"Polar" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:22:50 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family
tartans.

Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers
that
glow in the dark.

Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA
experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, &
glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who
says science fiction can't happen?


I didn't see it, but I guess I have an active imagination! I can just
see
entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim
that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability
of
the nuclear family.

Speaking of the nuclear family, I guess you've noticed that Dubya
wants us to start manufacturing cute little battlefield-sized nukes.
Not, of course, to be classified as WMD!!

those flashing plants, they will be obliterated by blasts from our
new death-ray satellites, as we merrily proceed to weaponize space.
Well under way, as I am told...


Oh, I'm sure what ever Dubya does is the result of Devine inspiration. If
you tune into any AM talk radio shows you would think they were talking
about the second coming of Christ until they mention the all important tax
reduction legislation.

"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
.222...
"Zizz" wrote in
:

Something tells me that sooner or later nature will turn around and
bite us on the bum for being so ignorant of her ways!

Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their disposal,
these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

What about a fruiting orange tree that's hardy in Aberdeen?

....or, a plum tree that produces Viagra so older guys can eat prunes that
make them come and go.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 13:36:47 GMT, Vox Humana wrote:


"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
.222...
"Zizz" wrote in
:

Something tells me that sooner or later nature will turn around and
bite us on the bum for being so ignorant of her ways!

Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their
disposal,
these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

What about a fruiting orange tree that's hardy in Aberdeen?

...or, a plum tree that produces Viagra so older guys can eat prunes that
make them come and go.


LOL! I guess that's an old one by now. I really should get out more.

"Tim wrote in message
: Bob wrote:

: : I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made
sterile,
: : as all GM plants should be.
:
: That's the luddite position.
:
: I don't think it will last - in the future most probably all living
things
: will be "transgenic".

: Thanks for that, I'm therefore proud to be a "Luddite".
: Better than being responsible for the GM parsley fiasco in France, the
GM
: Sweetcorn pollen fiasco in the UK. I wouldn't mind if it was an exact
: science but it isn't, even those doing it can't be certain about the
outcome
: as the introduced gene often causes other dormant genes to react.
: I for one don't think we are knowledgeable enough yet to use GM outside
the
: lab.

I think we are. There's no point in waiting forever.

GM plants have been quite successful outside the lab in some areas.

For example see this article on GM cotton:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/stor...891348,00.html

I also think GM food has great potential. For example, currently I suffer
from the effects of many natural pesticides our food plants employ - the
powerful acids in spinach - the phytoestrogens in legumes - and so on.

Personally I can't wait for scientisits to genetically engineer some
of the anti-nutrients out of the vegetables I eat - and use mechanical
barriers - instead of toxic poisons - to prevent pests.

You suffer from natural pesticides AND you want GM foods. I think you aught
to study what genes they are transposing as a lot of them are those very
"natural" pesticides you dislike.
GM Cotton has a gene from a Bacteria that attacks and eats caterpillars, so
will you be able to wear Indian cotton in future, you can't wash it out,
it's in the DNA.

Did you hear about the Starlink corn fiasco, pollen has crossed over the
inadequate barriers into "Organic" corn in fields that have been organic for
10 to 15 years thus polluting the environment. Starlink corn is officially
unfit for human consumption!!!
That is also something that has been levelled at Monsanto and others,
deliberate polluting of non-GM crops so eventually we can no longer make a
choice, all crops are GM polluted anyway. Are these trials disasters
accidents? These people are experts and must know exactly what they are
doing.( Don't they?)

I agree it has some potential for good, but it also has a great potential
for environmental harm, indeed, disaster, and for the domination of our seed
supply by a few.
The fact that our legislators seem to pass laws to help this domination
leads me to be suspicious of their motives. One firm being allowed to Patent
the food chain is crazy.

Did you hear about Monsanto taking a farmer to court because his crops had
been contaminated by their trials and their lorries carrying the their seed
away. They accused him of stealing their product/research and they won!!!
How arse about face is that.

