"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"W K" wrote:

Then point me to a scientific paper which proves that glyphosate has
any
deleterious effect on the ecological balance of where it is used,
excepting,
of course, for the eradication of plants not wanted by humans.

Well thats pretty much the nature of what the RSPB complains about.

ie. more extreme control and more extreme monoculture.

So this is the answer to why herbicides are bad? That people use them to
kill plants where they don't want them? On that basis we should ban hoes.

Its why an extreme version based on GM technology is bad.
In the lists of arguments it is one that is likely, and rather dull as it is
only an extension of what currently happens.
No need for proof, its conjecture about the future based on very well known
effects of what is happening now.

As you state, any agriculture can damage natural systems, but we current
agricultural practice is already rather extreme.
Its rather similar to arguments that hormone use in milk production is bad
for animal welfare - worse than what we currently do, but current practice
is already dodgy in places.

I am very surprised that you are not aware of these arguments, what are you
doing at the below address?
Actually it was my fifth choice for university!

School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:43:39 +0100, "Wim Jay" wrote:


wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article ,
bigboard wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:
In article ,
bigboard wrote:

Bully for you. What has that got to do with it?


What it means is that if you think eating GM might be bad for you
then
stay away from all conventional crop varieties since we don't know
what
genetic changes happened to yield the required characters, unlike GM.
Also don't eat cauliflower, Brussel sprouts or broccoli, all mutant
cabbages. Who knows what genetic sequences caused these? some may
have
happened because, gasp!, a virus went haywire and disrupted some
vital
genes. Oh and also stay away from organge carrots, nature meant
carrots
to be green.


I don't think that eating GM crops is necessarily bad for you, so the
above paragraph is irrelevant. 1/10 for the patronising attitude, I've
seen it done much better.

Well since you think that then the first sentence indicates the above
was not aimed at you ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?




Would you mind awfully not crossposting to demon.local, please?

Yes I would object greatly. I read from demon.local because it amuses
me to do so.

Also, I couldn't find your signature and we do like to keep an eye on them,
you know.

Wim

What is the mathematical equation used to establish permitted
properties for sigs, will this do?






. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:53:46 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:28:30 +0100, Mike Clark wrote:

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:
[snip]
Well since you think that then the first sentence indicates the above
was not aimed at you ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?


I interpret this to mean that he is exercising his rights of academic
freedom to express a view not unrelated to his area of expertise as a
member of a university. I would be most concerned if he was only able to
speak when authorised by his university.

I realise that this may be an alien concept to some people employed in
companies, or even employed by some government institutions, but it is a
concept still defended in universities. As a fellow academic I would
defend his right to express his views even though I may not agree with
the opinions he expresses.

It has nothing to do with free speech. Peter Ashby can say what he
wants, when he wants and where he wants as far as I am concerned, I
would defend that right too.

Bragging how big his dick is, the fact that the university is
sponsoring him and that we are paying for it is completely unnecessary
to promoting free speech. If the comments are not on behalf of the
uni, don't advertise it then.

Oh dear, poor Pete.

pete who?

Once again he's come up against someone who isn't
afraid of the light and doesn't live in an attic posting with either
imaginary names or no ****ing name at all.

I know, I like old Ashby, he's a tart but he stands up for himself,
unlike you.

Perhaps those of us who don't
lie,

That counts you out goat ****er.

don't stalk others on usenet, etc.

And again sister screwer.

don't actually have a need to hide
their identity.

But you sorely wish you had.

Indeed other than myself the only individual I've ever
encountered on usenet who saw fit to post my address

So what's the big deal?

was you Pete.

pete who?

And
that's only because you chose to invent a load of crap about me ****ing
livestock

You do **** livestock, google shows us.

and then trying to encourage others to complain to the Police,

About your lunatic, criminal behaviour no doubt?

etc. about this and other ficticious crimes.

what are they?

I've come to the conclusion that everything written about you is true,
probably.

If it wasn't for morons such as Pete

pete who?

everyone would feel free to post using
their real name

Most of us do.

and as much other information as they considered
appropriate to introduce themselves to others. With ****wits like Pete

pete who?

about there's a constant risk of endless crap in your inbox and worse.

What makes publishing private details dangerous is when lunatic
stalkers like you decide to target us, petrol bomb house and assault
innocent people, all just because you want to abuse animals? daft if
you ask me.

Not to mention the virus, credit card fraud, Dos attacks and other
stuff you carry out.

Pete.

pete who?

For Christ's sake **** off and leave everyone here alone.

Shame you cant handle social intercourse saunby, maybe that's what
drove you to **** animals, did they love you long time before you cut
their throat, did you have sex with them before or after you cut their
throat.?

You're
not welcome and you're not even doing any good for the AR cause.

See www.google.com for ARs profiles.... it's really quite high.....no
more fox hunting for you soon pervie!



. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:21:41 +0100, Reid©
wrote:

Following up to Paul Rooney

Hang about - GM is good, isn't it?

that's very much a matter of opinion isn't it Paul?

Efficient crops, disease-resistant veg, etc.

Swallowed the hype then?

In what way are the crops more efficient?

Any evidence that it's
bad?

Well, The rats eating too many potatoes stuff was rubbish.
BUT the real and less exciting aspect is that it allows crops to be
sprayed
with even more herbicides.

"GM" iself doesnt allow crops to be sprayed with more herbicide. One
specific type of GM enhigeered crop does. Others dont, for example Vitamin A
rice has nothing to do with roundup. GM is a technique, (or set of, or
meaningless catch-all phrase*), and its as ridiculous to claim that GM is
bad because one set of consequences of it are bad,as to claim that fire is
bad because houses burn down sometimes.
--
Tumbleweed

*after all, what are all our current foodcrops if not Genetically Modified?

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:43:39 +0100, "Wim Jay" wrote:


wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article ,
bigboard wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:
In article ,
bigboard wrote:

Bully for you. What has that got to do with it?


What it means is that if you think eating GM might be bad for you
then
stay away from all conventional crop varieties since we don't know
what
genetic changes happened to yield the required characters, unlike
GM.
Also don't eat cauliflower, Brussel sprouts or broccoli, all
mutant
cabbages. Who knows what genetic sequences caused these? some may
have
happened because, gasp!, a virus went haywire and disrupted some
vital
genes. Oh and also stay away from organge carrots, nature meant
carrots
to be green.


I don't think that eating GM crops is necessarily bad for you, so
the
above paragraph is irrelevant. 1/10 for the patronising attitude,
I've
seen it done much better.

Well since you think that then the first sentence indicates the above
was not aimed at you ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?




Would you mind awfully not crossposting to demon.local, please?

Yes I would object greatly. I read from demon.local because it amuses
me to do so.

Also, I couldn't find your signature and we do like to keep an eye on
them,
you know.

Wim

What is the mathematical equation used to establish permitted
properties for sigs, will this do?

Just as I thought: you're one of those bolshie protestors, aren't you?
You'll not fit in well here, you know. We keep very high standards in
demon.local, you know.

Why, we even have our own vicar here *and* a famous author *and* someone who
once tried to make it big in the theatre, but failed miserably.


The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.

Your sig is way too big to fit in to demon.local, but don't take my word for
it. Messrs. Barker and Oldfield, our gruesome twosome, will be along shortly
to curse and swear at you. HTH. HAND.

Wim

wrote in message
s.com...

That counts you out goat ****er.


What an exceedingly small world, eh? We have a goat sucker here in
demon.local.

Wim

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:18:26 +0100, "Wim Jay" wrote:


wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:43:39 +0100, "Wim Jay" wrote:


wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article ,
bigboard wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:
In article ,
bigboard wrote:

Bully for you. What has that got to do with it?


What it means is that if you think eating GM might be bad for you
then
stay away from all conventional crop varieties since we don't know
what
genetic changes happened to yield the required characters, unlike
GM.
Also don't eat cauliflower, Brussel sprouts or broccoli, all
mutant
cabbages. Who knows what genetic sequences caused these? some may
have
happened because, gasp!, a virus went haywire and disrupted some
vital
genes. Oh and also stay away from organge carrots, nature meant
carrots
to be green.


I don't think that eating GM crops is necessarily bad for you, so
the
above paragraph is irrelevant. 1/10 for the patronising attitude,
I've
seen it done much better.

Well since you think that then the first sentence indicates the above
was not aimed at you ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?




Would you mind awfully not crossposting to demon.local, please?

Yes I would object greatly. I read from demon.local because it amuses
me to do so.

Also, I couldn't find your signature and we do like to keep an eye on
them,
you know.

Wim

What is the mathematical equation used to establish permitted
properties for sigs, will this do?

Just as I thought: you're one of those bolshie protestors, aren't you?
You'll not fit in well here, you know.

I never seem to fit in anywhere, cant think why!

We keep very high standards in
demon.local, you know.

I had noticed.

Why, we even have our own vicar here *and* a famous author *and* someone who
once tried to make it big in the theatre, but failed miserably.

I once knew a Bishop, well, we all did, does that pull any strings?

The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.

Your sig is way too big to fit in to demon.local, but don't take my word for
it. Messrs. Barker and Oldfield, our gruesome twosome, will be along shortly
to curse and swear at you. HTH. HAND.

