|
|
thorp wi. | hay hay now thats just funny !! |
|
| |
|
South East South Dakota/winters Tucson, AZ | I appreciate Gottlieb's posts,I do not have alot of time to read all the info out there and i do not have a high speed internet connection i hope you do not stop posting. thank you for your posts and please continue. |
|
| |
|
central - east central Minnesota - | tink - 2/27/2013 14:30
I belong to other forums, and by comparison, this one very tame. Guys go at each other. But one thing never allowed "there" but apparently here is for one member to start a thread to specifically call out another member. First time at least a warning. Second time - gone.
Gottlieb,
This last time you did this, the other member offered you a public apology to which you weren't man enough to publically accept.
Now here you are again with your whine. Horse feathers.
Mr. Gottlieb is thinned skinned . ...
There is EMAIL to to such off line .. . But I guess Internet attacks are more dramatic . . . .
Pat, you are not in the wrong. |
|
| |
|
Anderson County Kansas | Don't let the door hit you in the a@@ if thats how you feel. I never saw where Pat attacked you personally. I did see where he questioned your postitions on GMO as do I. You can't expect everybody to agree with everything you post. You act like a little kid when somebody doesn't agree with you. |
|
| |
|
| pulling his green plugs on my threads, ja.
Time is money, think how you spend it, even posting here.
As you get older like me, you realize as I have less of it (time) it's inherently more valuable than the green stuff, ja.
Maybe why I so upset yesterday just wanting to expand off clip toward direction of these two Supreme cases and how it affect us in farming directly, then St. Patrick spews all this green stuff thinking it funny.
Life is grand if you don't weaken.
I'll be back another day, God willing.
Gottlieb
|
|
| |
|
southern MN | There are folks that move forward cautiously, with science in their back pocket.
There are those that move forward with greed as their mantra.
There are those that sit on the sidelines and wail and Nash teeth and want things to return to how they used to be, with no concern for others.
I think we can easily pick out who falls into which designation.
I've been part of these types of discussions for decades now, and I know what your arguments will be, and how you can quote 20 people with scientific 'studies' that - when looked into, turn out to be 14 people trying to sell books and speaking engagements; 5 people out of a liberal arts college who want the world to be a better place while living off govt arts grants; and one person who arranged snippets of govt statistics to prove what he or she wanted them to say, and is the kingpin book seller. There will be a religious like zeal of Internet web sites that redistribute there 'facts' amongst themselves, and whip up a following of city folk that want us all to return to 160 acre farms with 8 milk cows on each one, with no farmer ever allowed to make a profit, as farmers are supposed to feed people for free.
Been down that road many, many times, Pilgim. I'll travel it again if you want, but be assured I own my own copy of 'Beyond Beef' and can cite as many quotes as you can. I particularly like the diagram of the milk cow with her feet strapped in stirrups. Good image, really tells the 'truth' about your side of all this.
I'm one of the smallest farmers on this site, all my neighbors were happily spraying glyphosate on all their crops years before I tried, begrudgingly, a gmo.
Have at it.
Paul |
|
| |
|
| ja, thanks.
shipping delays now two months from SA, leaving China hard pressed to cancel any of ours now. So, price will continue upward. Although the great St. Patrick would lead you here to believe though, this is all normal and typical marketing year. Just pluck a few shamrocks, ja.
Been waiting to see what St. Patrick posts on soys. Always easier for this type to throw darts.
Edited by Gottlieb 2/28/2013 10:23
|
|
| |
|
Pocahontas, IA | All I asked for was sources? "There are folks that move forward cautiously, with science in their back pocket" Could you give me an example of who this is in your opinion? "There are those that sit on the sidelines and wail and Nash teeth and want things to return to how they used to be, with no concern for others" These would be the radical, antisocial extremist, I get that. "I've been part of these types of discussions for decades now, and I know what your arguments will be, and how you can quote 20 people with scientific 'studies' that - when looked into, turn out to be 14 people trying to sell books and speaking engagements; 5 people out of a liberal arts college who want the world to be a better place while living off govt arts grants; and one person who arranged snippets of govt statistics to prove what he or she wanted them to say, and is the kingpin book seller. There will be a religious like zeal of Internet web sites that redistribute there 'facts' amongst themselves, and whip up a following of city folk that want us all to return to 160 acre farms with 8 milk cows on each one, with no farmer ever allowed to make a profit, as farmers are supposed to feed people for free." You think you have me pegged here, I am pretty sure that is what you are trying to say I am actually in the camp of moving cautiously forward, but I do not have science in my back pocket, but I don't think there is anybody who can unequivocally. As I asked Pat H about how much he trusted the government and Monsanto to test glyphosate and the consequences of using this product , which he ducked, I will ask you the same? What I question is how can a company that conducted its own test to get the government approval for a product it will make billions of dollars in sales on be trusted. "I'm one of the smallest farmers on this site, all my neighbors were happily spraying glyphosate on all their crops years before I tried, begrudgingly, a gmo." I would say I am in the same catagory. Please don't take the route that Pat H took of sensationizing his position as that does not lead to a good dialogue. My name and e-mail is in the profile as well Mike Vosika Pocahontas, IA
Edited by pilgrim 2/28/2013 12:54
|
|
| |
|
Pocahontas, IA | | |
| A lot of opinions, not any facts either. It works both ways. And the great comeback, dihydrogen oxide kills too.
-----
class of '81 | |
|
 | |
Cropsey, IL | the ld50 of water has already been pointed out. Run man, run. Or, just look around you, folks dropping like flies? Maybe some health issues due to sitting around playing video games all day while eating gov't subsidized chips, but generally living longer even so. Just can't argue with the facts. Obama wouldn't have a budget crisis if roundup and gmo's caused folks to die earlier. I realize it doesn't fit your narrative (that means what you've been told to believe) but it's not so bad looking at what actually happens rather than what someone says happens (and believing it even if it isn't true).
This whole argument is like the folks suggesting ancient man never had cancer problems because of " fill in the blank " while not acknowledging that they typically didn't live much past 35 for other environmental reasons (wars, critters, log falls on head, etc). | |
|
| |
| Stick your head in the sand and trust Monsanto and the government, they're here to help us, really.
-----
class of '81 | |
|
| |
Cropsey, IL | No, they like making money and killing off or making the public sick really hurts the bottom line. Don't you think they are almost continuously getting sued as it is? Surely you realize the only folks that can really get away with doing whatever they want is the government.
No one is forced to buy anything from monsanto and I guarantee if pioneer had a non-gmo hybrid that significantly, consistently out yielded other current offerings they would sell it along with a herbicide program and definitely have buyers. Pioneer and other seed companies would dearly love to put monsanto out of the game. At this point roundup and insect traits appear to more consistently yield better so that's what we buy. Also, the current crop of traits have had a really good run, but they all eventually run out of effectiveness and get replaced. If insecticide companies dropped their price and made some improvements why pay a tech fee for traits that potentially have a yield drag? It's only a matter of time, because if something else yields better, that's what we'll plant. Besides everyone and their brother are creating new traits (2,4D dicamba etc) and monsanto might end up being about out of the trait game and have to rely on plant breeding. | |
|
|
|
| |
Pat H
