Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:08:22 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: wrote in message ws.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. Fritz it is Fritz. Was pops a commie spy or did he just desert? It is a better sounding name than your "". How do you pronounce it? with tongue in cheek. Your remark is a certain indication that you have lost steam. why should he, Because I am a scientist Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha Nice one you kraut, commie ****. That'll really impress the guys. 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 Amusing myself at your expense, I dont need to try. . . . . . . . . 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! |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
I don't usually top post, but I will make an exception here
Note for Peter Ashby: Now that our friend "" has revealed his background so clearly in the post beolw here, may I suggest that you cease posting to this thread without further ado? Franz wrote in message s.com... 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. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:51:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: I don't usually top post, but I will You're a ****in troll Fritz, why wouldnt you? make an exception here Note for Peter Ashby: Now that our friend "" has revealed his background so clearly in the post beolw here, may I suggest that you cease posting to this thread without further ado? Ha ha ha the troll wants to take my ball away, and all the players too, how novel you prick. wrote in message ws.com... 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. . . . . . . . . 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! |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "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? The assumption that I am talking about human health |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I take it that you don't believe in the efficacy of weeding your garden. It must be a sad, weedy lot. Strange attitude. Theres all sorts of strange things growing in my garden. No doubt you'd hate the wasp farm at the bottom of my garden too. 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. By no means. Most of the real arguments about GM are about how we are led further down the garden path in that respect. And WTF are you doing growing glyphosate resistant plants if you do not want a savage monoculture? |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: "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. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. There was no argument when I started off. It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human health. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can do. Great. A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here. You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all about human health. There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes. 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. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion without knowing much of the basic concept. Odd. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
Mike Clark writes
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. Any student there could have placed any affiliation he chose. One should be wary of believing all you see on the net. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
Mike Clark writes
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. Any student there could have placed any affiliation he chose. One should be wary of believing all you see on the net. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: "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. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. There was no argument when I started off. It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human health. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can do. Great. A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here. You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all about human health. There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes. 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. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion without knowing much of the basic concept. Odd. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: "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. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. There was no argument when I started off. It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human health. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can do. Great. A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here. You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all about human health. There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes. 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. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion without knowing much of the basic concept. Odd. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: "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. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. There was no argument when I started off. It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human health. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can do. Great. A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here. You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all about human health. There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes. 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. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion without knowing much of the basic concept. Odd. Where are those links, man? Franz |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: "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. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. There was no argument when I started off. It was almost a brand new thread, and no hint it was on about human health. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. OK you say you have a single track mind there and its all you can do. Great. A broader understanding of environmental ideas might help you here. You fall into the same trap as most people in thinking its all about human health. There was a hint I didn't mean that when I mentioned the potatoes. 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. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? I'm surprised that you are willing to jump into such a discussion without knowing much of the basic concept. Odd. Where are those links, man? Franz |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I take it that you don't believe in the efficacy of weeding your garden. It must be a sad, weedy lot. Strange attitude. Theres all sorts of strange things growing in my garden. No doubt you'd hate the wasp farm at the bottom of my garden too. 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. By no means. Most of the real arguments about GM are about how we are led further down the garden path in that respect. And WTF are you doing growing glyphosate resistant plants if you do not want a savage monoculture? You have no idea of what constitutes a monoculture. My country of birth produces a very wide range of vegetable foodstuffs. Most of those farms would be more productive if glyphosate resistant varietes of plants were available. Franz |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I take it that you don't believe in the efficacy of weeding your garden. It must be a sad, weedy lot. Strange attitude. Theres all sorts of strange things growing in my garden. No doubt you'd hate the wasp farm at the bottom of my garden too. 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. By no means. Most of the real arguments about GM are about how we are led further down the garden path in that respect. And WTF are you doing growing glyphosate resistant plants if you do not want a savage monoculture? You have no idea of what constitutes a monoculture. My country of birth produces a very wide range of vegetable foodstuffs. Most of those farms would be more productive if glyphosate resistant varietes of plants were available. Franz |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I take it that you don't believe in the efficacy of weeding your garden. It must be a sad, weedy lot. Strange attitude. Theres all sorts of strange things growing in my garden. No doubt you'd hate the wasp farm at the bottom of my garden too. 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. By no means. Most of the real arguments about GM are about how we are led further down the garden path in that respect. And WTF are you doing growing glyphosate resistant plants if you do not want a savage monoculture? You have no idea of what constitutes a monoculture. My country of birth produces a very wide range of vegetable foodstuffs. Most of those farms would be more productive if glyphosate resistant varietes of plants were available. So you are now making no claims about it being bad for the environment. You are simply talking about how good it is for industrialised farming. Odd. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 19 Jul 2003 to 20 Jul 2003 (#2003-202) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 27 May 2003 to 28 May 2003 (#2003-149) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 15 May 2003 to 16 May 2003 (#2003-137) | Bonsai |