Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"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. You suffer from natural pesticides AND you want GM foods. I think you aught to study what genes they are transposing as a lot of them are those very "natural" pesticides you dislike. GM Cotton has a gene from a Bacteria that attacks and eats caterpillars, so will you be able to wear Indian cotton in future, you can't wash it out, it's in the DNA. Did you hear about the Starlink corn fiasco, pollen has crossed over the inadequate barriers into "Organic" corn in fields that have been organic for 10 to 15 years thus polluting the environment. Starlink corn is officially unfit for human consumption!!! That is also something that has been levelled at Monsanto and others, deliberate polluting of non-GM crops so eventually we can no longer make a choice, all crops are GM polluted anyway. Are these trials disasters accidents? These people are experts and must know exactly what they are doing.( Don't they?) I agree it has some potential for good, but it also has a great potential for environmental harm, indeed, disaster, and for the domination of our seed supply by a few. The fact that our legislators seem to pass laws to help this domination leads me to be suspicious of their motives. One firm being allowed to Patent the food chain is crazy. Did you hear about Monsanto taking a farmer to court because his crops had been contaminated by their trials and their lorries carrying the their seed away. They accused him of stealing their product/research and they won!!! How arse about face is that. -- Bob www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in Runnymede fighting for it's existence. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Thu, 15 May 2003 14:36:14 +0200, Tim
wrote: On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:52:10 +0100, Stephen Howard wrote: 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.# Yes it is. OK, not natural in the sense that if you left nature to itself you'd be unlikely to come across acres of wheat - but the fact that big fields of single crops DO exist makes them part of the natural environment. Likewise the car - not natural, but nonetheless something that has a dramatic effect on the environment by mere virtue of being in it. You cannot bung a few dozen acres of GM crops down and not expect it to interact with the environment in which it exists. 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. May be??? There's that unsettling uncertainty again. 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. Depends what's been chucked into the sea a mile or so up the coast Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Thu, 15 May 2003 14:19:15 +0200, Tim
wrote: On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:46:41 +0100, Stephen Howard wrote: In other words, nature sorts it out in its own inimitable fashion. Ah, but it's not inimitable, is it ? That's what GE is. Imitating. Imitating what, precisely? Whipping a spare gene out of a fish and whacking it into a cabbage? What's that imitating?? Ever tried crossing a Leek with a Honeysuckle? Had any success? Most likely not, because somewhere down the line evolution said 'uh-huh, no can do'. That's a very simplistic view of evolution, isn't it? You and I know there's more to it than that. Simplistic it may be, but it is wrong? In as much as saying "the bee wanted to suck nectar so eveolved a longer proboscis" is wrong. Certainly misleading. There are lots of specialisms in nature where life has adapted to take advantage of the local resources - are you saying that bees ( etc ) won't evolve to meet new environments? And what if they can't? I quite agree there - but in that case we act as mere matchmakers. You can bring together two people who might not normally meet, but that doesn't mean they'll get on with each other. And if they do get on, perhaps it will be in unexpected ways. Going on from your matchmaking analogy, I'd see it as rather like getting a shirt or tie that you saw someone else wearing, and looks good, and get "your" person to put it on. Only one item, so you can see if it looks good on them. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. Yes, and then they can whip it off if they look like a plonker and the worst that happens is everyone else gets to s******. Make that kind of mistake at the gene level and you're talking about a problem an order of magnitude more serious than the embarrassment of a cheesy shirt. The point here is that there's a lot of interplay that goes on behind the scenes that I'm not convinced we fully understand as yet. True. I don't think many would disagree there. In reality I'd say it's more like two buckets of sand being mixed up. So, what would be less likely to produce any great unexpected changes - mixing 2 buckets of sand, or just swapping a couple of grains over? But sand is inert - it won't evolve, mutate or otherwise change its properties. It's a poor analogy for a gene. All analogies are poor. But do you see what I was trying to say ? I saw the analogy...that what's being attempted is so small as to be hardly worth consideration - but it fails to acknowledge the fact that once the operation is done it may create unexpected results in unknown