I love a challenge, it helps immensely and I am sure I'll have a
wonderful day. Thanks for the kind concern.



. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:21:54 +0100, "Wim Jay" wrote:


wrote in message
ws.com...

That counts you out goat ****er.


What an exceedingly small world, eh? We have a goat sucker here in
demon.local.

You do, that'll be nice for saunby, he has never been the same since
the RSPCA took his animals away.

Wim

Your sig is non existent, how come?



. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:28:30 +0100, Mike Clark wrote:

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:
[snip]
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?


I interpret this to mean that he is exercising his rights of academic
freedom to express a view not unrelated to his area of expertise as a
member of a university. I would be most concerned if he was only able to
speak when authorised by his university.

I realise that this may be an alien concept to some people employed in
companies, or even employed by some government institutions, but it is a
concept still defended in universities. As a fellow academic I would
defend his right to express his views even though I may not agree with
the opinions he expresses.

It has nothing to do with free speech. Peter Ashby can say what he
wants, when he wants and where he wants as far as I am concerned, I
would defend that right too.

Bragging how big his dick is, the fact that the university is
sponsoring him and that we are paying for it is completely unnecessary
to promoting free speech. If the comments are not on behalf of the
uni, don't advertise it then.


I think you are missing the point. It is not just a question of free
speech, and it is not just a question of speaking for an employer or
not. The important fact is that an academic can declare an affiliation
to an academic institution, yet still speak with academic freedom and
express views that should not be considered as the expressed opinions of
the institution. I find it insidious that you think that an academic
should hide their affiliation from public scrutiny.


Mike URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/
--
M.R. Clark, PhD. Division of Immunology
Cambridge University, Dept. Pathology
Tennis Court Rd., Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel.+44 1223 333705 Fax.+44 1223 333875

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:38:16 +0100, Mike Clark wrote:

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:28:30 +0100, Mike Clark wrote:

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:
[snip]
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?


I interpret this to mean that he is exercising his rights of academic
freedom to express a view not unrelated to his area of expertise as a
member of a university. I would be most concerned if he was only able to
speak when authorised by his university.

I realise that this may be an alien concept to some people employed in
companies, or even employed by some government institutions, but it is a
concept still defended in universities. As a fellow academic I would
defend his right to express his views even though I may not agree with
the opinions he expresses.

It has nothing to do with free speech. Peter Ashby can say what he
wants, when he wants and where he wants as far as I am concerned, I
would defend that right too.

Bragging how big his dick is, the fact that the university is
sponsoring him and that we are paying for it is completely unnecessary
to promoting free speech. If the comments are not on behalf of the
uni, don't advertise it then.


I think you are missing the point. It is not just a question of free
speech, and it is not just a question of speaking for an employer or
not. The important fact is that an academic can declare an affiliation
to an academic institution, yet still speak with academic freedom and
express views that should not be considered as the expressed opinions of
the institution. I find it insidious that you think that an academic
should hide their affiliation from public scrutiny.

I find it insidious and rather disturbing that one feels so insecure
they need to flaunt it.

What's the difference between an academic and a non academic, should
we all post our CVs as signature files, who on earth would want to?
why, why, why! so many questions....
. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.


pete who?



) (
/ \ .-"""""-. / \
( \/ __ __ \/ )
) ; / _\ /_ \ ; (
( | / \ / \ | )
\ (, \0/_\0/ ,) /
\_| / \ |_/
| (_\___/_) |
.\ \ -.- / /.
{ \ `===' / }
{ `.___.' }
{ }
`"="="="="="`

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
...

I think you are missing the point. It is not just a question of free
speech, and it is not just a question of speaking for an employer or
not. The important fact is that an academic can declare an affiliation
to an academic institution, yet still speak with academic freedom and
express views that should not be considered as the expressed opinions of
the institution. I find it insidious that you think that an academic
should hide their affiliation from public scrutiny.


Mike URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/

Pete, Angus and other animal rightists who enjoy disrupting conservation
and farming discussion groups seem to want this, and go to some lengths to
achieve it, in order to create the impression that those who disagree with
them have no credibility, i.e. anyone that doesn't support AR ideals is an
unemployable waste of space. Ironic don't you think?

Very sad though, since not everyone has the same freedom, or the thick
skin, and the behaviour of the AR thugs has certainly removed most
contributions to uk.environment.conservation from those working for
conservation organisations. Or "fake conservationists" as the ARists
choose to call them.

Michael Saunby

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:47:05 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article m,
"" wrote:

Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe
you cannot actually substatiate that claim?

You may have your head so far up your arse you cannot see reality,
luckily every single environmental group in the world hasnt, and they
highlight the dangers in triplicate.

http://www.google.com/search?q=glyph...F-8&oe=UTF-8&s
tart=10&sa=N

Will do for starters.

