Janet,
You seem to be suggesting my post should be deleted. Why? Because it's outspoken? Because it's unconventional and goes against the mainstream to support GM? It certainly can't be because it's rude or trolling, as I didn't say a single unkind or derogatory word against anyone, I simply stated how I felt and why. Perhaps you just don't like it because it's not *your* opinion?

Well, if you don't like what I say you can allways stop reading half way though and leave the topic. The way some people act towards someone they don't agree with is disgusting; if you have a problem with my opinion why not politely tell me about it, you had no reason to write that condecending post about me which manages to call me both a troll and a moron yet never even directly addresses me. Well, I'm not going to feel two inches tall because you have used the most predictable talking down tactic on me, I'm just going to pity you for not having the ability to express whatever is bothering you.

If you want to contribute something of value, why not start with the reason why you can be as rude and offensive as you like, yet other people who you don't agree with shouldn't be allowed even freedom of speach while being perfectly polite?

Bry

Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:168778

The message
from Tim Tyler contains these words:

Bevan Price wrote or quoted:


If you don't want seeds that produce infertile plants, you
don't have to buy them.

Unfortunately that isn't the case in 3rd world countries. Farmers
there don't have the resources to transport and market crops grown for
export, and are completely dependent on the power of the vast western
businesses which can. If that company says, buy our brand of seed seed,
spray it with our spray, otherwise we won't buy what you grow, farmers
have no choice.

A similar thing happens in this country where supermarkets' vast
purchase power can make or break producers. That is one reason why UK
farmers have started direct-marketing their own produce. Unlike
thirdworld farmers they are in the fortunate position that they are
within reach of their consumers.

So far as crops for processing are concerned (cereals, oilseed,
sugarbeet etc; the ones being GM-trialled in the UK) UK farmers are
still at the mercy of the large-scale market, so within reach of the
stranglehold excercised by multinationals.

Janet

: Janet Baraclough wrote:
:: *The message m
:: from Bry trolled
::
::
::: If the propsal was to plant GM crops on mass outside the lab (snip),
::: yes I would totally object. However the
::: propsal is to start the early stages of trials and tests in a lab,
::: just simply to find out more info so we can make a better informed
::: choice later when we know what its impact will be.
::
:: Oh, here we go, some moron at MODERATED gardenbanter has discovered
:: trolling. Wake up, Webmaster.
::
:: Janet. *
:
: Janet,
: You seem to be suggesting my post should be deleted. Why? Because it's
: outspoken? Because it's unconventional and goes against the mainstream
: to support GM? It certainly can't be because it's rude or trolling, as
: I didn't say a single unkind or derogatory word against anyone, I
: simply stated how I felt and why. Perhaps you just don't like it
: because it's not *your* opinion?
:
: Well, if you don't like what I say you can allways stop reading half
: way though and leave the topic. The way some people act towards
: someone they don't agree with is disgusting; if you have a problem
: with my opinion why not politely tell me about it, you had no reason
: to write that condecending post about me which manages to call me
: both a troll and a moron yet never even directly addresses me. Well,
: I'm not going to feel two inches tall because you have used the most
: predictable talking down tactic on me, I'm just going to pity you for
: not having the ability to express whatever is bothering you.
:
: If you want to contribute something of value, why not start with the
: reason why you can be as rude and offensive as you like, yet other
: people who you don't agree with shouldn't be allowed even freedom of
: speach while being perfectly polite?
:
: Bry

It's about time somebody took on the rudeness to which you refer, well done

The message m
from Bry contains these words:

Janet Baraclough wrote:
*The message m
from Bry trolled


If the propsal was to plant GM crops on mass outside the lab
(snip),
yes I would totally object. However the
propsal is to start the early stages of trials and tests in a lab,
just
simply to find out more info so we can make a better informed
choice
later when we know what its impact will be.

Oh, here we go, some moron at MODERATED gardenbanter has discovered
trolling. Wake up, Webmaster.

Janet. *

Janet,
You seem to be suggesting my post should be deleted. Why?

Atrocious spelling + trolling deceit = worthless garbage.

For several years past, experimental GM crops have been planted en masse
outdoors on farms up and down the UK. Those trials/tests are not merely
a proposal, not in a lab, and not in the early stages; they are a fait
accompli. Only a troll would pretend otherwise; as you did, above.

