don't mean pollution or global warming. Nearly all the land in the UK is
or has been intensively managed at one time or other. Places we call
"natural" are nearly all man-made. Probably the most "natural" part of the
country is the stagnant rock pool just below high tide.
Tim.

Tim Tyler wrote:

In uk.rec.gardening Sue & Bob Hobden wrote:

: I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile,
: as all GM plants should be.

That's the luddite position.

Being an ex-North American, I wondered what this term 'Luddite' actually
referred to. So I investigated -- and found no reason to regard it as an
insult. Those who smashed the machines were not fools spurred by fear of
the unknown. The followers of 'General Ludd' knew precisely what they
were doing, and why: they were protecting the livelihoods of the
knitters, lacemakers and weavers who faced poverty and ruin in the hands
of those building the new manufactories. Traditionally entire families
found comfortable employment in the industry: the youngest children
prepared the raw materials, the wife and older girls spun the yarns,
while the husband and sons did the weaving. They worked at home, often
in small villages, where they were able to maintain gardens and perhaps
livestock for food. Contrast this with the lives of workers living in
the new industrial centres, and I at least understand why men would risk
their lives to destroy the machines before the machines destroyed them,
and their families. The Industrial Revolution had costs as well as
benefits, and we're still paying for it today.


regards
sarah


--
"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view,
is silence about truth." Aldous Huxley