--
Bob

www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in
Runnymede fighting for it's existence.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 14:36:14 +0200, Tim
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:52:10 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

Just because something's unpleasant to US doesn't mean it doesn't have
a valuable part to play in nature. We'd be knee deep in carcasses if
it wasn't for the 'nasty' bluebottle.

Absolutely. But the places these GMOs are likely to be used is on
agricultural land. Not really a natural environment is it.#

Yes it is.
OK, not natural in the sense that if you left nature to itself you'd
be unlikely to come across acres of wheat - but the fact that big
fields of single crops DO exist makes them part of the natural
environment.
Likewise the car - not natural, but nonetheless something that has a
dramatic effect on the environment by mere virtue of being in it.

You cannot bung a few dozen acres of GM crops down and not expect it
to interact with the environment in which it exists.

And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in places
that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be negligable.

May be???
There's that unsettling uncertainty again.

I don't mean pollution or global warming. Nearly all the land in the UK is
or has been intensively managed at one time or other. Places we call
"natural" are nearly all man-made. Probably the most "natural" part of the
country is the stagnant rock pool just below high tide.

Depends what's been chucked into the sea a mile or so up the coast

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"Tim" wrote in message
newspro7npy1iwxhha1@localhost...
Actually I'd like a tomato plant that produces beefsteak as well. Perhaps
with some peas and carrots on alternate branches.
Tim.

How about a tomato plant the grows basil on it too? Convient...

Charlie.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03

In article , "Sue & Bob Hobden"
wrote:

"Tim wrote in message
: Bob wrote:

I also think GM food has great potential. For example, currently I suffer
from the effects of many natural pesticides our food plants employ - the
powerful acids in spinach - the phytoestrogens in legumes - and so on.

Personally I can't wait for scientisits to genetically engineer some
of the anti-nutrients out of the vegetables I eat - and use mechanical
barriers - instead of toxic poisons - to prevent pests.

You suffer from natural pesticides AND you want GM foods. I think you aught
to study what genes they are transposing as a lot of them are those very
"natural" pesticides you dislike.
GM Cotton has a gene from a Bacteria that attacks and eats caterpillars, so
will you be able to wear Indian cotton in future, you can't wash it out,
it's in the DNA.

Did you hear about the Starlink corn fiasco, pollen has crossed over the
inadequate barriers into "Organic" corn in fields that have been organic for
10 to 15 years thus polluting the environment. Starlink corn is officially
unfit for human consumption!!!
That is also something that has been levelled at Monsanto and others,
deliberate polluting of non-GM crops so eventually we can no longer make a
choice, all crops are GM polluted anyway. Are these trials disasters
accidents? These people are experts and must know exactly what they are
doing.( Don't they?)

I agree it has some potential for good, but it also has a great potential
for environmental harm, indeed, disaster, and for the domination of our seed
supply by a few.
The fact that our legislators seem to pass laws to help this domination
leads me to be suspicious of their motives. One firm being allowed to Patent
the food chain is crazy.

Did you hear about Monsanto taking a farmer to court because his crops had
been contaminated by their trials and their lorries carrying the their seed
away. They accused him of stealing their product/research and they won!!!
How arse about face is that.

One thing to bare in mind over the idea of "sterile" seed, the REAL reason
it is "sterile" is so farmers who buy the seed cannot save back a
percentage of the resulting crop for future plantings. It "locks farmers
in" as Monsanto serfs, & stops the ages-old practice of saving seed for
new crops insuring there will never again be any such thing as independent
farmers. The "kindness" of transgenic seed donations to impoversished
countries has been turned down by several poor countries, as they know the
real intent is to interupt the independent capacity to generate crops &
seeds for future crops simultaneously. Insofar as polluting organics is
"intentional" on Monsanto's part, I don't know, but it IS their intent to
stop as much organic farming as they can. To do this, they sue organic
farmers left & right, putting them out of business, always on the thinnest
pretexts, & of course there's the "tax write off" gambit of giving sterile
seed to third-world countries with the underlying purpose of stopping
their ability to generate seed independent of Monsanto.