Janet

: The message m
: from Bry contains these words:
:
:: Janet Baraclough wrote:
::: *The message m
::: from Bry trolled
:::
:::
:::: If the propsal was to plant GM crops on mass outside the lab
:::: (snip), yes I would totally object. However the
:::: propsal is to start the early stages of trials and tests in a lab,
:::: just simply to find out more info so we can make a better informed
:::: choice later when we know what its impact will be.
:::
::: Oh, here we go, some moron at MODERATED gardenbanter has discovered
::: trolling. Wake up, Webmaster.
:::
::: Janet. *
:
:: Janet,
:: You seem to be suggesting my post should be deleted. Why?
:
: Atrocious spelling + trolling deceit = worthless garbage.
:
: For several years past, experimental GM crops have been planted en
: masse outdoors on farms up and down the UK. Those trials/tests are
: not merely a proposal, not in a lab, and not in the early stages;
: they are a fait accompli. Only a troll would pretend otherwise; as
: you did, above.
:
: Janet

Well there so you've been told! lol don't be a naughty boy

First of all, no, I cannot spell immensely well. However, there are no studys of any kind linking IQ and ability to make a valid point to spelling - yet people like you sit there calling me a 'moron' and saying my entire point is 'worthless garbage' because I can't spell as well as you... I must be an uneducated pleb in your opinion? Well, I supose you never stopped and thought before passing judgement that perhaps English isn't my first lanuage? Well, it's actually my third... Yet every time I post something on the net or write a letter or lose a word while talking, there's allways some smug arrogant person who speaks English as their first lanuage waiting to insult me because they have nothing better to hold against me.

As for deceit, I find you more guilty than I am as your quoting of me is selectively 'edited' to validate your point that I'm pretending GM isn't currently grown in the UK.

You (mis)quoted:

If the propsal was to plant GM crops on mass outside the lab (snip), yes I would totally object.


However, I actually said:

If the propsal was to plant GM crops on mass outside the lab and sell them in the stores right now, yes I would totally object.


As you can see, I never claimed GM isn't grown here, but said I would object to it's being grown commercialy in large ammounts so soon. The fact is, no commercial GM crops are grown in the UK yet. The trials you're talking about are limited in number and are NOT commercial and will not be in food you can buy at the shop. I find it curious the part which makes all the difference is the sentance you removed, despite it being a fraction of the paragraph and could easily have been left in?

As for the the trials that are not in a lab, of course they are. A laboratory is an environment in which studys are conducted, this can be a room in a building, a part of the world, even the lunar surface, and a lab certainly can be a field too. As for what everyone is proposing, that is to stop the tests before they are finished, which I have clearly stated can't be decided easily untill we are ready to see the first commercial uses of GM outside the lab (aka the trial fields for people who can't define lab as anything other than a white room with lots of test tubes).

Your whole point is based on a misquote that you made, and then you presented your point by name calling, making accusations and being a lanuage-snob. I have little doubt most people agree with me, you're a troll and this topic would be better off without you.

Bry

Bry wrote:

snip
First of all, no, I cannot spell immensely well.

Hey, don't undersell yourself.
I thought you spelt 'immensely' very well.

--
ned

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:

You seem to be suggesting my post should be deleted. Why?

Atrocious spelling + trolling deceit = worthless garbage.

For several years past, experimental GM crops have been planted en masse
outdoors on farms up and down the UK. Those trials/tests are not merely
a proposal, not in a lab, and not in the early stages; they are a fait
accompli. Only a troll would pretend otherwise; as you did, above.

Janet


Rather bizarre as I live in close range of some of the GM trials and to
be honest I would not say that they have been planted "en masse". The
original poster has some quite interesting comments on the GM debate and
that there is, in fact, a grey area where the more analytical of us
actually may want to see some hard facts about GM before we make our
minds up completly.

Frankly Janet, your the troll rather than the OP.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

It's hard to judge what's en masse, but most of what I've read has led me to believe that each GM crop is allowed around 20-25 fields each season in the whole country, which is very little compaired to the huge number of fields used each year for food production.

