Beside the point. Your post is about persons, not the issue at hand. It is sadly an all too common debate tactic, when someone has run out of good arguments about the issue at hand, to instead start attacking the other person.

I think GMO and the ethical and economical issues around it can be an interesting debate, where there are good arguments to be made. "You have really been brainwashed by the media" and "95% of the world's population is brainwashed by the media" are not among them.

I chose not to participate in this discussion once it deviated far from the original topic, but I could have lots to say if a new GMO disucssion were to be started. Personally, I think the fact that the vast majority of people are brainwashed into certain beliefs instead of thinking for themselves is a very pertinent issue in any discussion.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

True, but in this case, what the brainwashing machine appears to be saying is that Monsanto is run by the devil himself. Hermann is the ONLY person I know with who believes otherwise, AND he goes to the trouble to check his sources. Just because he has a different opinion than most of the rest of us is hardly a reason to call him brainwashed. On the other hand, those who continue to believe what they believed before without knowledge of how to refute Hermann's claims, might consider dirtying up their own brain a bit with some thoughts about one's accuracy-toleration for claims one finds pleasant to agree with.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

With "before the trial" I meant that Monsanto dropped the charges. AFAIK there was no judicial ruling on accidental contamination. The relevant material would be paragraphs 55-58 in the Schmeiser ruling http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/ ... 0/index.do

Specifically, from paragraph 57:

It is undisputed that a plant containing the Monsanto gene may come fortuitously onto the property of a person who has no reason to be aware of the presence of the characteristic created by the patented gene. It is also reasonable to suppose that the person could become aware that the plant has that characteristic but may tolerate the continued presence of the plant without doing anything to cause or promote the propagation of the plant or its progeny (by saving and planting the seeds, for example). In my view, it is an open question whether Monsanto could, in such circumstances, obtain a remedy for infringement on the basis that the intention of the alleged infringer is irrelevant. However, that question does not need to be resolved in this case.

Which indicates that they did not make a ruling during this case.

But, from paragraph 56:

There is considerable force to the argument that it would be unfair to grant Monsanto a remedy for infringement where volunteer Roundup Ready Canola grows in a farmer's field but its resistance to glyphosate remains unknown, or if that characteristic becomes apparent but the seeds of the volunteer plants are not retained for cultivation.

This is all because in patent law "intent to infringe" is not considered relevant. If you invent and produce the same or a similar invention independently, an earlier patent still applies. The court here expressed the opinion that, due to the unique circumstances where a patent applies to an organism, which can reproduce, intent to infringe should probably be considered when genetic patents are considered.

So as far as I can see there is no definite ruling on that, at least not from the Schmeiser case, but the court did express, IMO, an altogether reasonable opinion on the issue.

Monsanto has, BTW, made a binding promise that it will never sue for accidental contamination, which is there defined as "less than 1% of the total crop is contaminated".

He's been providing detailed posts displaying his knowledge of the subject, citing credible sources, and researching the validity of other people's sources. Instead of refuting the actual arguments he proposes, you attack his character.

Try to view this from a 3rd person's perspective - which one of you would seem like an informed, critical thinker, and which one would seem to be brainwashed?

Wouldn't that invalidate the patent though? I think enforcement is required, for the patent to be valid, sounds like Monsanto wants to outlaw planting any non-Monsanto seeds to me, I can't imagine a cross pollination being less than one percent for many generations given traits like pest residence have so much advantage. I could however imagine a situation where after multiple generations the crops would all have the BT trait, just like the round-up ready trait the farmers were able to select for.

It reaches a point where there is no further point in trying to refute people who quota bogus sources (that is anything posted by the MSM) and try to claim that is valid. Don't you get it? The MSM is paid for by the very people it purports to defend. Of course it supports them! Let's start quoting independent researchers who are not funded by the corporate giants. Nothing has any credibility until its funding is revealed. I am so tired of trying to argue this point with people (yes, I have to do it frequently) that I am passed the point of trying to waste my time on it. Just do the research yourself, and remember to ask who it paying for the research.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I agree. I find the scotch tape essays annoying. L19 seems to be especially prone to this form of communication where we cite/link several articles and write a five paragraph essay with very little content or a subtle contradiction.

