Because this needs to be reposted...

Dear blueangel,

Why are your “debates” so one-sided? You can’t seem to grasp the concept of a debate. You only read what you want to read and exclude everything else yet you get huffy when someone does the same to you. You also seem to think you're always right. Where's the logic?

I see a trend of you taking things as a personal attack and being a total hag to everyone; even if they are trying to help you. Turning everything into a personal attack against you is childish. You are a grown woman, please act like one.

I’m not a frequent poster here, but even I can see how nasty your attitude is towards everyone. Oh, and e-stalking was never cool…I think you missed that memo. You are a very shady person on here and I wonder why you still have an account on greekchat.com. I’m sure you will think this message is a personal attack to you, but in reality it’s just the honest truth.

For the love of your sorority, please stop being a hag.

Cordially,

polosandpearls

'
Dear Sock puppet (or as they're called on most other boards, "Ghost")

Can you not post under your real name? Why are you so afraid? Now, would you like to contest any of the points I have made regarding cloning, or are you not up to the challenge?

Cordially,

BlueAngel

So, in other words, you don't have anything to retort any of the facts I've presented. OK.

http://www.nationalist.org/docs/law/conspiracy.html

That is all.

Oh wait...here's another one:
http://conspiracy.top-site-list.com/

My, my. Bless your little hag heart.

I am posting under my real name. Honey, don't assume too much, it won't get you very far. There are people in the world that like to read the site (any site) rather than post regularly. I can see why you think I would be a "sock puppet" "ghost" or any other cool internet lingo you've picked up...I am a random person that can tell how big of a jerk you are on here. Sweetheart, it's pretty easy to see how terrible you are without being an active poster.

"Challenge"? Come on, blueangel. It's a discussion, not a competition. I guess you missed that since you only read what you want to read and interpret things one-sided.

I guess the reason the hag still has her account here is for pure entertainment value. You have to admit this place would be very boring without the resident senile(s).

I've said it once, I'll say it again: I only speak the truth. You are a grown woman, please act like one.

Re: cloned meat:
As long as it tastes the same, I couldn't care less. And to answer your question, NO. I would not like to contest your "points". I'm pretty sure I'd rather argue with a rock.

You won't debate my points, because you can't. And, because you can't, you resort to personal attacks while hiding behind a bogus screen name. As they say in France, "Soldier on..."

Wonderful! I welcome you to debate this issue with me since you have such wonderful logic skills. Or, is your "logic" to launch personal attacks because you dont HAVE the skills to debate the topic???

MEOW! HISSSSSSSSSSSSS!

That is an insult to the reading, reasoning and logic skills of smart ten-year-olds.

Still waiting.. are you going to contribute to this discussion on cloning?

You're preaching to the choir. The congregation isn't listening. (Stupid analogy, you get what I mean though ;))

I think we all can tell the "discussion" was halted long ago. I need to unsubscribe to this thread...

I'll try - this seems to be your main point:

Your other points, simply stated:

2 - genetic modifications are dangerous to the human population

3 - genetic modifications make no sense from a fiscal standpoint

So there's three points: labeling, danger, cost.

So far, you've supported these points entirely through quotations that are not contextually relevant (see: Seattle paper quotation) or via biased sources (see: PACs with hip names like "PEOPLE FIGHTING CANCER.org").

Let's go through these points, piece-by-piece:

1 - Labeling

I've already put into dispute your theory that labeling reduces "choice" - you show a fundamental misunderstanding of 'markets' if you really believe this. You have a choice, as a consumer, to use only meat that is labeled as non-modified, and if consumer action forces this labeling, it will occur. Furthermore, your 'choices' are not limited or taken away in this scenario - you have the same number. You may argue that you're not able to make an informed choice, but this is a lazy and philosophically weak argument.

In actuality, the labeling issues you've described instead foist the responsibility onto the shoulders of the consumer. This is a go-nowhere debate, as well - personally, I believe consumer responsibility is at an all-time low, and I would embrace anything that requires people to take action to become more informed. I do not feel it is the government's job to regulate this - the market will self-correct. You obviously disagree. There's not much more to it than that, so we can move on.

2 - Safety

We're now well over a decade into genetically-modified milk, tomatoes, and other cash crops - and corn has been hybridized in this fashion for somewhat longer. There are exactly zero epidemiological studies linking any diseases to these modifications.

Also, there is little to support your theories on rBGH - although I'm not a particular fan myself, most of the 'scary' parts of the rBGH process are more bark than bite. Increases in IGF-1 are about 3.5x normal (source), which is the 'vast increase' often quoted in pro-organic literature. The problem here is that the body naturally produces ample amounts of IGF-1 in humans, and that uptake of the IGF-1 molecule is not strong.

So there are two issues here: first, while there is a considerable increase in the Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 in milk (which is, by the way, identical to human IGF-1), it pales in comparison to the amount you would normally produce (less than 1% increase in serum quantity (source: NIH) and second, the IGF isn't even necessarily going into the blood.

The second needs further exploration, though. In reality, we don't know the effects of IGF-1 on intestinal tissue or the stomach - again, I understand your desire to know conclusively before ingesting, but there is simply no evidence either way, except the circumstantial lack of epidemiological evidence of disease. Also, even if uptake were significant, IGF-1 is NOT necessarily a problem - in fact, IGF-1 is being prescribed as we speak to older people, to help offset osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, and other issues of aging (IGF-1 production drops as you age).

High levels of IGF-1 are related to an increase in colon cancer, yes - but not at the 1% higher level. All of your links are fine and dandy, but they lack context - with that context (the increase is not significant in the BLOOD), you're swimming upstream.

3 - Fiscal

Again, you misunderstand markets - the market for high-grade beef (think Kobe, or prime-cut high-grade steak) could be radically altered by weeding out weaker lines . . . this is exactly how corn hybridization has worked for about 100 years. This simply makes the process viable for a species that has to actually, y'know, sexually reproduce.

Is it cheap now? Of course not - but DVD players once cost over $1000. If it doesn't make fiscal sense, it won't be used - period. Markets self-correct.

Yes, it costs $15,000 for ViaGen to clone your steer . . . then you use it to stud dozens of animals per year, and recoup the cost and more. The yield is higher, the quality is better, and the cash will increase. Simple, really.

Here's a good summation of counterpoints to cost arguments.

Also, here's the entire FDA report, which includes full disclosure of good and bad. I invite you to pore over this, and let me know which primary sources you can find to support your specious claims - and no, I won't accept pro-organic organizations, or even sponsored research from a School of Public Health. You've clearly never worked with scientific research in the past, and you're cherry-picking . . . it's intellectually dishonest.