quarters. I rather feel that nature's methods make your scalpel look like a blunt sword. It's not MY scalpel. If you just fuse germ cells, as happend in the development of modern wheat strains for exaple, who knows what you're making? Reduce the number of changes being made, and you have more chance of finding any problems. It's that element of 'chance' that's the problem, you see. It's just not good enough to say 'hey, we can dabble with this and tweak that.... and hope to hell we catch any adverse effects'. Well, it's not just hoping, they should be looking pretty hard. Yes, they should be..but y'know, it's 5.30 on a Friday afternoon, and there's a booze-up going down and who really cares if some small beetle in some distant part of the globe suddenly finds that "fings ain't what they used to be". Human nature. It gets even tougher when no-one even knows that beetle exists. And just when d'you stop looking? That's exactly the sort of question that has to be answered. And I don't have an answer. But can only be answered by careful testing and discussion, not by joining either of the entrenched camps and slinging mud and accusations at each other, which seems to be happening more and more often. So far we've managed to not insult each other after so much writing. Is this a record for newsgroups? I agree, and I feel that such questions have yet to be answered - which is why I'm opposed to dabbling with nature at this level at this time. Don't misunderstand me, I look at what's being proposed with a degree of hope - I don't dismiss the prospects out of some vague religious beliefs or an irrational fear of the future...rather I fear FOR the future. We haven't even finished cataloging the full diversity of life on Earth, we haven't even cured the common cold... and there are still people out there who think a person's beliefs or skin colour makes them beneath consideration. We're trying to run before we can even crawl. And yeah, it's refreshing to get stuck into a thread and be able to stick to the issues - but I suspect that's because both you and I are more interested in the debate rather than cheap point-scoring. The balance of nature isn't relevant to transgenic plants?? I don't think it is directly relevant to our discussion at the moment. Generally yes. But, with teh right approach and development, maybe GM plants could provide a way of gently easing them out of thier deadlocked pesitcide use in the future. Which would surely be a good thing. There are already other means of doing that. Sure, they require more time and effort... and ( here it comes ) money! If you'd have said 'nemetodes' to a geezer planting his spuds half century ago, he'd have probably wondered whether to kiss you or knee you in the nuts. I agree that there's room for development, I just feel GM is the wrong path. Without those unknown genes, how many holes will you create, and what will fill them? But we're not talking about building organisms from scratch, where there would be huge great holes all over the genome. We're talking about taking a whole genome and adding/changing just one or two genes. So you have smaller holes, is all. And small holes have an annoying habit of becoming large holes. ...some heal up. Only some though...it only takes one. Using a material analogy. No, you'd have little patches of different a colour rather than holes. Hole...patch of different colour...extra lump...it's still something that's changed - and it has an effect that's proportionally greater further on down ( or up ) the line.... a cascade effect. And as you well know, the gene stands at the tip of the inverted pyramid and interacts all the way up and through the plant's whole structure... CAN do, depending on the gene and where it is. Most genes are only active for short periods and only in certain tissues. Which is why you don't get red, scented roots on a red, scented rose bush. Those genes are only activated in the relevant part(s) and the relevant time(s). That's fine - in a self-contained environment. I'm not supposing that GM will turn out plants that get up out of the pot and start eating babies - rather the results of the modifications will have ramifications further away. which then interacts with other organisms in the same fashion... and so on ad infinitum. I'm not convinced that anyone is fully aware of just what the knock-on effects might be. No one is saying they are, except maybe the multi-nationals, but no-one believes them anyway (at least I hope not). That's the nub of the matter. You and I could argue the finer points until we're blue in the face - but until there is absolute certainty as to the effects of GM then a debate is all it should remain. It's just too big and too fundamental an issue to even consider toying with in the real world whilst words like 'might', 'chance' and 'maybe' still apply. -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Tim" wrote in message newspro7npy1iwxhha1@localhost... Actually I'd like a tomato plant that produces beefsteak as well. Perhaps with some peas and carrots on alternate branches. Tim. How about a tomato plant the grows basil on it too? Convient... 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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article , "Sue & Bob Hobden"