As for the bizare modifications people have been talking about, I read recently about part of a fish's DNA being put in to a tomato to make it more frost resistant. To some vegetarians this would raise questions about GM vegitables of unknown origins. However, more worryingly is people with allergy's, I myself have a potentialy fatal allergy to all sea food. Small ammounts aren't so hazardous, but they cause me to suffer similar effects someone with a nut allergy might have. When it's such an uncommon allergy would they bother to lable the package, and more interestingly would I have any effect from eating it? Still, I don't like the prospects for unusual allergy suffer's when all kinds of things can end up in their food. They would have to lable things clearly, but what about eating at someone else's house or in a restaraunt?

On a more interersting note, people have mostly overlooked the end uses of GM plants beyond eating them. For example fast growing GM trees could massively reduce the ammount of deforestation to make paper and laminate products, or perhaps altering plants that make a high oil content to produce something that can be made in to fuel. Also, in our own gardens GM plants could be made that grow better in this climate, and if someone could find the genetics that makes beans fix nitrogen from the air and put it in to the soil, a lot less expencive fertilizer would be needed for plants modified with it. In fact, if this could be done with grass, the lawn would mostly feed itself.

A more interesting example would be the street I live on, which untill the 1970's was lined either side with massive 130+ year old elm trees untill dutch elm disease killed all 62 of them... Because of the problem, they were replaced with lime trees. I like the lime trees, and they do their job well, but everyone here would rather have back the historical elm trees. If GM alterations could remove the danger of dutch elm disease we could easilly replace them.

To me (someone who is training to work in science), GM just presents another way to change the world around us. If it isn't banned and lives up to the claims made so far, I expect in the future we will move further away from plastics and synthetics to more natural products.

Bry

The message m
from Bry contains these words:


It's hard to judge what's en masse, but most of what I've read has led
me to believe that each GM crop is allowed around 20-25 fields each
season in the whole country, which is very little compaired to the huge
number of fields used each year for food production.

Indeed, comparitivly an extremely small number of fields. No way could
anyone consider this to be "en masse".

As for the bizare modifications people have been talking about, I read
recently about part of a fish's DNA being put in to a tomato to make it
more frost resistant. To some vegetarians this would raise questions
about GM vegitables of unknown origins. However, more worryingly is
people with allergy's, I myself have a potentialy fatal allergy to all
sea food. Small ammounts aren't so hazardous, but they cause me to
suffer similar effects someone with a nut allergy might have. When it's
such an uncommon allergy would they bother to lable the package, and
more interestingly would I have any effect from eating it? Still, I
don't like the prospects for unusual allergy suffer's when all kinds of
things can end up in their food. They would have to lable things
clearly, but what about eating at someone else's house or in a
restaraunt?

This is one of the areas of most concern to most people. Food labelling
anyway needs to be completly relooked at IMHO. Go to most places now and
yes you do see alot of "nut allergy" signs but very few of anything
else. Father in law cannot do the gluton thing, very poorly but it
reduces his nutrient uptake. A consequence of GM could be helping people
with food allergys full stop. It could also prove a nightmare. More
research needed which is what you and I are saying anyway Bry.

On a more interersting note, people have mostly overlooked the end uses
of GM plants beyond eating them. For example fast growing GM trees
could massively reduce the ammount of deforestation to make paper and
laminate products, or perhaps altering plants that make a high oil
content to produce something that can be made in to fuel. Also, in our
own gardens GM plants could be made that grow better in this climate,
and if someone could find the genetics that makes beans fix nitrogen
from the air and put it in to the soil, a lot less expencive fertilizer
would be needed for plants modified with it. In fact, if this could be
done with grass, the lawn would mostly feed itself.

Tree growth for the paper industry is currently done by pretty quick
growing softwood trees such as Larch. Making them grow any quicker would
be useless for the by product of the trees in the timber industry
because of the increased knots. Mind you, fast growing hardwoods would
help with the massive rainforest deforestations. Vegatable fuels to use
instead of the petrolchemicals would be much kinder to the enviroment to
my eyes.
Do we need all plants to have the nitrogen fixing ability? We would have
far more lushy green cabbages etc but the root veggies would be
terrible. We have to find a balence but without more research where are
we??

A more interesting example would be the street I live on, which untill
the 1970's was lined either side with massive 130+ year old elm trees
untill dutch elm disease killed all 62 of them... Because of the
problem, they were replaced with lime trees. I like the lime trees, and
they do their job well, but everyone here would rather have back the
historical elm trees. If GM alterations could remove the danger of
dutch elm disease we could easilly replace them.

No different to a vacination for measles in Humans IMHO. Although it is
said that elms are making a comeback again which is nice to hear.

To me (someone who is training to work in science), GM just presents
another way to change the world around us. If it isn't banned and lives
up to the claims made so far, I expect in the future we will move
further away from plastics and synthetics to more natural products.

Bry

Too much plastic and synthetics and we end up sticking it in the ground
as landfill. We have a responsibility as a species to look at
alternatives regardless of what they are. Whether we use them or not is
then a matter of conscious. The whole GM debate comes down to one thing.

RESEARCH!!!!!!!!

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:

You seem to be suggesting my post should be deleted. Why?

Atrocious spelling + trolling deceit = worthless garbage.

For several years past, experimental GM crops have been planted en masse
outdoors on farms up and down the UK. Those trials/tests are not merely
a proposal, not in a lab, and not in the early stages; they are a fait
accompli. Only a troll would pretend otherwise; as you did, above.

Janet


Rather bizarre as I live in close range of some of the GM trials and to
be honest I would not say that they have been planted "en masse".

What area of land was planted in the trials near you, and were the
seeds sown mechanically?

Given Bry's recent definition of "in a laboratory" it would be helpful
to understand your definition of "not planted en masse".

Janet

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:


Rather bizarre as I live in close range of some of the GM trials and to
be honest I would not say that they have been planted "en masse".

What area of land was planted in the trials near you, and were the
seeds sown mechanically?

Given Bry's recent definition of "in a laboratory" it would be helpful
to understand your definition of "not planted en masse".

Janet


En masse would be great swathes of land with the required amount of
land between it and "normal" crops. However, the reality has been one or
two pockets of one or two fields. If you`ve ever been to South Lincs
you`ll know that that kind of amount is practically minute in the grand
scheme of things here.

For an area producing 20% of the UK`s food requirements (source: lincs
fm farming program sunday morning), it would make sense for us to be at
the forefront of any move towards GM crops. It`s just not like that at
the moment.



--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:


Rather bizarre as I live in close range of some of the GM trials and to
be honest I would not say that they have been planted "en masse".

What area of land was planted in the trials near you, and were the
seeds sown mechanically?

Given Bry's recent definition of "in a laboratory" it would be helpful
to understand your definition of "not planted en masse".

En masse would be great swathes of land with the required amount of
land between it and "normal" crops.

En masse isn't a measurement, it just means, all together.

A swathe is only a mower width :-) Would you say that multiple
swathes, say five acres of a single GM crop, mechanically planted in a
properly regulated Farm Scale Evaluation, means "planted all together",
or "not planted all together"?

However, the reality has been one or
two pockets of one or two fields.

Locally to you, yes, but the same is not true of all other GM crops in
the UK.

If you`ve ever been to South Lincs
you`ll know that that kind of amount is practically minute in the grand
scheme of things here.

I don't dispute that.

Janet.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:49:00 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:


Rather bizarre as I live in close range of some of the GM trials and to
be honest I would not say that they have been planted "en masse".

What area of land was planted in the trials near you, and were the
seeds sown mechanically?

Given Bry's recent definition of "in a laboratory" it would be helpful
to understand your definition of "not planted en masse".

En masse would be great swathes of land with the required amount of
land between it and "normal" crops.

En masse isn't a measurement, it just means, all together.

A swathe is only a mower width :-) Would you say that multiple
swathes, say five acres of a single GM crop, mechanically planted in a
properly regulated Farm Scale Evaluation, means "planted all together",
or "not planted all together"?


and definitely not planted in the all together

--
Martin

The message
from martin contains these words:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:49:00 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Christopher Norton contains these words:

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:


Rather bizarre as I live in close range of some of the GM
trials and to
be honest I would not say that they have been planted "en masse".

What area of land was planted in the trials near you, and were the
seeds sown mechanically?

Given Bry's recent definition of "in a laboratory" it would be helpful
to understand your definition of "not planted en masse".

En masse would be great swathes of land with the required amount of
land between it and "normal" crops.

En masse isn't a measurement, it just means, all together.

A swathe is only a mower width :-) Would you say that multiple
swathes, say five acres of a single GM crop, mechanically planted in a
properly regulated Farm Scale Evaluation, means "planted all together",
or "not planted all together"?


and definitely not planted in the all together

--
Martin

We have had instances of that Martin. Strange bunch of farmers down here.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.