wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:21:54 +0100, "Wim Jay" wrote:



Wim

Your sig is non existent, how come?

Well, it's my new computer, you see. I used to have a patch called
"QuoteFix" for OE on my old one which gave you a "proper" sig like wot they
insist on in demon.local, but I must have cleared the download out one day
and I've not yet got round to finding it online again. I'll get there one
day. In the meantime I just scribble my forename at the end and it keeps the
two madmen happy.


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.

Sorry to mention your sig again, but if I reply to you without drawing your
attention to your *huge* sig I shall be failing in my duties as a sometimes
regular of demon.local, and worse than that, I shall have the sig keepers
hot on my heels. There is an excellent FAQ for demon.local which Paul Rooney
posts once in a blue moon and that will give you a good guide as to how to
behave in here. There's an URL for it but I seem to have lost that too.
(Personally, I think it's a very nice sig but don't tell any locals that I
said so, please.)

Wim

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:48:46 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:


"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 :-)

So ..... presumably you definitely don't look like this....?

http://www.claykeck.com/ethel/

(;-)
Regards
Geoff

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
...

[snip]

However there are other issues behind GM crops that go beyond a simple
consideration of the consequences to health. I consider a major point to
be the way that laws governing intellectual property rights are used to
manipulate commercial interests.

The topic under discussion is the possible deleterious effects of GM crops,
and not the workings of the capitalist world.

Franz

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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.
There's evidence that thats bad.

You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any
scientific
paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans
if
used
correctly.

You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human
health.
I am not.

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.

I take it that you don't believe in the efficacy of weeding your garden. It
must be a sad, weedy lot.

Franz

ie. more extreme control and more extreme monoculture.

Why bring monoculture into the argument?
The use of glyphosate and pursuing a practice of monoculture are separate
questions.

Franz

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:

"Reid©" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Indeed, its a risk, an unquantified one that could have
catastrophic results or might not.

Nonsense. It is quantified: It is less than can be detected by any
experiment so far performed. That makes it compatible with zero to
within
present experimental limits.

To be strict that makes it compatible with zero when comparing GM
varieties with equivalent conventional crops, within present
experimental limits. It does not exclude some risk which may be shared
between the GM and conventional varieties.

Point granted.

Franz

"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
.206...
Peter Ashby wrote in news.r.ashby-
:

GM is simply the application of extremely selective, controlled genetic
change in place of non selective, uncontrolled genetic change which
characterises conventional crop breeding. We could argue about dubious
benefits for some particular applications of the technology, but that
does not mean all uses of the technology are bad.


I don't think bigboard said that all uses of the technology were bad, or
that food created from GM crops was dangerous to human beings.

Some of the applications to which the technology has been put so far seem
to me rather unimaginative and risky to things we'd like to protect.

We are not a subsistence culture. We do not need to grow GM crops in the
UK in order to feed ourselves, or to prevent economic collapse.

So, why not be cautious, in the way that so many previous introducers of
other plant varieties have not been? Late is better than never.

But we produce newly genetically modified potatoes every year or so and have
done so since time immemorial..

Franz

"W K" wrote in message
...

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

You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any
scientific
paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans
if
used
correctly.

You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human
health.
I am not.

Then state the things you think are bad about it or shut up.

Peter

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

Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50.

I see no connection between your riposte and the item which you are
answering.

Read up on what the RSPB thinks about this issue. Its to do with effects
similar to those we already see with increased intensification of farming.

A bit vague, are you not?

Franz

wrote in message
s.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?

I look forward to seeing a list of titles of the load of ******** you claim
to be talked by Peter.
My impression is that you have been very unlucky so far in not being able to
win a single argument against him.
By the way, in no University worthy of the name is it necessary to obtain
permission to speak in public about any matter whatsoever, including your
own expertise.

Franz

Franz

wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:09:33 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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.
There's evidence that thats bad.

You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any
scientific
paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans
if
used
correctly.

You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human
health.
I am not.