As long as the crop cannot easily be carried over to a new generation
without having to buy more crop seed from the source, the transgenicists
don't seriously care all that much how much it pollinates into the wild or
into neighboring crops. And a number of studies have shown a great many
"sterile" crops -- definitely are only sterile enough to enslave farmers
to Monsanto, but fertile enough to pass on such "special" traits as
herbicide-resistance to weeds, & most assuredly to contaminate organic
produce & weaken pure seed crops for future plantings ("coincidentally"
increasing future reliance on Monsanto for crop seed).

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article opro7ryonawxhha1@localhost, Tim timnothy.cohsalpleangmer@a
pk.at writes

Absolutely. But the places these GMOs are likely to be used is on
agricultural land. Not really a natural environment is it.

"We've started to mess things up, so let's finish the job", do you mean?

The critical part is not whether it's natural or not, but whether it is
contained. And agricultural land is not - what you do there can easily
escape to the surrounding land, whether that be more agricultural land,
gardens or whatever.

And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in places
that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be negligable.
I don't mean pollution or global warming. Nearly all the land in the UK is
or has been intensively managed at one time or other. Places we call
"natural" are nearly all man-made. Probably the most "natural" part of the
country is the stagnant rock pool just below high tide.

I'm not sure 'stagnant' is the appropriate word for a pool receiving an
influx of sea water twice a day.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"Kat" wrote in message
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
"Perrenelle" wrote in message
news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02...
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of
transgenic
plants by answering three simple questions below.

snip
What does 'transgenic' mean?

It means the genes of another species were used to alter the genetics of
the
existing plant or animal. If you live in the USA, Transgenic goods are in
your home, unlabeled, right now. Look it up.
The future is here.

So it could mean that a gene from a rat was in my plant, or a gene from a
closely related species? And that rat gene may also exist in closely related
plants (But for reasons of convenience the gene was taken from rat), or it
may not. Seems to cover such wide spectrum its meaningless.

--
Tumbleweed

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

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Kat"
wrote:

"Tumbleweed" wrote in
message
...
"Perrenelle" wrote in message
news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02...
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of
transgenic
plants by answering three simple questions below.

snip
What does 'transgenic' mean?

It means the genes of another species were used to alter the genetics of
the
existing plant or animal. If you live in the USA, Transgenic goods are
in
your home, unlabeled, right now. Look it up.
The future is here.

Unlabeled because a fundamental DISHONESTY in this industry has lobbied
Congress and SUED organic farmers out of existence & done everything in
its considerable Monsantoesque authoritarianist POWER to keep the public
from HAVING A CHOICE.

Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word.
And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that
scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the
public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred
randomly.


If it were such a great technology, the public would be given a choice.

Since they have PROVEN don't want us to have a choice, hence care NOTHING
about individual wishes, that suggests they may also not care about our
health.


Same about the the antis, who were (are?) even against rice with added
vitamins, simply because of their gut reaction and fear of any change at
all, even if proven non-harmful.

If the industry were honest, they wouldn't fear full disclosure on
labeling.

Since they have PROVEN they cannot stand proud in the light of day with
full disclosures & honesty, how does that make their claims of unutterable
safety more credible?

Until this industry stops being merely propogandistic & attempts honesty,
nothing they say about safety can be believed either. Until this industry
permits personal choice in product selection by full disclosure on labels,
it is rightly assumed all claims of concern for human well being & health
is mere pretense.

Until the ecology industry stops being merely propogandistic & attempts
honesty why beleive anything they say, either? UNtil then it is rightly
assumed all claims of concern for human well being & health is mere pretense
and is actually done in the aim of keeping their vast industry of
scaremongering going.


Note that companies like Monsanto who dominate this field also dominate in
the field of toxic chemical pollutants which they likewise promote as safe
& healthful & through deceit & propoganda encourage people to dump
willynilly throughout the environment.

Note that companies such as Greenpeace who dominate this field also make
pronouncemenmts in entirely unrelated areas such as the Iraq war. BTW, can
you show a source where MOnsanto or any other large organisation promotes
people dumping stuff? betcha cant.



Finally, because so many of the products are sterile OR re-propogation is
criminalized to protect the chemical & transgenic industry's profits,
farmers can no longer save their own seed for future crops, but are
imprisoned by the requirement of buying new seed for every crop. As this
industry muscles into third-world economies, they suck the lifeblood out
of already impoverished peoples.

Whereas eco-terrorists wish to prevent them having the choice of industrial
development, longer lives, and make them all small scale farmers tied to
medieval scale levels of wealth and health.

--
Tw

In article ,
wrote:

Interestingly (and disgustingly) enough, I was doing some research in
a book by a British scholar named, I think, Judith Morgan (not sure)
called "Women in the Mishnah" (Mishnah = compendium of commentaries by
the Sages on the Five Books of Moses).

Mishnah is a body of legal commentary by rabbis of the "mishnaic age" that
are a part of the Talmud, & in a broader sense it is all Oral Torah that
is shared during talmudic studies, none of it written down. You seem to
lack even the most rudimentary preschool knowledge of judaism, let alone
talmudic law. The book you misrepresent below you clearly never read. It
is by Judith Ropmney Wegner (who is an old hand on UseNet by the way), &
her approach is sometimes archly feminist, but her commentary on Jewish
attitudes toward rape in the mishnaic age come nowhere near your
misrepresentation.

Sexual relations between a whole range of blood and marriage relatives
are forbidden in Leviticus, but there is no mention of *daughters*
being forbidden. Of course this doesn't mean that daughters were
routinely raped by fathers; that would have been a cardinal sin.
Anyway that's more the style of the U.S. deep Saouth and rural France
(La Jument Verte by Marcel Ayme). But I have always wondered why
daughters were not among the "thou shalt not uncover the nakedness
of.."

Also, somebody in the "Mishnah" book was quoted as opining that it's
OK to penetrate a 3-year-old, because the hymen will regrow (and then
she will presumably be saleable).

There is no "Mishna book" per se, you're clearly lost in lala land, & you
are repeating an antisemitic cannard. Whatever your source may have been,
the real origin of this unkosher load of hogswallow is a Jew-hating
Russian Catholic cleric, Father Pranaitis, who late in the 19th Century
wrote a book called CHRISTIANUS IN TALMUDE IUDAEORUM inventing all sorts
of non-existent talmudic quotations purporting Jesus was boiled in oil,
Mary was a hooker who slept with dozens of men, Jewish fathers raped
babies, & so on. The neo-nazis who keep reworking this faked information
really don't care that Pranaitis was humiliated in the Beilis blood libel
trial of 1913, when in a very public environment it turned out he could
not answer even the most rudimentary about the Talmud which he had never
read. His book, however, was translated into English in the late 1930s &
remains today a staple of neo-nazi indoctrination.

Your third- or fourth-hand antisemitic assertions I will assume were made
innocently on the basis of your knowing nothing whatsoever about anything
at all, rather than because you're consciously & intentionally an
antisemitic idiot. I give you that benefit of the doubt. But you certainly
never read Judith Wegner's book or you wouldn't've thought "The Mishnah"
was a book rather than a body of commentary in the Talmud, & you couldn't
possibly have interpretted Wegner's assessment of mishnaic-era attitudes
on rape as anywhere near the sinister thing you've changed it to.

Mishnaic commentary is a body of rabbinical opinion & includes directly
contradictory assertions -- often two or more rabbis quoted side by side
to give opposing points of view, basically sophist in nature. The issue of
whether women are men's spiritual equals, or inferior to men, is a fond
topic that recurs & recurs; the mishnaic sages are surprisingly liberal
most of the time, given that this all happened before the year 200. The
sages' commentaries on rape are not feminist commentaries, but often
surprisingly liberal for the day. It was most assuredly justice &
spiritual wholeness they were after, whether or not they invariably
achieve it. When they did "pretzel-thinking" to "prove" that the Bible
does not permit capital punishment, it is clear that two thousand years
ago, Judaism was a religion so advanced in moral excellence that other
cultures have to this day not quite caught up with even such simple &
obvious things as if murder is wrong, state-sponsored murder is wrong.

Anyway, the mishnaic commentary you so vastly misrepresent attempts to
answer the question as to whether or not a woman whose hymen was broken
through injury OR rape in childhood still qualified to marry a priest.
The short answer turns out to be "Yes." The argument occurs in the
tractate Niddah, the PURPOSE of the commentary was to insure that a woman
who may have had her hymen broken either from falling on a piece of wood
that penetrated her, or was the survivor of sexual abuse, would not, later
in life, be mistreated or restricted in Jewish society in any manner -- to
the extent that she could even marry a priest. One of the many threads of
reasoning was that the hymen can heal when torn before the age of three --
and it can, but even if that had been a medical myth, the purpose was to
establish that women whose hymen was broken whether from falling on her
crotch or from the horror of childhood rape, she would not in later life
be regarded as damaged goods.

Anyone aware of the laws governing who can marry a priest or Kohen, the
MAJORITY of Jewish women do not qualify. So what this Mishnaic commentary
is pointing out is that victims of childhood rape should in no way be
regarded as taboo in priestly marriages (threfore in any other marriages
which have fewer restrictions). I doubt many cultures before the year 200
would take such a liberal stance! To this day, of the many possible
marriage opportunities for rabbis that are forbidden among the Orthodox, a
woman who suffered sexual abuse in childhood is not forbidden.

The greater aspect the Talmudic tract's discussions actually regard a
woman's ketubah, or dowry. You speak of Jewish women's "salability" as
regards her having been molested in childhood. The ACTUAL talmudic regards
women's ketubah, or dowry. It is highly technical discussion with many
asides on sundry related topics, but is meant to formalize the rights of a
woman to has entered a marriage with a dowry & is subsequently divorced
(including possibly because childhood sexual abuse becomes known, or her
hymen was not intact). In most cases, if she is divorced, or if she issues
a divorce decree to her husband as is her right, her dowry must be
returned to her. In some cases, it would not be. Certainly nothing in all
this says infant girls are legally raped, just because a bunch of nazis &
one crazy Russian cleric say so.

Antisemites when misrepresenting the Niddah commentary generally at the
same time invent a quote pretending it is from tractate Sanhedrin, giving
further evidence that Jews fathers perform incest on their children as a
matter of course.The neo-nazi-generated on-line article I believe you read
quotes the Talmud this way: "A Jew may lay with a child below the age of
nine." Aha! Take that, dirty Jews! It is a famous quote recycled through
the last century in antisemeitic literature, but as anyone with a lick of
sense would at least suspect if not realize outright, it is not to be
found anywhere in any version of the Talmud. The ACTUAL commentary so
heavy-handedly misrepresented actually speaks of blaming both partners in
forbidden acts outside of marriage including sodomy, child rape, incest, &
so on. Amidst a whelter of commentaries & explanations of specific words
in Torah, one definitive conclusion is that a child under the age of nine
is not culpable in any act of sodomy, only the adult is culpable,
therefore the child should not be the one punished nor held at fault.

The funny thing is, in a work that is millions of words long, it WOULD be
possible for antisemites to find a random sentence here, a random sentence
there, & use it as "proof "that Jews are evil ****s. But I suppose it is
fortunate that antisemites are mental cripples in so many ways & can't
think rationally so can't frame logical hate-thoughts based on more than
their own made-up crap, & anyway, their primary audience is an even
stupider shitload of undereducated cretins, so it doesn't have to have any
facts included.

The Niddah & Sanhedrin commentaries I mention are among the most
strikingly misconstrued for antisemites' revisionism, but anyone who has
even an ounce of intellect, common sense, or decency, would check the
actual texts, I find the misrepresentations aren't even a matter of
subjective interpretation -- these goyim revisions are simply slandrous
inventions. Alas, too many goyim never set foot in a library & certainly
don't have the Talmud & its mishnaic commentaries to hand, & too many seem
to be willing to believe any old crap some neo-nazi promulgates in their
presence.

Again I reiterate, I am not inferring you personally are certainly
antisemitic. You may just be ignorant & gullible as well as a little bit
dishonest. You have repeated a bit of antisemitic mythmaking seemingly
believing it; you were rather too easily misled by fraudulant writings
that on their very face aren't particularly convincing, & which could've
been checked into without great effort. You're also to be faulted for
pretending to have read a book on women of the mishnaic age, a book you
must have at most seen misrepresented in whatever neo-nazi paraphrase of
Pranaitis you accepted as fact. You obviously cut & pasted that nonsense
from some much-removed source, given that you didn't even catch on to what
the Mishnah is. The only crimes in what you've done is in believing absurd
hate-inspired nonsense then making a fake citation pretending you read a
book you never read. I hope in the future you will be less of an "easy
mark" for antisemitic hate-mongering, & perhaps even bother to learn a
little bit about judaism if in the future you wish to opinons of it that
make any sense. If, on the other hand, you are indeed just another
cowardly anonymized neo-nazi troll, hey, I forgive you -- I'm sure
something awful happened to you to make you that way, & I'm sorry for ya.

The Anti-Defamation League has prepared a little essay "The Talmud in
Antisemitic Polemics" which anyone interested in the topic (but without
time to read a couple dozen books & the entirety of Torah & the Talmud
just now) can obtain from the League or download from the web as a PDF
file.

-paghat the ratgirl

I guess it was a man's world then, and still is in some cultures.

--

Researcher

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:34:23 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2003 10:42:09 +0100, Someone who spammed me
wrote:



paghat wrote:
In article , "Kat" wrote:


"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

[...]


Well, they ARE banned in Leviticus.

-paghat the ratgirl


Yes - but what isn't?

Interestingly (and disgustingly) enough, I was doing some research in
a book by a British scholar named, I think, Judith Morgan (not sure)
called "Women in the Mishnah" (Mishnah = compendium of commentaries by
the Sages on the Five Books of Moses).

Sexual relations between a whole range of blood and marriage relatives
are forbidden in Leviticus, but there is no mention of *daughters*
being forbidden. Of course this doesn't mean that daughters were
routinely raped by fathers; that would have been a cardinal sin.
Anyway that's more the style of the U.S. deep Saouth and rural France
(La Jument Verte by Marcel Ayme). But I have always wondered why
daughters were not among the "thou shalt not uncover the nakedness
of.."

Also, somebody in the "Mishnah" book was quoted as opining that it's
OK to penetrate a 3-year-old, because the hymen will regrow (and then
she will presumably be saleable).

I guess it was a man's world then, and still is in some cultures.

Not going to reply in detail to Paghat's attack. Just noting that

(a) I am very familiar with Judith Wegener's book (thanks for name
correction).

(b) The quote about penetrating 3-year-old is accurate.

--

Researcher

In article , "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message

Unlabeled because a fundamental DISHONESTY in this industry has lobbied
Congress and SUED organic farmers out of existence & done everything in
its considerable Monsantoesque authoritarianist POWER to keep the public
from HAVING A CHOICE.

Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word.
And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that
scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the
public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred
randomly.

While you have delusions of greenies as terrorists, you fail even to
notice that all my citations in this thread have been of credible science
from university horticultural studies that show the known, proven,
extremely harmful effects that have already begun.

If it were such a great technology, the public would be given a choice.
Since they have PROVEN don't want us to have a choice, hence care NOTHING
about individual wishes, that suggests they may also not care about our
health.

Same about the the antis, who were (are?) even against rice with added
vitamins, simply because of their gut reaction and fear of any change at
all, even if proven non-harmful.

Cite. Don't just make stuff up as you go along.

Until the ecology industry stops being merely propogandistic & attempts
honesty why beleive anything they say, either? UNtil then it is rightly
assumed all claims of concern for human well being & health is mere pretense
and is actually done in the aim of keeping their vast industry of
scaremongering going.

While you have delusions of greenies as mere propogandists, you fail even
to notice that all my citations in this thread have been of credible
science from university horticultural studies that show the known, proven,
extremely harmful effects that have already begun.

Note that companies like Monsanto who dominate this field also dominate in
the field of toxic chemical pollutants which they likewise promote as safe
& healthful & through deceit & propoganda encourage people to dump
willynilly throughout the environment.

Note that companies such as Greenpeace who dominate this field also make
pronouncemenmts in entirely unrelated areas such as the Iraq war

While you have delusions about Greenpeace, you fail even to notice that
all my citations in this thread have been of credible science from
university horticultural studies that show the known, proven, extremely
harmful effects that have already begun.

. BTW, can
you show a source where MOnsanto or any other large organisation promotes
people dumping stuff? betcha cant

It is the stated, express purpose of Monsanto to sell herbicide-resistant
genetically altered crop seeds so that increasing amounts of their brands
of herbicides can be dumped onto the crops. It's the PRIMARY PURPOSE to
make it possible to dump increasing amounts of chemicals without it also
killing the crop. The herbicides, & not the crop seeds, are the main
source of their profits, & the more they can instruct their users to use,
the higher their profits go.

Every label on ever Monsanto product says to put their chemical mixes into
your immediate environment. Spray 'em, spread 'em, dump 'em. Every label,
not one exception. They wouldn't bother making it if that wasn't what they
wanted you to do.

This being so, you're just trollin', right? Or you're a secret greenie
trying to make all you anti-ecology Monsanto flacks look like retards. In
which case, thanks so much, & carry on!

Finally, because so many of the products are sterile OR re-propogation is
criminalized to protect the chemical & transgenic industry's profits,
farmers can no longer save their own seed for future crops, but are
imprisoned by the requirement of buying new seed for every crop. As this
industry muscles into third-world economies, they suck the lifeblood out
of already impoverished peoples.

Whereas eco-terrorists wish to prevent them having the choice of industrial
development, longer lives, and make them all small scale farmers tied to
medieval scale levels of wealth and health.

While you have delusions about ecologists as terrorists & organic farmers
as medieval, you fail even to notice that all my citations in this thread
as to the entirely proven dangers of transgenic plants cited independent
scientific studies. Either your m ethod is to argue by means of Red
Herrings because you don't have anything factual for your side, or you're
really so paranoid you can't tell a control study from a Greenpeace
pamphlet. Obviously the greenies t end to be on the correct side of these
matters, but when I count Monsanto propoganda, I don't do so with green
propoganda. I read at least the extracts & often the entire papers of the
actual independent science.

And the conclusions are clear. Crops with built-in insecticides cause
insect populations to become anywhere from three to twenty times harder to
kill with any pesticide. Allegedly sterile crops with built-in herbicides
cross-pollinate with weeds creating herbicide-resistant mutations of
invasive plants, & pollute organic farm strains.

Angelika Hilbeck at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich
warns about these side-effects of genetically manipulated crops. A panel
of scientists put together by the Royal Society of London last year
concluded categorically that the risks outweighed the benefits, though
some of them, a few years ago, did not believe this would be the
situation; now that such crops are in production & the harmful effects
measured, they are calling for harsher restrictions. The USDA cereal
beetle project found that insecticidal transgenic crops (all possible
harmfulness aside) didn't even work -- the beetles were impervious. In
some cases, the crops invited entirely new insects that hadn't previously
been interested in those crops. Benificial insects being killed; harmful
insects becoming three to twenty times more difficult to get rid of after
a single generation feeding on the transgenic crops. All this before
moving to the economic disaster of third-world countries having their
ability to replant their own crop seed undermined.

GeneTech of Australia is by & large pro-transgenics, but not as
propogandistically inclined as Monsanto, so doesn't sue organic farmers,
tell whoppers, or lobby politicians to pass laws outlawing honest
labeling. Instead, they admit that crops with enhanced BT insectides in
them are killing beneficial insects such as ladybug larvae, monarch
butterflies, & much else tragic & harmful to be lost. For these & other
reasons they support the Australian Gene Technology Regulator as hard wall
to get past when introducing genetically altered crops, & warn that even
this safegard "cannot predict all the health, environmental, economic or
social consequences, good or bad."

It may cream your willy that the science just about across-the-board
supports the greenies, & even the transgeneticists themselves if not
paid-off by Monsanto have serious doubts about the safety. Your
creamedwilly aside, the greenies aren't doing this science as your
paranoid responses suggest you believe. The greenies are merely crowing
about having been right all along. You're whinging over being so extremely
wrong.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article ,
wrote:


Not going to reply in detail to Paghat's attack. Just noting that

(a) I am very familiar with Judith Wegener's book (thanks for name
correction).

Pants on fire! If you'd read even the cover blurbs you couldn't possibly
misrepresent her as such a raging antisemite who would quote that
antisemite Father Pranaitis & pretend with him that his inventions are in
the Talmud (which you believed was called"The Mishnah" since you know
nada -- clearly not a fellow who has read ANYthing by ANY Jewish scholar
or you'd know at least that. The equivalent would be a Jew making up
snotty quotes allegedly from the Gospel of John, but thinking it was in a
book called The Epiphany -- but such dumb clods are never Jews happily
enough).

(b) The quote about penetrating 3-year-old is accurate.

Pants on fire! My statements about those passages were accurate; your
version originated in the neo-nazi-distributed 1939 translation of the
1892 Catholic antisemitic polemic CHRISTIANUS IN TALMUDE IUDAERKUM by I.B.
Pranaitis. PERIOD.

His quotations were completely made-up. They are frequently woven into new
versions, including the one on the web I suspect is the version you read,
pretending to have been written by a second-year female talmudic student
(but not Judith for crine out loud), distributed by a neonazi catholic
organization which also hates baptists so at least they are an equal
opportunity hate group. These quotations are circulated today ONLY for
purposes of neo-nazis indoctrination, at which Brown University professor
& usenet nurd Judith Wagener has NEVER been a party, your sinister slander
against her better nature notwithstanding.

The idea that Jewish men **** baby girls then sell them after their hymens
heal, & the proof is in the Talmud (or some book you thought was called
"The Mishnah"), is an ignorant assertion on the face of it, believable by
no one with an IQ above 66. There are enough Talmuds around anyone
alarmed to think it MIGHT be true could check it out easily enough -- easy
to check even if, unlike myself, not everyone has the whole set within
four feet of their computer.

I now officially withdraw my statement that I don't believe you're an
antisemite but merely suffering from ignorance that can be cured &
gullibility which can be charming if only it wouldn't permit you to
believe every neo-nazi polemic you encounter. Giving you the benefit of
the doubt seems after all to have been my error, which I should've
suspected when seeing you're using a brand new anonymized account. Now
seeing you so blithely reiterate the "truth" of Pranaitis's infamous
antisemitic inventions against Jews & the Talmud, & you even continuing
the absurd slander that your source is Judith Wegener, well.... Your
unwholesome purpose, alas, is now clear. Too bad. For you more than for
Jews, by the by.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

On Thu, 15 May 2003 20:30:53 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word.
And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that
scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the
public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred
randomly.

"Eco-terrorist?" Now that's a useless term if I ever saw one. The fact is,
Round Up ready corn or X is indeed harmful. BT spliced into corn is killing
monarch butterfly larva, that's a fact. We have no idea what this gene splicing
does to us. Remember when the tobacco companies told us smoking does not cause
cancer? That was not too long ago. I have a news flash, I don't trust
DowElanco, or Monsanto on anything they do or say. If you were an academic or
remotely involved in reading the studies put out by those lying assholes, you
(...)