WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup,
the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto,
causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.

The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in
the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate,
the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in
laboratory animals.

But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has
known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the
information was not made public.

Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety,
according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German
Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German
government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European
Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.

Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source
collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes
months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in
conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal
miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in
February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote
an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a
moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to
Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.

read more at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_872862.html

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

> Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source
> collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes
> months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in
> conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal
> miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in
> February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote
> an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a
> moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to
> Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.

They developed genetically altered plants that are immune to Roundup
(does anybody know *why*?) and the industry is deregulated. It's a
world gone mad.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Jun 12, 12:59*pm, sf > wrote:

>
> They developed genetically altered plants that are immune to Roundup
> (does anybody know *why*?) and the industry is deregulated. *It's a
> world gone mad.


Donald Rumsfeld had a lot to do with getting Monsanto whatever it
wanted.

scroll down to Monsanto Men in USA government:
http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/50940.php

http://www.dailypaul.com/45554/monsa...are-in-trouble

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/0...-brief-history

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:59:31 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:
>
>> Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source
>> collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes
>> months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in
>> conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal
>> miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in
>> February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote
>> an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a
>> moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to
>> Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
>
>They developed genetically altered plants that are immune to Roundup
>(does anybody know *why*?) and the industry is deregulated. It's a
>world gone mad.

Drift and general application a certain times while plants are already
in the ground.
Janet US

On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:

> causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.

Are you serious?

What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
comparison. People are dying from Monsanto's impact.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/

While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.

I'm glad I'm old.

nb

On 6/12/2011 3:59 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > wrote:
>
>> Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source
>> collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes
>> months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in
>> conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal
>> miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in
>> February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote
>> an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a
>> moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to
>> Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
>
> They developed genetically altered plants that are immune to Roundup
> (does anybody know *why*?) and the industry is deregulated. It's a
> world gone mad.
>

Roundup is a non selective herbicide and they want to be able to spray
it everywhere without thinking to control weeds. So if you want the crop
you are growing to survive you need to develop a Frankenversion.

On Jun 12, 3:36*pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
>
> Are you serious?
>
> What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
> and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
> comparison. *People are dying from Monsanto's impact.
>
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/
>
> While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
> neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>
> I'm glad I'm old. *
>
> nb

==
Round-up resistant weeds have become a problem all over the world. I
would say that fact alone should cause farmers to be more cautious in
its usage.

I sure that Monsanto could care less about their genetic corruption as
long as they make huge profits. I will not purchase their Round-up
ready seed no matter what benefits they may bring.
==

On 2011-06-12, Janet > wrote:

> So that spraying a field with roundup would kill the weeds but not the
> immune crop.

Fer that, you no longer own yer own crop. Pretty suck trade-off.

nb

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > wrote:
>
>> Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source
>> collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes
>> months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in
>> conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal
>> miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in
>> February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote
>> an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a
>> moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to
>> Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
>
> They developed genetically altered plants that are immune to Roundup
> (does anybody know *why*?) and the industry is deregulated. It's a
> world gone mad.

As a possible answer to the *WHY*........

If you have a crop of whatever you are growing, and if it is
Roundup-resistant, you can spray the whole crop for emergent weeds with
Roundup, and not adversely affect the crop.

It makes for a very effective method of controlling the contaminant plants,
and consequently the purity of the crop that is eventually harvested.

Mind you; I'm not happy about the intentional withholding of information
like the danger of using Glysophate.

The decison to let them genetically alter those plants to be Roundup-ready
would have partly been based on the safety of using Glysophate.

Rather flawed science; in my opinion.


>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.


Cheers,

Rod.

>
> While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
> neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>
> I'm glad I'm old.
>
They have a new way of doing business. For thousands of years farmers
have been saving some of their grain to plant for the next year's crop.
Can't do that with the genetically mutated crap. and they have been
prosecuting people because their mutant grains were propragating on
their own on their farms.

On 2011-06-13, Dave Smith > wrote:

> They have a new way of doing business. For thousands of years farmers
> have been saving some of their grain to plant for the next year's crop.
> Can't do that with the genetically mutated crap. and they have been
> prosecuting people because their mutant grains were propragating on
> their own on their farms.

Basically demanding royalties from planters and suing those who try
and back out.

nb

On Jun 12, 6:39*pm, Roy > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:36*pm, notbob > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > > causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
>
> > Are you serious?
>
> > What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
> > and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
> > comparison. *People are dying from Monsanto's impact.
>
> >http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/
>
> > While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
> > neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>
> > I'm glad I'm old. *
>
> > nb
>
> ==
> Round-up resistant weeds have become a problem all over the world. I
> would say that fact alone should cause farmers to be more cautious in
> its usage.
>
> I sure that Monsanto could care less about their genetic corruption as
> long as they make huge profits. I will not purchase their Round-up
> ready seed no matter what benefits they may bring.
> ==- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I read that Monsanto is buying out as many small seed companies as
they can find.
They want complete control of all seeds world wide. All farmers will
be forced to
buy Monsanto seeds and they will be sterol. Some farmers can't get
their animals
pregnant because of the GM soy and corn feed. They are all from GM
seeds.
The cows become sterol.

Here's a link from a newsletter about this GM.
http://www.naturalnews.com/032510_un...bies_GMOs.html


Lucille

"Rod Outback" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source
>>> collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes
>>> months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in
>>> conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal
>>> miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in
>>> February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote
>>> an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a
>>> moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to
>>> Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
>>
>> They developed genetically altered plants that are immune to Roundup
>> (does anybody know *why*?) and the industry is deregulated. It's a
>> world gone mad.
>
> As a possible answer to the *WHY*........
>
> If you have a crop of whatever you are growing, and if it is
> Roundup-resistant, you can spray the whole crop for emergent weeds with
> Roundup, and not adversely affect the crop.
>
> It makes for a very effective method of controlling the contaminant
> plants, and consequently the purity of the crop that is eventually
> harvested.
>
> Mind you; I'm not happy about the intentional withholding of information
> like the danger of using Glysophate.
>
> The decison to let them genetically alter those plants to be Roundup-ready
> would have partly been based on the safety of using Glysophate.
>
> Rather flawed science; in my opinion.

The trouble is there is diminishing returns with Roundup. What they create
is super weeds that require much more of the product to kill. Then the
Roundup destroys microbes which are vital for plants to uptake vital
nutrients. This leads to crops with sever nutrient deficiencies. Also,
there is a pathogen that has been discovered that has mutated into a a new
life form like a cross between a virus and fungus. This pathogen is proving
very destructive to breeding mammals and it has been found in 85% of the
country's corn supply. Cows fed Roundup ready hay have abortion rates as
high as 45%. Also, the rate of sterility in those cows is 15% and rising.
This could be devastating to livestock worldwide. Hay is the #1 feed crop
all over the world. In just a few years there could be no non-GM alfalfa
left. Monsanto will literally own the entire plant species world wide. And
since GM crops pollinate non-GM crops it will absolutely wipe out the
organic dairy and beef business. And there is more, they now have an
exclusive patent on sugar beets as well and they intend to do the same thing
with sugar.

It gets even worse when you ask what the big rush is since 80% of the
alfalfa grown is done so with no herbicides. It's very much a horrible idea
and one that does not appear to be stoppable. It has the potential for
massive problems on a global scale.

Paul

Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
>> neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>>
>> I'm glad I'm old.
>>
> They have a new way of doing business. For thousands of years farmers
> have been saving some of their grain to plant for the next year's crop.
> Can't do that with the genetically mutated crap. and they have been
> prosecuting people because their mutant grains were propragating on
> their own on their farms.

This is just so wrong and is why I have started saving heirloom
seeds.

--
Jean B.

notbob wrote:
> On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>> causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
>
> Are you serious?
>
> What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
> and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
> comparison. People are dying from Monsanto's impact.
>
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/
>
> While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
> neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>
> I'm glad I'm old.
>
> nb
>
You know, sometimes I think *I* am glad I am old too. Monsanto is
evil. The planet is sick, and too many people seem not to care
enough to change their ways the slightest bit.

--
Jean B.

"Ranée at Arabian Knits" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Rod Outback" > wrote:
>
>> As a possible answer to the *WHY*........
>>
>> If you have a crop of whatever you are growing, and if it is
>> Roundup-resistant, you can spray the whole crop for emergent weeds with
>> Roundup, and not adversely affect the crop.
>
> And it means that Monsanto can sell more of both Round Up _and_ their
> mutant seed. Winning!


It gets worse. In some countries they have forced farmers to use only their
seeds - like in India. Suicide rates amongst peasant farmers is about
15,000 per year in that country. And Monsanto is putting the squeeze on
farmers in the US who refuse to go along. They drag them into court and sue
them for patent infringement because their GM crops have been found growing
in non-GM planted fields. As if the farmers can stop cross-pollination but
there are no exception in patent law to provide for this because nobody
every imagined patenting a life form. They have put may farmers out of
business this way and replaced them with more cooperative growers.

Monsanto's goal is to completely own the world's food supply. Remember, you
do not own the seeds you plant, you pay a license fee to grow them. And you
cannot reuse seeeds, it is against federal law. Monsanto forces you to buy
new seeds every year and more Roundup, too because without Roundup the seeds
are all but sure to die once planted.

Paul

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:57:34 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>> On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:
>>
>>> causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
>>
>> Are you serious?
>>
>> What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
>> and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
>> comparison. People are dying from Monsanto's impact.
>>
>> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/
>>
>> While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
>> neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>>
>> I'm glad I'm old.
>>
>> nb
>>
>You know, sometimes I think *I* am glad I am old too. Monsanto is
>evil. The planet is sick, and too many people seem not to care
>enough to change their ways the slightest bit.

You hit the nail on the head when you included the words "too many
people" in your post.

The root of the entire problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE.

The planet has a virus. The name of the virus is "Humans". It
multiplies like a virus, destroys the natural levels of all other
things in it's zeal to multiply and kills all other species that try
to stop it's growth. Humans are Planet Earth's virus.

One child....fine! Two children....fine! Even three children
per/family can be tolerated by balanced living.

More than 3 children per/family and it's a death sentence to the
planet. Just look at what over-population has done!

All these 4 to 12 kid families just turn a blind and usually religious
eye to the harm their contribution to over-population and what it
causes.

GMO plants? THEY HAVE TO BE. You can no longer feed the population of
this planet without using GMO plants. Here's a news flash for the
dreamers out the IT CAN'T BE DONE WITHOUT GMO PLANTS.

If you don't like the consequences of so many humans, then stop
producing them.

"Oh, but it's part of my religion!" Yeah, so is death by starvation.
Look at the virus called "Humans" and what they have done to Earth.

Better wise up folks. GMO plants are just the beginning of what is
necessary to feed all those new hungry mouths you are creating in your
blind lust for out-populating the other groups of people who are
trying to out-populate your group.

If you have more than 3 children, YOU are why GMO plants are
necessary. Period. End of story. Don't like it? Then stop having
children when you have your third child. If you don't, then don't
whine about what it takes to feed them all.

On 2011-06-13, J. Clarke > wrote:
>
> It's easy to bash "Monsanto" and "Halliburton" and other big companies
> that do things that you don't understand.

Ohmyfreakinchryst!

That's it. Monsanto is jes misunderstood. We're all too stupid to
understand what poor Monsanto is trying to do for us. Only you are
smart enough to understand Monsanto's grand plan and how they are
doing it all for our benefit.

Somebody get this dolt outta here.

nb

Landon wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:57:34 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> notbob wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-12, ImStillMags > wrote:
>>>
>>>> causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
>>> Are you serious?
>>>
>>> What Monsanto is doing to the World's food supply is so far reaching
>>> and monstrous, birth defects shrink into relative insignificance by
>>> comparison. People are dying from Monsanto's impact.
>>>
>>> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-w...g-to-monsanto/
>>>
>>> While other coporations are destroying the Earth's ecosystem by
>>> neglect, Monsanto is out to actively destroy it by genetic corruption.
>>>
>>> I'm glad I'm old.
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>> You know, sometimes I think *I* am glad I am old too. Monsanto is
>> evil. The planet is sick, and too many people seem not to care
>> enough to change their ways the slightest bit.
>
> You hit the nail on the head when you included the words "too many
> people" in your post.
>
> The root of the entire problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
>
> The planet has a virus. The name of the virus is "Humans". It
> multiplies like a virus, destroys the natural levels of all other
> things in it's zeal to multiply and kills all other species that try
> to stop it's growth. Humans are Planet Earth's virus.
>
> One child....fine! Two children....fine! Even three children
> per/family can be tolerated by balanced living.
>
> More than 3 children per/family and it's a death sentence to the
> planet. Just look at what over-population has done!
>
> All these 4 to 12 kid families just turn a blind and usually religious
> eye to the harm their contribution to over-population and what it
> causes.
>
> GMO plants? THEY HAVE TO BE. You can no longer feed the population of
> this planet without using GMO plants. Here's a news flash for the
> dreamers out the IT CAN'T BE DONE WITHOUT GMO PLANTS.
>
> If you don't like the consequences of so many humans, then stop
> producing them.
>
> "Oh, but it's part of my religion!" Yeah, so is death by starvation.
> Look at the virus called "Humans" and what they have done to Earth.
>
> Better wise up folks. GMO plants are just the beginning of what is
> necessary to feed all those new hungry mouths you are creating in your
> blind lust for out-populating the other groups of people who are
> trying to out-populate your group.
>
> If you have more than 3 children, YOU are why GMO plants are
> necessary. Period. End of story. Don't like it? Then stop having
> children when you have your third child. If you don't, then don't
> whine about what it takes to feed them all.
>
Yes, of course, too many people. But what can be done about it?
Unfortunately, there are ramifications for any sort of action. In
ways, I'd like to see one child per couple, but then you get into
labor issue, support for the elderly (within the family or from
the government), etc.

--
Jean B.

On Jun 13, 8:58*am, notbob > wrote:
> On 2011-06-13, J. Clarke > wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's easy to bash "Monsanto" and "Halliburton" and other big companies
> > that do things that you don't understand.
>
> Ohmyfreakinchryst! *
>
> That's it. *Monsanto is jes misunderstood. *We're all too stupid to
> understand what poor Monsanto is trying to do for us. *Only you are
> smart enough to understand Monsanto's grand plan and how they are
> doing it all for our benefit. *
>
> Somebody get this dolt outta here. *
>
> nb

==
As a farmer (semi-retired), I misunderstand Monsanto only too well. I
would never buy their GMO seed and I would urge other farmers to do
the same. Their pollution of the gene pool is catching up with them
and its only a matter of time before the efforts of good conventional
seed developers will be nullified and indeed destroyed.
==

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:17 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:
> Future wars will be fought over food and water.
>
>Paul
>
Yeah, like that has never happened before.

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
news
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:17 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>> Future wars will be fought over food and water.
>>
>>Paul
>>
> Yeah, like that has never happened before.

Not nearly on the scale I'm talking about.