wrote: "Tim wrote in message : Bob wrote: 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. You suffer from natural pesticides AND you want GM foods. I think you aught to study what genes they are transposing as a lot of them are those very "natural" pesticides you dislike. GM Cotton has a gene from a Bacteria that attacks and eats caterpillars, so will you be able to wear Indian cotton in future, you can't wash it out, it's in the DNA. Did you hear about the Starlink corn fiasco, pollen has crossed over the inadequate barriers into "Organic" corn in fields that have been organic for 10 to 15 years thus polluting the environment. Starlink corn is officially unfit for human consumption!!! That is also something that has been levelled at Monsanto and others, deliberate polluting of non-GM crops so eventually we can no longer make a choice, all crops are GM polluted anyway. Are these trials disasters accidents? These people are experts and must know exactly what they are doing.( Don't they?) I agree it has some potential for good, but it also has a great potential for environmental harm, indeed, disaster, and for the domination of our seed supply by a few. The fact that our legislators seem to pass laws to help this domination leads me to be suspicious of their motives. One firm being allowed to Patent the food chain is crazy. Did you hear about Monsanto taking a farmer to court because his crops had been contaminated by their trials and their lorries carrying the their seed away. They accused him of stealing their product/research and they won!!! How arse about face is that. One thing to bare in mind over the idea of "sterile" seed, the REAL reason it is "sterile" is so farmers who buy the seed cannot save back a percentage of the resulting crop for future plantings. It "locks farmers in" as Monsanto serfs, & stops the ages-old practice of saving seed for new crops insuring there will never again be any such thing as independent farmers. The "kindness" of transgenic seed donations to impoversished countries has been turned down by several poor countries, as they know the real intent is to interupt the independent capacity to generate crops & seeds for future crops simultaneously. Insofar as polluting organics is "intentional" on Monsanto's part, I don't know, but it IS their intent to stop as much organic farming as they can. To do this, they sue organic farmers left & right, putting them out of business, always on the thinnest pretexts, & of course there's the "tax write off" gambit of giving sterile seed to third-world countries with the underlying purpose of stopping their ability to generate seed independent of Monsanto. As long as the crop cannot easily be carried over to a new generation without having to buy more crop seed from the source, the transgenicists don't seriously care all that much how much it pollinates into the wild or into neighboring crops. And a number of studies have shown a great many "sterile" crops -- definitely are only sterile enough to enslave farmers to Monsanto, but fertile enough to pass on such "special" traits as herbicide-resistance to weeds, & most assuredly to contaminate organic produce & weaken pure seed crops for future plantings ("coincidentally" increasing future reliance on Monsanto for crop seed). -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article opro7ryonawxhha1@localhost, Tim timnothy.cohsalpleangmer@a
pk.at writes Absolutely. But the places these GMOs are likely to be used is on agricultural land. Not really a natural environment is it. "We've started to mess things up, so let's finish the job", do you mean? The critical part is not whether it's natural or not, but whether it is contained. And agricultural land is not - what you do there can easily escape to the surrounding land, whether that be more agricultural land, gardens or whatever. 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. I'm not sure 'stagnant' is the appropriate word for a pool receiving an influx of sea water twice a day. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Kat" wrote in message ... "Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Perrenelle" wrote in message news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02... Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. snip What does 'transgenic' mean? It means the genes of another species were used to alter the genetics of the existing plant or animal. If you live in the USA, Transgenic goods are in your home, unlabeled, right now. Look it up. The future is here. So it could mean that a gene from a rat was in my plant, or a gene from a closely related species? And that rat gene may also exist in closely related plants (But for reasons of convenience the gene was taken from rat), or it may not. Seems to cover such wide spectrum its meaningless. -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"paghat" wrote in message news In article , "Kat" wrote: "Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Perrenelle" wrote in message news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02... Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. snip What does 'transgenic' mean? It means the genes of another species were used to alter the genetics of the existing plant or animal. If you live in the USA, Transgenic goods are in your home, unlabeled, right now. Look it up. The future is here. Unlabeled because a fundamental DISHONESTY in this industry has lobbied Congress and SUED organic farmers out of existence & done everything in its considerable Monsantoesque authoritarianist POWER to keep the public from HAVING A CHOICE. Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word. And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred randomly. If it were such a great technology, the public would be given a choice. Since they have PROVEN don't want us to have a choice, hence care NOTHING about individual wishes, that suggests they may also not care about our health. Same about the the antis, who were (are?) even against rice with added vitamins, simply because of their gut reaction and fear of any change at all, even if proven non-harmful. If the industry were honest, they wouldn't fear full disclosure on labeling. Since they have PROVEN they cannot stand proud in the light of day with full disclosures & honesty, how does that make their claims of unutterable safety more credible? Until this industry stops being merely propogandistic & attempts honesty, nothing they say about safety can be believed either. Until this industry permits personal choice in product selection by full disclosure on labels, it is rightly assumed all claims of concern for human well being & health is mere pretense. Until the ecology industry stops being merely propogandistic & attempts honesty why beleive anything they say, either? UNtil then it is rightly assumed all claims of concern for human well being & health is mere pretense and is actually done in the aim of keeping their vast industry of scaremongering going. Note that companies like Monsanto who dominate this field also dominate in the field of toxic chemical pollutants which they likewise promote as safe & healthful & through deceit & propoganda encourage people to dump willynilly throughout the environment. Note that companies such as Greenpeace who dominate this field also make pronouncemenmts in entirely unrelated areas such as the Iraq war. BTW, can you show a source where MOnsanto or any other large organisation promotes people dumping stuff? betcha cant. Finally, because so many of the products are sterile OR re-propogation is criminalized to protect the chemical & transgenic industry's profits, farmers can no longer save their own seed for future crops, but are imprisoned by the requirement of buying new seed for every crop. As this industry muscles into third-world economies, they suck the lifeblood out of already impoverished peoples. Whereas eco-terrorists wish to prevent them having the choice of industrial development, longer lives, and make them all small scale farmers tied to medieval scale levels of wealth and health. -- Tw |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article , "Tumbleweed"
wrote: "paghat" wrote in message Unlabeled because a fundamental DISHONESTY in this industry has lobbied Congress and SUED organic farmers out of existence & done everything in its considerable Monsantoesque authoritarianist POWER to keep the public from HAVING A CHOICE. Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word. And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred randomly. While you have delusions of greenies as terrorists, you fail even to notice that all my citations in this thread have been of credible science from university horticultural studies that show the known, proven, extremely harmful effects that have already begun. If it were such a great technology, the public would be given a choice. Since they have PROVEN don't want us to have a choice, hence care NOTHING about individual wishes, that suggests they may also not care about our health. Same about the the antis, who were (are?) even against rice with added vitamins, simply because of their gut reaction and fear of any change at all, even if proven non-harmful. Cite. Don't just make stuff up as you go along. Until the ecology industry stops being merely propogandistic & attempts honesty why beleive anything they say, either? UNtil then it is rightly assumed all claims of concern for human well being & health is mere pretense and is actually done in the aim of keeping their vast industry of scaremongering going. While you have delusions of greenies as mere propogandists, you fail even to notice that all my citations in this thread have been of credible science from university horticultural studies that show the known, proven, extremely harmful effects that have already begun. Note that companies like Monsanto who dominate this field also dominate in the field of toxic chemical pollutants which they likewise promote as safe & healthful & through deceit & propoganda encourage people to dump willynilly throughout the environment. Note that companies such as Greenpeace who dominate this field also make pronouncemenmts in entirely unrelated areas such as the Iraq war While you have delusions about Greenpeace, you fail even to notice that all my citations in this thread have been of credible science from university horticultural studies that show the known, proven, extremely harmful effects that have already begun. . BTW, can you show a source where MOnsanto or any other large