Yes and the second item down nicely illustrates the problem. It is the
surfactants in the prep that it is obsessing about, not as the title
suggests, the glyphosate. So I ask again, what is bad about glyphosate,
a herbicide?

Try not to be so selective in your blindness.

Items in the peer reviewed literature would be preferred to the confused
scare stories from environmental groups.

Many of which are based on peer reviewed data.

We still haven't had an answer
from WK as to where the problem might lie, apart from a vague disclaimer
that he wasn't talking about humans. Since we know its a herbicide we
can exclude plants since that is a bit of a no-brainer. So what is
harmed then?

The google links show it all.
. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.


pete who?

Dutchy

XXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
X / / / / / /X
X / / / / / / X
X / / / / / X
X / / / / / X
X / / / / X
X / / / / X
X/ / / / /X
X / / / / X
X / / / X
X / / / X
X/ / / X
X / / /X
XXXXXXXXX MMMMM
XXXXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
X XXX X MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXMM
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXXMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXXXMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXXXXMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXXXXXXMMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMXXXXXXXXXXMMMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
XXX MMMMMMMMMMMMM
XXX MMMMM
XXX XXX M
XXX XX//XXX I
XXX X/////////X I
XXX X // // //X I
XXX X/////////////////X I
XXX X/// /// /// /// ///X I
XXX X////////////////////////######X I
XXX X // // // .######### X I
XXX X////////////..########### X I
XXX X // // XXX ########## X I
XXX X/////////X X #### X I
XXX X// // X X X I
XXX X///////// X X XXX) I
XXX X // XX XX X I
XXX X//XXX XOOOOX I
XXX XXX X I
XXX X X I
XXX X X I
XXX X//X X I
XXX X//////X X I
XXX X//

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:52:56 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.. .

I think you are missing the point. It is not just a question of free
speech, and it is not just a question of speaking for an employer or
not. The important fact is that an academic can declare an affiliation
to an academic institution, yet still speak with academic freedom and
express views that should not be considered as the expressed opinions of
the institution. I find it insidious that you think that an academic
should hide their affiliation from public scrutiny.


Mike URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/

Pete,

pete who?

Angus and other animal rightists who enjoy disrupting conservation
and farming discussion groups seem to want this,

Disrupting! favourite topics it looks like. Try to join in saunby,
much better then animal sex videos.

and go to some lengths to
achieve it, in order to create the impression that those who disagree with
them have no credibility, i.e. anyone that doesn't support AR ideals is an
unemployable waste of space.

Completely false assumption, shows how misguided and delusional you
are. All are welcome here.

Ironic don't you think?
Very sad though, since not everyone has the same freedom, or the thick
skin,

Well you are thick I'd agree.

and the behaviour of the AR thugs has certainly removed most
contributions to uk.environment.conservation from those working for
conservation organisations. Or "fake conservationists" as the ARists
choose to call them.

Really. google tells quite a different story. In fact google is good
to look up on your habits.

http://tinyurl.com/pcem

http://tinyurl.com/pceq

Very good indeed.
. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.


pete who?

-=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97

.""--.._
[] `'--.._
||__ `'-,
`)||_ ```'--.. \
_ /|//} ``--._ |
.'` `'. /////} `\/
/ .""".\ //{///
/ /_ _`\\ // `||
| |(_)(_)|| _// ||
| | /\ )| _///\ ||
| |L====J | / |/ | ||
/ /'-..-' / .'` \ | ||
/ | :: | |_.-` | \ ||
/| `\-::.| | \ | ||
/` `| / | | | / ||
|` \ | / / \ | ||
| `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | ||
/ /` `\ || ||
| . / \|| ||
| | |/ ||
/ / | ( ||
/ . / ) ||
| \ | ||
/ | / ||
|\ / | ||
\ `-._ | / ||
\ ,//`\ /` | ||
///\ \ | \ ||
|||| ) |__/ | ||
|||| `.( | ||
`\\` /` / ||
/` / ||
jgs / | ||
| \ ||
/ | ||
/` \ ||
/` | ||
`-.___,-. .-. ___,' ||
`---'` `'----'`

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news snip

You get no argument from me on those concerns. In fact I am livid with
the likes of Monsanto for jeapardising a potentially very valuable
technology with initial products that generally have no benefit for the
consumer. I mourn the loss of Flavr Savr tomato paste as a crossfire
casualty.


I consumed quite a quantity of GM tomato puree, when it was available, and
haven't changed into a merman yet :-)

In article ,
Paul Rooney wrote:


Hang about - GM is good, isn't it?
Trollin, trollin trollin !-)

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago