Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Considering your earlier predeliction toward judging the information by
> > judging the source, Harvey, why don't you apply that same sort of bias
> > against this article's claims, since it's published on an anti-GMO
> > luddite website that, according to my browsing, embraces all sorts of
> > unscientific opinions and issues that depend upon religious faith.
>
> Good question. The source in this case is a London newspaper. The reporter
> seemed to report the news based on interviews. There is no evidence that
> God told him how to rewrite the story to make it conform to the author's
> religious beliefs. Therefore this article seems to be a more reliable
> source than some previous articles.
While the column (I can scarcely call it an article, since its content
is far more a matter of opinion, spin, and hyperbole) is published by
the Guardian, the website it is on is most certainly NOT the Guardian,
it is a website which is illegally using copyrighted material. Below are
its claims to use:
"Common Dreams NewsCenter is a non-profit news service providing
breaking news and views for the Progressive Community. FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are makingsuch
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml"
So, Harvey, this is much like your complaints about the prior column on
race that happened to be hosted on a religious/supremacist sort of
website, but did not originate there....
>
> > Not necessarily true. What Monsanto is saying is that genetic markers of
> > the GMO crop is being found elsewhere on land not seeded with GMO
> > plants. They are not testing crops, they are testing the dirt, which
> > collects pollen from many sources.
>
> I can't find this in the article. Can you point to where it says this?
In glancing through this:
"In April, a Canadian farmer called Percy Schmeiser was forced to pay
Monsanto $85,000, after a court ruled that he had stolen Monsanto's
genetic material. Schmeiser maintained that the thinly- spread GM rape
plants on his farm were the result of pollen contamination from his
neighbor's fields, and he had done all he could to get rid of them. But
Monsanto's proprietary genes had been found on his land whether he
wanted them or not."
I must have subconciously taken the 'on his land' literally.... Argh.
What is the alleged advantage of the GM rape plants?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT