On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:21:25 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 8/20/2013 6:16 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:31:55 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/20/2013 9:31 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2013-08-20, jmcquown > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if she "won", but she got a point across. Sharp young
>>>>> woman. The guy seemed to try to brow-beat her a bit. She didn't lose
>>>>> her cool.
>>>>
>>>> Agree. Plus, this Kevin twit uses specious arguments to no avail. So
>>>> what if 50K ppl die. Too damn many ppl on this tiny orb, anyway. We
>>>> need to lose about 5 billion. Everybody else tests so Monsanto
>>>> doesn't need to? Who is this asshat? I've had my run, so no sweat
>>>> off my brow, but it's a losing game and there's a good chance GMOs
>>>> will be a key player in man's demise. Bottom line, it's not nice to
>>>> fool mother nature and to add insult to injury, Monsanto is doing it
>>>> out of pure greed. They don't give a rat's ass how many ppl die as
>>>> long as they make a profit.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>> What got me the GMO rice with Vitamin A. She researched it, said
>>> the hypothetical kid would have to eat 37 bowls of rice a DAY. He was
>>> like, so what? Uh, dude, if the kid had could get his hands on
>>> 30-something bowls of rice a day he would most likely have access to
>>> other food, too. It was a ridiculous point for him to try to press.
>>
>> Yeah, that was an particularly stupid argument.
>>
>I'm correcting myself, she said *27* bowls of rice a day. But still...
>what a stupid thing for him to say! He tried to "guilt" her by saying
>other kids aren't as lucky as she is... does that somehow change the
>facts? Not in my book.

No, it certainly doesn't change any of the facts.