GM

[Serial_Apologist]

That 'ecological balance' you speak of would still need to deliver food for seven billion people. While you're thinking about that, you might want to think that there are lots of animals that kill other animals for food, and leave the rest. For thousands of years humans have used the rest for clothes, shoes, tools, light (think tallow candles) etc.. Is that more 'balanced', or less 'balanced', than what other species do?

Less balanced because backed up with more so-called "knowledge-based" (ie unholistic) power than the rest of the animal kingdom at its disposal (sic).

Just because humans have exhibited rapacious attitudes towards the natural world around and ultimately sustaining them in the past doesn't mean they have to go on repeating the same mistakes - mistakes that were the result of knowledge of the wrong kind, insufficient at that, which at least science is belatedly (but not too late one just hopes) coming to correct by observing and learning cross-disciplinarily, though of course there remain self-serving "empires"... but that's just a reflection on the other part of an equation with missing links, to do with class, competition etc.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Money is directed to scientific endeavours directed towards worsening rather than ameliorating a pre-existing problem

Can you provide evidence for this?

and can you explain what you mean in #29

It depends on that on which money [sic] is being made.

[Serial_Apologist]

Can you provide evidence for this?

Sorry I probably could if it made any difference - I'm very peripheral as far as knowledge goes into this subject, going mostly on seeing a more general pattern. If this doesn't meet you exacting requirements I apologise, but it would be a shame if expressing views on here had always to be backed up with references; after all this isn't a university doctorate!

and can you explain what you mean in #29

You said there was nothing wrong with making money (or words to that effect). All right?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

No, as a rule I see no reason for arguments to be supported in every particular, but then yours and your sock puppet are so extreme.

And yes, I did say there's nothing wrong with GM scientists making money out of their efforts, so what's the issue you're raising with this? Seems logical to me.

[amateur51]

No, as a rule I see no reason for arguments to be supported in every particular, but then yours and your sock puppet are so extreme.

You use this derogatory expression quite a lot, AIC

According to wiki:

"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer"

Can you explain why you use it in relation to S_A?

Are you suggesting that he is being two identities at once for the purpose of deception? - because if you are and you have proof of this, you should report that matter to french frank whose Board this is.

[aeolium]

As with the discussion about nuclear energy I find it depressing that debates around GM are invariably ideologically polarised, as if the possibility of presenting, considering and reviewing scientific evidence were almost out of the question. I know no more about GM than any average casual reader on scientific matters but there ought to be the opportunity to access websites where a neutral, dispassionate consideration of the available evidence was provided. I am inclined to think that as with nuclear energy, a purist or idealist position where we are able to use entirely risk-free, proven technology may itself carry significant risks - in the case of nuclear energy, either having insufficient energy resource or using resources that are worse for climate change, in the case of GM persisting with inefficient and inadequate crop resources leading to food shortages and high food prices (see this recent article, for instance).

Just because there are commercial interests involved in nuclear energy production or GM does not automatically invalidate these technologies.

[Simon]

"How many companies do you own then, Simon? Come on, let's have the low-down!"

You know he isn't going to answer a question like that

It's a silly question and irrelevant (so no surprise there). But perhaps not as silly as the GongGong response, which I'm pleased to prove false here below:

I own no companies.

And if you want to take part in this thread, and make valuable contributions as others are doing, why don't you stick to the issues, if you can understand them, and stop diverting towards things that are irrelevant.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

You use this derogatory expression quite a lot, AIC

According to wiki:

"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer"

Can you explain why you use it in relation to S_A?

Are you suggesting that he is being two identities at once for the purpose of deception? - because if you are and you have proof of this, you should report that matter to french frank whose Board this is.

Sorry, you missed the point slightly. I'm using the derogatory term sock puppet to decscribe both S_A and your goodself.

Evidence: the fact that non-substansive, abusive posts from both of you appear grouped together.

[MrGongGong]

"How many companies do you own then, Simon? Come on, let's have the low-down!"



It's a silly question and irrelevant (so no surprise there). But perhaps not as silly as the GongGong response, which I'm pleased to prove false here below:

I own no companies.

Blimey days

[Simon]

Sorry, you missed the point slightly.

Only slightly? That's a vast improvement then.

I'm using the derogatory term sock puppet to decscribe both S_A and your goodself.

Evidence: the fact that non-substansive, abusive posts from both of you appear grouped together.

Sock-puppets. Nice allusion. "SP"s. Must remember that. But they've been doing it for ages. When GongGong gets in on the act it becomes even more hilarious, albeit a nuisance.

::::::::::

Back to the subject: thanks for your response earlier and the interesting link. The problem, I find, with all these sites on every side, is that it's difficult, without much research, to discover who exactly is behind them. I suppose I'm naturally cynical about science, having seen a fair few examples of science turning into pseudo-science. The site name can't be trusted, necessarily, of course.

[MrGongGong]

. I suppose I'm naturally cynical about science, .

[Serial_Apologist]

Sorry, you missed the point slightly. I'm using the derogatory term sock puppet to decscribe both S_A and your goodself.

Evidence: the fact that non-substansive, abusive posts from both of you appear grouped together.

Abusive? We're just good friends!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The site name can't be trusted, necessarily, of course.

Do you mean the Scientific Alliance? They're quite open about who they are. There's a list of forum members:

The Scientific Alliance Advisory Forum Members are:

Professor Tom Addiscott DSc
Dr Jack Barrett
Professor Sir Colin Berry MD, DSc
Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen PhD
Mark Cantley
Professor Anthony Dayan MD
Professor Mick Fuller PhD
Professor David Henderson
Professor Michael Laughton DSc (Eng), FREng
Martin Livermore
Professor Robert Maynard CBE
Professor Vivian Moses
Professor Anthony Trewavas FRS. FRSE, Academia Europea
Dr Roger Turner
Professor William Wilkinson ScD FREng FRS

[amateur51]

Sorry, you missed the point slightly. I'm using the derogatory term sock puppet to decscribe both S_A and your goodself.

Evidence: the fact that non-substansive, abusive posts from both of you appear grouped together.

So a misnomer.

Shame eh?

Moral: don't use terms you don't understand or run the risk of looking stupid

[amateur51]

Only slightly? That's a vast improvement then.



Sock-puppets. Nice allusion. "SP"s. Must remember that. But they've been doing it for ages. When GongGong gets in on the act it becomes even more hilarious, albeit a nuisance.

Another one using a term with a specific meaning he doesn't understand