The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

In article , Oz
writes
Michael Saunby writes
Now there's an idea for promoting agricultural products. "Adopt a Granny"
Use an ancient, but agile, granny to advertise your produce. If there are
enough "Tims" living in urban UK you may well be able to sell almost
anything this way - "Granny has eaten half a pound of tripe every day of
her life". Indeed why produce anything? How about "freshly squeezed
country air"?

Now that is a potentially winning advertising campaign.

Granny would, of course, have a very elegant 18yr old great
granddaughter to educate on eating.

Who would, in turn, be an unmarried mother with two children, by
(conspicuously) different fathers, to educate on eating :-)

--
Malcolm

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
:
: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me.
: I think actions speak lounder than words. [...]

: People do pretty much have the freedom to speak in the UK; it's just
that
: they don't always have the freedom to lie - a freedom that probably
does
: help anyone much.

At least until you try broadcasting some copyrighted material - or - as
in
the discussion here - plotting to murder some prominent individual.

Lying is - for the most part - permitted and tolerated by the legal
system - though there are a few places where it can get you into trouble
with the law.

So no recent cases that could be regarded as freedom of speech issues,
except perhaps the freedom of the press to intrude into the lives of
others. It doesn't seem that our prisons (expect perhaps in NI) are full
of folk that Amnesty would demand are released immediately, does it?

Michael Saunby

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: But your thinking, that it is only the person who does the final (or
: initial in the case of farming) act is the only one to blame silly.

I'm not sure that's a sentence.

Anyway, contrary to what you seem to be saying above, I certainly don't
think there should be any blame attached to growing and selling crops.

Even when using pesticides? What about freedom of speech - does that
extend to the farmer saying that he didn't use any pesticides? Or must
farmers tell the truth?

Michael Saunby

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
Jim Webster wrote or quoted:

: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
:
: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me.
: I think actions speak lounder than words.

: ah, so it is OK to convince someone to kill someone else, pay them to
do it,
: and walk away knowing that you were only using your freedom of speech
and
: any resulting deaths are not your fault.

That's how I would prefer blame to be distributed: people should be
held responsible for their own actions.

Accepting financial incentive as a cause of "diminished responsibility"
seems like a terrible thing to do to me - the reality is that people
can still choose their own course of action.

As for the idea of tracing causal chains back to their roots, if you
do that then you might well wind up imprisoning the murderer's mother :-(

: Who was it who said that freedom of speech did not entitle you to shout
: "fire" in a crowded theatre

Many people - but "freedom of speech" fairly clearly involves just that.

Fortunately, that particular action is not against the law anywhere -
AFAIK. You might get chucked out of the theatre, though ;-)


Oh yes it is a crime. It's very unusual for an individual to be able to
harm people and not be found guilty of something. I'm pretty sure anyone
doing so would be held responsible for all deaths, injuries, damage to
property, etc.

While these "moral philosophy" topics are no doubt stimulating to
some, I'm painfully aware that they are not remotely on topic in
the groups where they are occurring.

If they don't burn themselves out soon, I expect I'll walk away
from them.

We got here by considering the environmental impact of importing
fruit. Could we go back in that general direction - or else wind
things up?

So can you quickly sum up where you, as the only person so far to confess
to this heinous environmental crime, now stand?

You've made a suggestion that one solution might be for someone else to
grow them in the UK a freeze them. Sounds like a good idea. Would you be
prepared to sign a long contract for the supply of blueberries? Roughly
how long do you expect to have a daily requirement? One hundred years, one
twenty, or more? Or perhaps you could put up the capital to get the scheme
started. I know this might sound a little much to ask - but the trouble is
I really doubt that you are going to live very much longer than everyone
else, or that you will actually stick with this fad (unless it's doing
something really nasty to your brain).

One thing that the free speech, right to tell lies, who is really to blame,
etc. stuff leads me to think is this -

If as a result of all this trouble your life isn't extended by a single
second, is there any way that the rest of us can get some compensation for
the unnecessary damage you will have done? If so who would you consider at
fault?

Michael Saunby

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:

:: There was also work done on stress which indicates that pathological
:: worrying about your diet increases illness.
:
:What's that got to do with anything?

: To take such extreme measures over your diet suggests great concern.
: High levels of concern imply high levels of stress.
: No blueberries today - aaagh another two minutes off my life...

Having a healthy diet simply isn't as stressful as you are making out.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

On Sat, 31 May 2003 12:53:56 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 May 2003 10:05:35 +0100, "Jim Webster"

wrote:

Who was it who said that freedom of speech did not entitle you to shout
"fire" in a crowded theatre

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in
falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." - United States
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1919)

that's the one. Thanks

said it rather nicely as well didn't he

He was famous for saying things rather nicely.

From a brief biography:
quote
Holmes is considered one of the giants of American law. Not just because he
wrote so well, but also because he wrote so much, and for so long. A lawyer
seeking a quote from Holmes is never left wanting.
/quote

--
Peter Duncanson
UK

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: Jim Webster wrote or quoted:

: : Who was it who said that freedom of speech did not entitle you to shout
: : "fire" in a crowded theatre
:
: Many people - but "freedom of speech" fairly clearly involves just that.
:
: Fortunately, that particular action is not against the law anywhere -
: AFAIK. You might get chucked out of the theatre, though ;-)

: Oh yes it is a crime.

?

: It's very unusual for an individual to be able to harm people and not
: be found guilty of something. I'm pretty sure anyone doing so would be
: held responsible for all deaths, injuries, damage to property, etc.

What deaths and injuries? Shout "fire" in a crowded theatre and
the most likely result is a few people "shussh"ing you.

: Would you be prepared to sign a long contract for the supply of
: blueberries? Roughly how long do you expect to have a daily requirement?

"No" and "I don't know".

: If as a result of all this trouble your life isn't extended by a single
: second, is there any way that the rest of us can get some compensation for
: the unnecessary damage you will have done? [...]

Damage to the atmosphere due to aeroplanes transporting blueberries?
Not that I'm aware of.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: : But your thinking, that it is only the person who does the final (or
: : initial in the case of farming) act is the only one to blame silly.
:
: I'm not sure that's a sentence.
:
: Anyway, contrary to what you seem to be saying above, I certainly don't
: think there should be any blame attached to growing and selling crops.

: Even when using pesticides?

Well - /if/ they poison people that's a bit different.

I believe the context above involved blueberry farmers being
held responsible for atmospheric pollution, though.

: What about freedom of speech - does that extend to the farmer saying
: that he didn't use any pesticides? Or must farmers tell the truth?

Farmers can - and probably do - lie. Fortunately testing equipment is
not so easily fooled.

The world tends to be arranged in such a way that easily-exposed lies are
counter-productive - since subsequently nobody believes anything you say.

Such a situation might well be harmful to a farmer's business.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message
...
: Jim Webster wrote or quoted:

: : Who was it who said that freedom of speech did not entitle you to
shout
: : "fire" in a crowded theatre
:
: Many people - but "freedom of speech" fairly clearly involves just
that.
:
: Fortunately, that particular action is not against the law anywhere -
: AFAIK. You might get chucked out of the theatre, though ;-)

: Oh yes it is a crime.

?

: It's very unusual for an individual to be able to harm people and not
: be found guilty of something. I'm pretty sure anyone doing so would be
: held responsible for all deaths, injuries, damage to property, etc.

What deaths and injuries? Shout "fire" in a crowded theatre and
the most likely result is a few people "shussh"ing you.


What an idiot you are. The expression "shout fire in a theatre" is an
ancient one and refers to a deliberate attempt to cause panic. There was a
time when most people smoked, fires in such places were not unusual,
automatic fire alarms yet to be invented, and most people behaved in a
reasonable manner and believed and acted when other shouted fire. I really
can't imagine what sort of background, education, life experiences, etc.
you must have had - you're like something from another planet.

: Would you be prepared to sign a long contract for the supply of
: blueberries? Roughly how long do you expect to have a daily
requirement?

"No" and "I don't know".

: If as a result of all this trouble your life isn't extended by a single
: second, is there any way that the rest of us can get some compensation
for
: the unnecessary damage you will have done? [...]

Damage to the atmosphere due to aeroplanes transporting blueberries?
Not that I'm aware of.

It seems that the world might be a better place if commercial blueberry
production were to end then - or in the case of the UK, never start.

Michael Saunby

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:Jim Webster wrote or quoted:

:: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
::
:: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
:: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
:: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me.
:: I think actions speak lounder than words.
:
:: ah, so it is OK to convince someone to kill someone else, pay them to do it,
:: and walk away knowing that you were only using your freedom of speech and
:: any resulting deaths are not your fault.
:
:That's how I would prefer blame to be distributed: people should be
:held responsible for their own actions.

: Paying someone else to kill a third party sounds like an action to be
: held responsible for to me.

Whereas to me the only thing that distinguishes it from a gift is
words - and convicting people on the basis of things they have said
seems like a dangerous violation of freedom of speech to me.

Not that I see freedom of speech as a basic right - but I don't
think it should be casually neglected or ignored, either.

Those who *do* harm - as opposed to those who talk or move beans around -
seem to be the culpable ones to me.

: This is what successive judgements, over centuries, have held all over
: the world, too.

Judgments uphold copyright and trademark laws all over the world as well.

That doesn't mean those laws are somehow vindicated as immortal truths.

There are other ways of doing things.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

On Sat, 31 May 2003 14:09:01 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
:
: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to me.
: I think actions speak lounder than words. [...]

: People do pretty much have the freedom to speak in the UK; it's just
that
: they don't always have the freedom to lie - a freedom that probably
does
: help anyone much.

At least until you try broadcasting some copyrighted material - or - as
in
the discussion here - plotting to murder some prominent individual.

Lying is - for the most part - permitted and tolerated by the legal
system - though there are a few places where it can get you into trouble
with the law.

So no recent cases that could be regarded as freedom of speech issues,
except perhaps the freedom of the press to intrude into the lives of
others. It doesn't seem that our prisons (expect perhaps in NI) are full
of folk that Amnesty would demand are released immediately, does it?

Er - particularly *not* in NI, where they have already been released.

Although Amnesty has been rather reluctant to demand the release of
convicted terrorists from NI prisons.

--
Peter Duncanson
UK

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

Whereas to me the only thing that distinguishes it from a gift is
words - and convicting people on the basis of things they have said
seems like a dangerous violation of freedom of speech to me.

Not that I see freedom of speech as a basic right - but I don't
think it should be casually neglected or ignored, either.

Those who *do* harm - as opposed to those who talk or move beans around

Those who *mean* harm, by their words, are definitely culpable, in most
western society. Slander, libel, aiding and abetting.... Where were you
raised (seriously)?

M

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:Jim Webster wrote or quoted:

:: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
::
:: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
:: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
:: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to
me.
:: I think actions speak lounder than words.
:
:: ah, so it is OK to convince someone to kill someone else, pay them to
do it,
:: and walk away knowing that you were only using your freedom of speech
and
:: any resulting deaths are not your fault.
:
:That's how I would prefer blame to be distributed: people should be
:held responsible for their own actions.

: Paying someone else to kill a third party sounds like an action to be
: held responsible for to me.

Whereas to me the only thing that distinguishes it from a gift is
words - and convicting people on the basis of things they have said
seems like a dangerous violation of freedom of speech to me.


Then how would you regard an admission of guilt? Surely only words. Or
the statement of a witness? This idea of yours is as daft as your others.
Once again an unworkable idea that simply fits with you own view of
yourself that as you do nothing, you do no harm - regardless of what you
might say, purchase, etc.

Not that I see freedom of speech as a basic right - but I don't
think it should be casually neglected or ignored, either.

Those who *do* harm - as opposed to those who talk or move beans around -
seem to be the culpable ones to me.

: This is what successive judgements, over centuries, have held all over
: the world, too.

Judgments uphold copyright and trademark laws all over the world as well.

That doesn't mean those laws are somehow vindicated as immortal truths.

There are other ways of doing things.

By your standards those aren't ways of doing things - they're only words.
To do something worthwhile requires that some physical change takes place.

Michael Saunby

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 May 2003 14:09:01 +0100, "Michael Saunby"

wrote:


"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message
...

: In this case the main issue is freedom of speech.
:
: I don't regard this as a basic right - but would prefer it if the
: government kept its fingers out as much as possible. The idea that
: people can be imprisoned for things they have said is abhorrent to
me.
: I think actions speak lounder than words. [...]

: People do pretty much have the freedom to speak in the UK; it's just
that
: they don't always have the freedom to lie - a freedom that probably
does
: help anyone much.

At least until you try broadcasting some copyrighted material - or -
as
in
the discussion here - plotting to murder some prominent individual.

Lying is - for the most part - permitted and tolerated by the legal
system - though there are a few places where it can get you into
trouble
with the law.

So no recent cases that could be regarded as freedom of speech issues,
except perhaps the freedom of the press to intrude into the lives of
others. It doesn't seem that our prisons (expect perhaps in NI) are
full
of folk that Amnesty would demand are released immediately, does it?

Er - particularly *not* in NI, where they have already been released.


Well it still counts as recent in my book. And chances are that any laws
used then are still available now to deal with similar cases.

Although Amnesty has been rather reluctant to demand the release of
convicted terrorists from NI prisons.


Or indeed any other UK prisoners of conscience - so perhaps there aren't as
many as Tim might expect. Perhaps our prisons are full of people who have
actually done something bad rather than opposed the establishment.


Michael Saunby

The dangers of weed killers - Glyphostae aka Roundup, the hidden killer.
 

"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message
y.com...
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

Whereas to me the only thing that distinguishes it from a gift is
words - and convicting people on the basis of things they have said
seems like a dangerous violation of freedom of speech to me.

Not that I see freedom of speech as a basic right - but I don't
think it should be casually neglected or ignored, either.

Those who *do* harm - as opposed to those who talk or move beans around

Those who *mean* harm, by their words, are definitely culpable, in most
western society. Slander, libel, aiding and abetting.... Where were you
raised (seriously)?


Please don't go there. I'm quite sure he's yet another unfortunate victim
of UK education.

Michael Saunby