organisation promotes people dumping stuff? betcha cant It is the stated, express purpose of Monsanto to sell herbicide-resistant genetically altered crop seeds so that increasing amounts of their brands of herbicides can be dumped onto the crops. It's the PRIMARY PURPOSE to make it possible to dump increasing amounts of chemicals without it also killing the crop. The herbicides, & not the crop seeds, are the main source of their profits, & the more they can instruct their users to use, the higher their profits go. Every label on ever Monsanto product says to put their chemical mixes into your immediate environment. Spray 'em, spread 'em, dump 'em. Every label, not one exception. They wouldn't bother making it if that wasn't what they wanted you to do. This being so, you're just trollin', right? Or you're a secret greenie trying to make all you anti-ecology Monsanto flacks look like retards. In which case, thanks so much, & carry on! Finally, because so many of the products are sterile OR re-propogation is criminalized to protect the chemical & transgenic industry's profits, farmers can no longer save their own seed for future crops, but are imprisoned by the requirement of buying new seed for every crop. As this industry muscles into third-world economies, they suck the lifeblood out of already impoverished peoples. Whereas eco-terrorists wish to prevent them having the choice of industrial development, longer lives, and make them all small scale farmers tied to medieval scale levels of wealth and health. While you have delusions about ecologists as terrorists & organic farmers as medieval, you fail even to notice that all my citations in this thread as to the entirely proven dangers of transgenic plants cited independent scientific studies. Either your m ethod is to argue by means of Red Herrings because you don't have anything factual for your side, or you're really so paranoid you can't tell a control study from a Greenpeace pamphlet. Obviously the greenies t end to be on the correct side of these matters, but when I count Monsanto propoganda, I don't do so with green propoganda. I read at least the extracts & often the entire papers of the actual independent science. And the conclusions are clear. Crops with built-in insecticides cause insect populations to become anywhere from three to twenty times harder to kill with any pesticide. Allegedly sterile crops with built-in herbicides cross-pollinate with weeds creating herbicide-resistant mutations of invasive plants, & pollute organic farm strains. Angelika Hilbeck at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich warns about these side-effects of genetically manipulated crops. A panel of scientists put together by the Royal Society of London last year concluded categorically that the risks outweighed the benefits, though some of them, a few years ago, did not believe this would be the situation; now that such crops are in production & the harmful effects measured, they are calling for harsher restrictions. The USDA cereal beetle project found that insecticidal transgenic crops (all possible harmfulness aside) didn't even work -- the beetles were impervious. In some cases, the crops invited entirely new insects that hadn't previously been interested in those crops. Benificial insects being killed; harmful insects becoming three to twenty times more difficult to get rid of after a single generation feeding on the transgenic crops. All this before moving to the economic disaster of third-world countries having their ability to replant their own crop seed undermined. GeneTech of Australia is by & large pro-transgenics, but not as propogandistically inclined as Monsanto, so doesn't sue organic farmers, tell whoppers, or lobby politicians to pass laws outlawing honest labeling. Instead, they admit that crops with enhanced BT insectides in them are killing beneficial insects such as ladybug larvae, monarch butterflies, & much else tragic & harmful to be lost. For these & other reasons they support the Australian Gene Technology Regulator as hard wall to get past when introducing genetically altered crops, & warn that even this safegard "cannot predict all the health, environmental, economic or social consequences, good or bad." It may cream your willy that the science just about across-the-board supports the greenies, & even the transgeneticists themselves if not paid-off by Monsanto have serious doubts about the safety. Your creamedwilly aside, the greenies aren't doing this science as your paranoid responses suggest you believe. The greenies are merely crowing about having been right all along. You're whinging over being so extremely wrong. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article ,
wrote: Not going to reply in detail to Paghat's attack. Just noting that (a) I am very familiar with Judith Wegener's book (thanks for name correction). Pants on fire! If you'd read even the cover blurbs you couldn't possibly misrepresent her as such a raging antisemite who would quote that antisemite Father Pranaitis & pretend with him that his inventions are in the Talmud (which you believed was called"The Mishnah" since you know nada -- clearly not a fellow who has read ANYthing by ANY Jewish scholar or you'd know at least that. The equivalent would be a Jew making up snotty quotes allegedly from the Gospel of John, but thinking it was in a book called The Epiphany -- but such dumb clods are never Jews happily enough). (b) The quote about penetrating 3-year-old is accurate. Pants on fire! My statements about those passages were accurate; your version originated in the neo-nazi-distributed 1939 translation of the 1892 Catholic antisemitic polemic CHRISTIANUS IN TALMUDE IUDAERKUM by I.B. Pranaitis. PERIOD. His quotations were completely made-up. They are frequently woven into new versions, including the one on the web I suspect is the version you read, pretending to have been written by a second-year female talmudic student (but not Judith for crine out loud), distributed by a neonazi catholic organization which also hates baptists so at least they are an equal opportunity hate group. These quotations are circulated today ONLY for purposes of neo-nazis indoctrination, at which Brown University professor & usenet nurd Judith Wagener has NEVER been a party, your sinister slander against her better nature notwithstanding. The idea that Jewish men **** baby girls then sell them after their hymens heal, & the proof is in the Talmud (or some book you thought was called "The Mishnah"), is an ignorant assertion on the face of it, believable by no one with an IQ above 66. There are enough Talmuds around anyone alarmed to think it MIGHT be true could check it out easily enough -- easy to check even if, unlike myself, not everyone has the whole set within four feet of their computer. I now officially withdraw my statement that I don't believe you're an antisemite but merely suffering from ignorance that can be cured & gullibility which can be charming if only it wouldn't permit you to believe every neo-nazi polemic you encounter. Giving you the benefit of the doubt seems after all to have been my error, which I should've suspected when seeing you're using a brand new anonymized account. Now seeing you so blithely reiterate the "truth" of Pranaitis's infamous antisemitic inventions against Jews & the Talmud, & you even continuing the absurd slander that your source is Judith Wegener, well.... Your unwholesome purpose, alas, is now clear. Too bad. For you more than for Jews, by the by. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Thu, 15 May 2003 20:30:53 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote: Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word. And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred randomly. "Eco-terrorist?" Now that's a useless term if I ever saw one. The fact is, Round Up ready corn or X is indeed harmful. BT spliced into corn is killing monarch butterfly larva, that's a fact. We have no idea what this gene splicing does to us. Remember when the tobacco companies told us smoking does not cause cancer? That was not too long ago. I have a news flash, I don't trust DowElanco, or Monsanto on anything they do or say. If you were an academic or remotely involved in reading the studies put out by those lying assholes, you (...) |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
animaux wrote:
BT spliced into corn is killing monarch butterfly larva, that's a fact. And these facts are located where? -- Travis in Shoreline (just North of Seattle) Washington USDA Zone 8b Sunset Zone 5 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Fri, 16 May 2003 02:35:02 GMT, animaux wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2003 20:30:53 +0100, "Tumbleweed" wrote: Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word. And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred randomly. "Eco-terrorist?" Now that's a useless term if I ever saw one. The fact is, Round Up ready corn or X is indeed harmful. BT spliced into corn is killing monarch butterfly larva, that's a fact. from http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999499 Reports that 22 million monarch butterflies have been slaughtered in Mexico have been greatly exaggerated, according to the World Wildlife Fund and American Monarch researchers. "It's been overblown," says Monica Missrie, monarch butterfly co-ordinator for the WWF in Mexico City. "It was probably two or three million." ...... But Missrie told New Scientist that the mass deaths were probably caused by cold, not pesticides. Recent heavy snowfalls in the area would have been particularly devastating to butterflies trying to winter in the heavily logged forest, she says. A similar cold snap in 1996 also killed millions of Monarchs. "It can look like they were sprayed," says Missrie, because the butterflies' fat comes to the surface of their wings when they die, giving them an oily feel. The WWF has sent biologists into the field to collect samples and they expect to confirm the cause of death within a few weeks. see also http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991274 Tim. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Plants you would f*** if you knew no1 would find out | Garden Photos | |||
What plants would you take with you if you moved house..... | United Kingdom | |||
Which John Deere Would You Buy? | Lawns | |||
UGA researchers use transgenic trees to help clean up toxic waste site | sci.agriculture | |||
Would you buy these transgenic plants? | Gardening |