Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tumbulu

(6,268 posts)
32. Your tone is so unnecessarily rude
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 03:23 PM
Oct 2012

and it does not speak well for the industry that you defend.

I am delighted to at last see some studies. I want to see more. They should have been done prior to the release of these plants back in the early 90's. 20 years later is a bit odd, but always better late than never. A good start.

The business people's desire to avoid regulatory obligations destroyed the credibility of the scientists doing the work.

All scientists want studies showing safety. Only businesspeople wish to avoid them for financial reasons.

Because studies were not done upfront and clearly the entire industry has been negatively effected. It may never recover, but if it is going to, it will take real work, open studies and not rude or bullying replies to honest questions





The pro-GMO scientists as always are pure as the driven snow. Vincardog Sep 2012 #1
That's not a very scientific attitude. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #3
Neither is this: Chemisse Nov 2012 #56
Naturally. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #48
"Don't ask, don't tell." proverbialwisdom Nov 2012 #55
A fine piece that covers a wider swath of the issue from the science standpoint. HuckleB Sep 2012 #2
Kick. HuckleB Oct 2012 #4
+ Infinity! Odin2005 Oct 2012 #5
Not so fast. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #6
Nice "sources" you got there. Odin2005 Oct 2012 #7
But, but... HuckleB Oct 2012 #8
My opinion? It's scientist vs. scientist / industry's fading efforts to censor independent research. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #10
The scientific consensus is clearly against your opinion. HuckleB Oct 2012 #11
Correct Tumbulu Oct 2012 #14
Nope. HuckleB Oct 2012 #15
Well I personally know 3 professors Tumbulu Oct 2012 #16
Uh huh. HuckleB Oct 2012 #17
Post some data Tumbulu Oct 2012 #19
You keep saying you're waiting, but you're not. HuckleB Oct 2012 #20
This is not a nibble, this is exactly what I want to see Tumbulu Oct 2012 #23
So you admit that you simply haven't bothered to research the issue. HuckleB Oct 2012 #24
Your rudeness is unacceptable Tumbulu Oct 2012 #25
You have been less than honest. HuckleB Oct 2012 #26
What are you talking about? Tumbulu Oct 2012 #28
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. HuckleB Oct 2012 #29
Your tone is so unnecessarily rude Tumbulu Oct 2012 #32
Thanks for continuing to push the usual logical fallacies. HuckleB Oct 2012 #33
HuckleB is always rude. Chemisse Nov 2012 #57
Get a mirror. HuckleB Nov 2012 #60
Which, in your rigid world view, is any post without an authoritarian stamp of approval Chemisse Nov 2012 #62
And the ad hominem nonsense keeps coming. HuckleB Nov 2012 #63
How about these? proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #9
Youtube version unavailable. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #12
If the industry that produces these products wishes Tumbulu Oct 2012 #13
Nice try. HuckleB Oct 2012 #18
The Skeptical Vegan On GMO Labeling HuckleB Oct 2012 #21
A very good piece about GE crops. HuckleB Oct 2012 #22
I think if anything caused tumors it was the mzmolly Oct 2012 #27
I agree completely. Odin2005 Oct 2012 #30
I don't doubt it. mzmolly Oct 2012 #31
The saga of 'Scientist' vs Scientist with and without the benefit of the internet. Oh, snap. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #34
Spamming shit sources doesn't work on me. Odin2005 Oct 2012 #35
Short video, perhaps? proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #40
Please don't push discredited pseudo-science as being equivalent. It's not. HuckleB Oct 2012 #36
Too much reading? Here, I'll it abbreviate for you. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #37
You haven't done the reading. HuckleB Oct 2012 #39
Part 1 involves Chesson's role in dismissing the current study. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #38
Conspiracy theories are fun, but pointless. HuckleB Oct 2012 #41
Nope, it's scientist vs 'scientist,' as demonstrated. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #42
You keep pretending. The consensus does not show that. HuckleB Oct 2012 #43
The Slate source brought up Mother Jones writer, Tom Philpott, and so does ThinkProgress.org below. proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #44
None of what you post is relevant. HuckleB Oct 2012 #45
Industry scientists. independent scientists? No difference? proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #46
Red herrings are not relevant. HuckleB Oct 2012 #47
The amount of negative studies not published is sense Oct 2012 #49
LeMonde - GM cancer study academic hits back proverbialwisdom Nov 2012 #50
there are some brave people left in the world n/t Celebration Nov 2012 #51
Bravely pushing BS fictions to advance their own ridiculous careers! HuckleB Nov 2012 #52
Right on schedule, bringing in the corporate view. sense Nov 2012 #53
You seem to think science based view equates to "corporate view." HuckleB Nov 2012 #54
Perhaps it is just a freak coincidence that your opinion is ALWAYS Chemisse Nov 2012 #58
Hogwash. HuckleB Nov 2012 #59
I am impressed! Chemisse Nov 2012 #61
Yeah, uh huh. HuckleB Nov 2012 #64
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»Study linking GM crops an...»Reply #32