Paul

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:44:20 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roy" > wrote in message
>>
>>==
>>Come off it, Roundup-ready crops DO NOT MAKE ANIMALS STERILE. Either
>>give the facts or keep quiet. The crops produced are not monstrous
>>things designed to cause damage. They may have some different
>>properties but are not much different than the non-GMO beans, or corn,
>>or wheat as far as toxicity and wholesomeness are concerned.
>>
>>
>>Yes they sure do. Recent scientific evidence is pretty convincing. You
>>have not been educated on the subject. Roundup ready hay, a GM plant, fed
>>to cattle has shown huge spikes in abortions and sterility. Roundup
>>overuse
>>destroys the very organisms needed by plants for mineral uptake. This
>>leads
>>to feed that is nutrionally deficint and when fed to aninla scauses many
>>health problems.
>>
>>This 20 minute video is very much worth the time to watch.
>>
>>http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/s...ubers_warning/
>>
>>Dr. Huber knows of what he speaks.
>>
>>For 50 years, he's been a scientist studying plant diseases in the U.S.
>>and
>>around the world and spent 35 years at Purdue University as Professor
>>Emeritus of plant pathology.
>>
>>He has a 41-year military career as a retired Colonel, evaluating natural
>>and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease
>>outbreaks.
>>
>>He coordinates the "Emergent Diseases and Pathogens Committee" as part of
>>the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System under Homeland Security.
>>
>
>
> I am not one to take Monsanto's side in things, being a Greenie, but I
> cannot find any corroboration of Huber's claims. I can find plenty of
> agenda sites that quote him or his claims as facts, but nothing that
> backs any of it up. It is like playing operator at a kid's party. Web
> page after web page quotes it as real and offer no backup whatsoever.
> Monsanto publishes a lot of refuting articles, of course, but they
> have quite an agenda, obviously. so that isn't a great source.
>
> Still, until I see someone other than Huber (who happens to admit that
> he may be wrong in some of his "new pathogen" claims) verifying what
> he says, I ain't got a god in this fight, other than my own attitudes
> about organics and preference for natural gardening - but I am a
> backyard gardener and if my crops fail, I can get to the store and
> feed my family. I have a lot of leeway that professionals do not have.
>
> Suck it up, Paul and do your homework. You may have something here,
> and I'd love to read it, but so far, you are screaming like a little
> girl on a chair after seeing a field mouse in the kitchen.

I like mice. Spiders too. Heroic attempt to sound unbiased though. Pity
it had to take up 99% of your post. Brevity is a bit more convincing.

Huber is by far not the only scientist sounding the alarm. He is one of a
great many worldwide and the reason you have not heard of it is because it
is in fact a very recent discovery. It's the kind of science I love,
irrefutable and provable. Dismissers and deniers such as yourself will have
a hard time with this one.

Paul

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:01:38 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:17 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>> wrote:
>>> Future wars will be fought over food and water.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>> Yeah, like that has never happened before.
>
>Not nearly on the scale I'm talking about.
>
>Paul
>

Back up your claims. You're more than a tad grandiose all through this
thread.

Boron

"<Moron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:01:38 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>>news
>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:17 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Future wars will be fought over food and water.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>> Yeah, like that has never happened before.
>>
>>Not nearly on the scale I'm talking about.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>
> Back up your claims. You're more than a tad grandiose all through this
> thread.

Prove it? The time machine is in the shop. Sorry.

Food and water shortages are already causing enormous upheavals and it will
only get worse. Just look at Egypt and how that has affected the whole ME.
That was all started because of spiking food prices. Doesn't take much
imagination to see where that all will lead. Good and water will become
increasingly scarce and more expensive and you won;t have to wait very long
at all for that to come home to roost. And Monsanto is not helping matters
one bit.

Paul

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:06:19 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

> Probbaly not the last time either since it is the proper word. Abortion,
> according to Webster's just means "expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal
> often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy."

You can call it a "spontaneous abortion" but it's not an abortion.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:06:19 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>> Probbaly not the last time either since it is the proper word. Abortion,
>> according to Webster's just means "expulsion of a fetus by a domestic
>> animal
>> often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy."
>
> You can call it a "spontaneous abortion" but it's not an abortion.

Take it up with Webster's.

Paul

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>> Probbaly not the last time either since it is the proper word. Abortion,
>> according to Webster's just means "expulsion of a fetus by a domestic
>> animal
>> often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy." And
>> in
>> this case spontaneously and caused by a pathegenic organism found in
>> Roundup
>> GM crops.
>
> Dictonaries are not unflawed. They have definitions that are in error
> or obsolete. This is one of them. In very consistent common useage an
> abortion is deliberate, a miscarriage is not. Websters is wrong on this
> one. Far from the only very poor definition in a dictionary.

Hardly. The word has its origins in the 16th century and is one of those
words with a modern meaning for specific use. Much like the word ***. The
word is actually a noun, not a verb though when used as a verb it typically
refers to the induced termination of a human fetus.

Sorry, but it's a perfectly legitimate use of the word and one found often
in scientific journals when referring to terminated pregnancies, natural or
otherwise.

Paul

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:46:35 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:06:19 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Probbaly not the last time either since it is the proper word. Abortion,
> >> according to Webster's just means "expulsion of a fetus by a domestic
> >> animal
> >> often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy."
> >
> > You can call it a "spontaneous abortion" but it's not an abortion.
>
> Take it up with Webster's.
>
I looked before I posted.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:09:00 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> > wrote:
>
>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> >
>> > Probbaly not the last time either since it is the proper word.
>> > Abortion,
>> > according to Webster's just means "expulsion of a fetus by a domestic
>> > animal
>> > often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy."
>> > And in
>> > this case spontaneously and caused by a pathegenic organism found in
>> > Roundup
>> > GM crops.
>>
>> Dictonaries are not unflawed. They have definitions that are in error
>> or obsolete. This is one of them. In very consistent common useage an
>> abortion is deliberate, a miscarriage is not. Websters is wrong on this
>> one. Far from the only very poor definition in a dictionary.
>
> I see he insists on bringing his political agenda even into this
> discussion where we could be in agreement on other points.

Oh get over yourself already. It's a word and it means what I used it for
in addition to the wau you insist it be used.

Paul

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:46:35 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:06:19 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Probbaly not the last time either since it is the proper word.
>> >> Abortion,
>> >> according to Webster's just means "expulsion of a fetus by a domestic
>> >> animal
>> >> often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy."
>> >
>> > You can call it a "spontaneous abortion" but it's not an abortion.
>>
>> Take it up with Webster's.
>>
> I looked before I posted.

No you did not.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion

Paul

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:19:46 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message

>> Still, until I see someone other than Huber (who happens to admit that
>> he may be wrong in some of his "new pathogen" claims) verifying what
>> he says, I ain't got a god in this fight, other than my own attitudes
>> about organics and preference for natural gardening - but I am a
>> backyard gardener and if my crops fail, I can get to the store and
>> feed my family. I have a lot of leeway that professionals do not have.
>>
>> Suck it up, Paul and do your homework. You may have something here,
>> and I'd love to read it, but so far, you are screaming like a little
>> girl on a chair after seeing a field mouse in the kitchen.
>
>I like mice. Spiders too. Heroic attempt to sound unbiased though. Pity
>it had to take up 99% of your post. Brevity is a bit more convincing.

Go **** yourself, Paul, really. You can present evidence so that it
proves your point, or you can continue bullshitting.
>
>Huber is by far not the only scientist sounding the alarm. He is one of a
>great many worldwide and the reason you have not heard of it is because it
>is in fact a very recent discovery. It's the kind of science I love,
>irrefutable and provable. Dismissers and deniers such as yourself will have
>a hard time with this one.
>
>Paul
>
So far all you've come up with is an emeritus prof from Indiana who
has, himself, expressed doubt about what he claimed. I am no denier
and I said as much, but you haven't presented any researched evidence
of Huber's claim, nor have I found any in my own, albeit brief,
googling, so until you can actually show anyone else who backs up what
Huber says, you are ****ing in the wind - and your face is wet.

Boron

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:32:23 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"<Moron Elgar" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:01:38 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:17 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Future wars will be fought over food and water.
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, like that has never happened before.
>>>
>>>Not nearly on the scale I'm talking about.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>
>> Back up your claims. You're more than a tad grandiose all through this
>> thread.
>
>Prove it? The time machine is in the shop.

You mean up your ass which is where you have gotten all the rest of
what you have posted, too.

>Sorry.

You are indeed so.
>
>Food and water shortages are already causing enormous upheavals and it will
>only get worse. Just look at Egypt and how that has affected the whole ME.
>That was all started because of spiking food prices. Doesn't take much
>imagination to see where that all will lead. Good and water will become
>increasingly scarce and more expensive and you won;t have to wait very long
>at all for that to come home to roost. And Monsanto is not helping matters
>one bit.
>
>Paul
>
Yes, yes, Monsanto will be the cause of food and water Armageddon as
you predict.

****ing idiot. You haven't the tiniest grasp of history or
agriculture or science.

Boron.

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:55:17 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> That kind of winning should not be allowed.
>
> Agreed! I smell an environmental disaster in the making.
>
I am constantly getting more radical re the environment. Not that
I see that doing any good. But still, this one person will do
what she thinks is right.

--
Jean B.

"Moron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:19:46 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Moron Elgar" > wrote in message
>
>>> Still, until I see someone other than Huber (who happens to admit that
>>> he may be wrong in some of his "new pathogen" claims) verifying what
>>> he says, I ain't got a god in this fight, other than my own attitudes
>>> about organics and preference for natural gardening - but I am a
>>> backyard gardener and if my crops fail, I can get to the store and
>>> feed my family. I have a lot of leeway that professionals do not have.
>>>
>>> Suck it up, Paul and do your homework. You may have something here,
>>> and I'd love to read it, but so far, you are screaming like a little
>>> girl on a chair after seeing a field mouse in the kitchen.
>>
>>I like mice. Spiders too. Heroic attempt to sound unbiased though. Pity
>>it had to take up 99% of your post. Brevity is a bit more convincing.
>
> Go **** yourself, Paul, really. You can present evidence so that it
> proves your point, or you can continue bullshitting.

Do you want the evidence before or after I **** myself? You're a genius,
Google it. Wealth of info out there.

>>Huber is by far not the only scientist sounding the alarm. He is one of a
>>great many worldwide and the reason you have not heard of it is because it
>>is in fact a very recent discovery. It's the kind of science I love,
>>irrefutable and provable. Dismissers and deniers such as yourself will
>>have
>>a hard time with this one.
>>
>>Paul
>>
> So far all you've come up with is an emeritus prof from Indiana who
> has, himself, expressed doubt about what he claimed. I am no denier
> and I said as much, but you haven't presented any researched evidence
> of Huber's claim, nor have I found any in my own, albeit brief,
> googling, so until you can actually show anyone else who backs up what
> Huber says, you are ****ing in the wind - and your face is wet.

He has golden credentials, four decades worth of extremely pertinent study
in plant diseases. His credentials are impeccable. Your tactic is typical
of deniers, attack the messenger. He speaks like a good scientist. Namely
the research is not yet complete. It is highly compelling but he is a
scientists and knows you cannot be so confident. So what you take as doubt
on his part is simply good scientific practice.

Isn't it Elzar, BTW?

Paul

"Moron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:32:23 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"<Moron Elgar" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:01:38 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Moron Elgar" > wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:17 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Future wars will be fought over food and water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, like that has never happened before.
>>>>
>>>>Not nearly on the scale I'm talking about.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>
>>> Back up your claims. You're more than a tad grandiose all through this
>>> thread.
>>
>>Prove it? The time machine is in the shop.
>
> You mean up your ass which is where you have gotten all the rest of
> what you have posted, too.
>

Dream on buddy, I don't swing that way.

>>Sorry.
>
> You are indeed so.
>>
>>Food and water shortages are already causing enormous upheavals and it
>>will
>>only get worse. Just look at Egypt and how that has affected the whole
>>ME.
>>That was all started because of spiking food prices. Doesn't take much
>>imagination to see where that all will lead. Good and water will become
>>increasingly scarce and more expensive and you won;t have to wait very
>>long
>>at all for that to come home to roost. And Monsanto is not helping
>>matters
>>one bit.
>>
>>Paul
>>
> Yes, yes, Monsanto will be the cause of food and water Armageddon as
> you predict.

I'm not the only one.

> ****ing idiot. You haven't the tiniest grasp of history or
> agriculture or science.

If you say so, professor.

Paul

Ranee at Arabian Knits > wrote:
>In article >,
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> Dictonaries are not unflawed. They have definitions that are in error
>> or obsolete. This is one of them. In very consistent common useage an
>> abortion is deliberate, a miscarriage is not. Websters is wrong on this
>> one. Far from the only very poor definition in a dictionary.
>
> Talk to an OB, then. A miscarriage is an abortion. What you are
>discussing is an elective abortion.

Ranee is correct. "Abortion" only means elective abortion when
that is made clear by context.

Obviously farm animals do not have elective abortions.


Steve

Ranee at Arabian Knits > wrote:

> Landon > wrote:

>> If you have more than 3 children, YOU are why GMO plants are
>> necessary. Period. End of story. Don't like it? Then stop having
>> children when you have your third child. If you don't, then don't
>> whine about what it takes to feed them all.
>
> That's amazing since my family of nine does not buy or eat GMO
>products. We have a smaller "carbon footprint" than most single people
>(according to those how to reduce your carbon footprint websites, etc),
>we produce less trash than most folks, use less gasoline, aren't huge
>consumers.
>
> Each generation has been wrong about population explosions. They are
>proven wrong each time. Yet the true believers keep predicting the end
>of the world via human reproduction. How is this any different than the
>whacko who thought the end of the world was May 21?
>
> Your prophets such as Malthus and Erlich have all been proven wrong,
>time after time.

Depends what you believe they were predicting. The level of environmental
destruction we are seeing now is very alarming (for example, the rate
of species extinction); and it is one of the alarming things those doing
predictions 50 years ago were predicting, based on the population curve
and it did in fact happen.

Malthus predicted an increase in sexual degeneracy with increased
urban population densities. Was he right? Probably not -- people were
and are degenerate and it hasn't changed. Malthus was a genuine whacko.
Erlich, much less so.

There has probably been less starvation and fewer human epidemics and
die-offs than many had predicted. There is less economic dependence
on oil now than many had predicted. But there are some things that
were UNDER-predicted, particularly deteriorating health of the
ocean biospheres.

It's easy in retrospect to identify individual predictions that turned
out wrong, but the general disaster of population growth and its
effects is definitely occuring and will continue.

Steve

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:33:52 -0700, Ranee at Arabian Knits
> wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:06:19 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Probbaly not the last time either since it is the proper word. Abortion,
> > > according to Webster's just means "expulsion of a fetus by a domestic
> > > animal
> > > often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy."
> >
> > You can call it a "spontaneous abortion" but it's not an abortion.
>
> There are two kinds of abortions: Spontaneous and elective. They
> are both considered abortions, both by the dictionary and medicine.
>

I defy you to tell me that anyone who has suffered a miscarriage calls
it an *abortion*.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:31:25 -0700, Ranee at Arabian Knits
> wrote:

> In article >,
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
> > Dictonaries are not unflawed. They have definitions that are in error
> > or obsolete. This is one of them. In very consistent common useage an
> > abortion is deliberate, a miscarriage is not. Websters is wrong on this
> > one. Far from the only very poor definition in a dictionary.
>
> Talk to an OB, then. A miscarriage is an abortion. What you are
> discussing is an elective abortion.
>
What we are discussing is a miscarriage, not an *elective* abortion.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.