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the argument and evidence themselves instead of trying to dichotomize studies by their funding? If you get down to it, every researcher has an incentive for a study - the idea is that the stance that is best supported by evidence eventually prevails. To brush away results incongruent with your view simply because they are "funded by the corporate giants" is akin to putting your fingers in your ears while singing "la-la-la" when you hear something you don't want to hear.

No, researchers at corporations are unable to report negative findings. It is not science.

We really have gotten very far afield from the original topic!

However you really need to be careful about things like the above vs things like what was previously said about grants. Not the same situation at all.

It is possible that a scientist working for some corporation might have signed an agreement with what could or could not be done with anything discovered while employed there. Even if not, a minor negative result wouldn't be worth leaving the job to publish. <<something really big* would>>

But just being financed by a grant, that's very different. The only "hold" the corporation would have would be to withhold future grants if they didn't like the results this scientist came up with. Restrictions on use of the grant funds would be on the area to be researched, perhaps materials and methods being financed by the grant, but certainly not results.

* This comes up every now and then with conspiracy folks. Stories about some major breakthrough based on discovery of new laws of physics being suppressed by an energy company. You can always dismiss as poppycock for a very simple reason. A new law of physics? There is no amount of money that would tempt any scientist to agree with suppressing this sure path to his or her seat among the immortals like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. Not going to be poor anyway; Nobel Prize, chair at a major university, etc, The major vs minor distinction is important.

Would a "scientist" ever accept hush money... Nah, it's not science.

This video might be helpful to some. It's called, "Battling Bad Science" and talks a bit about the differences between 'industry' vs 'independent' funded research in a short and lively manner.

Ben Goldacre: Battling Bad Science

Are ads permitted in the signature?

EDIT: I removed the ad in the signature, which was later removed from the user's profile.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

That post has been reported (I know b/c I tried to report it and was told it already had been reported), and now it looks like this: and the profile doesn’t exist anymore.


Greetz, Tom

<edit>

I was too quick when I wrote “the profile doesn’t exist anymore” … had only moved my mouse over the nickname and overlooked that the link to the profile is under the post … I’d actually prefer such posters to be removed from L19.

</edit>

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Yes, those pesky court rulings are terrible sources for discussions about the legal landscape! Likewise, evidence-based research is a poor choice because the evidence disagrees with you.

Wrong on both counts. Court rulings are often swayed by the politics of the day, not by Constitutional considerations. Read up on the rulings of Chief Justice Marshall if you doubt my claim. And the "evidence" in research is more often based on who sponsored it than anything else. Most research results which contradict the interests of the sponsor are supressed.

We live in a corrupt world in which very little is what it claims to be. Do not believe anything anymore unless you can find independent, unbiased corroboration. Above all, do not believe anything which is reported by the mainstream media.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

So just to confirm, you have no evidence to support your position, however this distinct lack of evidence is the justification for why it must be true?

Likewise, in a common law system, you feel that the text of rulings from the supreme court should not be used as a guideline for what constitutes law of the land?

Correct. The law of the land and the Constitution are two different things. The Constitution is what the laws of the country are supposed to be based on. The law of the land at any given time, as passed by the legislators, is based on what is currently expedient for those in power to declare. Many of the laws which are passed these days violate the Constitution. If you really want a list I could provide hundreds of examples. The Supreme Court has been corrupt for two hundred years. What else would you expect when it is full of political appointees?

As for your first sentence, there is so much evidence around if you will just take the trouble to look that it is not worth my time trying to refute your statement.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Ignoring the silliness about our legal system...

Can you please point to one evidence-driven source? I don't need a full rundown, but if there is so much evidence around, surely one credible source isn't terribly taxing...