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.

That's complete tosh fritz,

The name is Franz.
It is a better sounding name than your "". How do you pronounce it?
Your remark is a certain indication that you have lost steam.

why should he,

Because I am a scientist and I require scientific evidence if I am to be
convinced of the sinfulness of modifying the genes of a plant under
controlled conditions rather than by the haphazard style of mother nature.

we all know how to drive
without seeing the blueprints.

Analogies are useless, more often than not. This one is more useless than
usual.

We read the warnings from the likes of
greenpeace and take heed.

Many of the issues raised by greenpeace are entirely valid, and have my full
support. On the question of GM foodstuffs they are out on a limb with no
scientific backup at all.

If you have a valid argument against the
science I suggest you take it up with the scientists involved & stop
boring the pants off us here.

I am sorry to hear that your pants are being bored off. You could put an
end to it by producing some evidence in favour of your stance. You have not
so far produced any scientific statement with any backing whatsoever.
Do try, if you wish to carry on further with this

Franz

wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:09:33 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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.
There's evidence that thats bad.

You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any
scientific
paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans
if
used
correctly.

You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human
health.
I am not.

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.

Still, if you insist fritz. Have a go at this lot, that should keep
you busy for ever.

My dear ,
My name is Franz. It is not fritz, as you have now twice demeaned yourself
into printing. It is also conventionally spelt with a capital F. Please do
not stoop to such poverety stricken methods of arguing.

I am snipping the list of papers you gave, in the interest of saving space
and bandwidth. If anybody is interested, they may look up the note to which
this is a reply.

[snip]

They seem mostly to concern themselves with the effects of the surfactant in
the commercial formulation of glyphosate, and not with the chemical per se.

And yet, even those amongst us who are organic gardeners blithely accept the
use of soap and household detergents as valid methods of controlling insect
attacks. How much research has been done on the possible deleterious
effects of those surfactants?

Franz

wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:14:51 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article m,
"" wrote:

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?

Biomedical research, largely on mice, but I have a background in
molecular genetics

A vivisectionist. It figures. You care as little about animals as you
do about humans, money being your goal. Some of us have better
standards.

And that statement defines you completely.

Goodbye.

Franz

"Reid©" wrote in message
...
Following up to Peter Ashby

Then stay away from conventional crops then, very far away. Because the
uncontrolled genetic changes used in their production must, using your
own logic

"uncontrolled" genetic changes by selective breeding and crosses
with similar plants hardly amounts to components of a fish in a
tomato.

Rubbish. Mother nature already makes use of a substantial fraction of the
components of the genome of a plant to make a fish without our help.

Franz

"W K" wrote in message
...

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

BUT the real and less exciting aspect is that it allows crops to be
sprayed
with even more herbicides.
There's evidence that thats bad.

To whom or what?
From an earlier discussion about glyphosate:

uh oh another one

BTW animals are not plants so the term herbicide might indicate that the
toxicity is not directed at animals.

Making big assumptions there.

Have you any evidence that the assumption is unwarranted?
Who on earth has ever suggested that one might treat animals with
glyphosate?

[snip]

Franz

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:08:19 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
8.206...

snip

We are not a subsistence culture. We do not need to grow GM crops in the
UK in order to feed ourselves, or to prevent economic collapse.

So, why not be cautious, in the way that so many previous introducers of
other plant varieties have not been? Late is better than never.

But we produce newly genetically modified potatoes every year or so and have
done so since time immemorial..

My neighbour even won a large prize for doing this.
--
Martin

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:08:12 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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.
There's evidence that thats bad.

You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any
scientific
paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans
if
used
correctly.

You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human
health.
I am not.

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.

I take it that you don't believe in the efficacy of weeding your garden. It
must be a sad, weedy lot.

Like you!


. . . . . . . .





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 / | ||
| \ ||
/ | ||
/` \ ||
/` | ||
`-.___,-. .-. ___,' ||
`---'` `'----'`
I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic!