• Do you need help identifying a 🌶?
    Is your plant suffering from an unknown issue? 🤧
    Then ask in Identification and Diagnosis.

Monsanto makes highly hybridized seeds available to home gardeners

queequeg152 said:
 
those lawsuits are non existant.
Click to expand...
 
To purchase a bag of round up ready seed stock a person has to sign a contract.  If there are no lawsuits, that means either nobody is breaking the contract or Monsanto just doesn't care.  I am trying to imagine nobody breaking the contract and I just can't do it.  I try to imagine Monsanto not caring and I just can't do it.  I am thinking lawsuits exist.

But I don't really need logic to make that judgement.  I can just take Monsanto at their word.  They say they investigate people, hire private investigators, settle out of court, and yes they sue and go to court over seed saving.  Of course they do, it is their intellectual property being stolen.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx
 
My solution is that I do not knowingly buy Monsanto seed or any seed that comes with a contract.  I suspect this is why the new seed is not flying the Monsanto flag.  People dont like them.  Frankly, I am more sickened by their efforts to purchase my democracy than anything else they have been up to.

 
Here is a fun lawsuit the Supreme Court seems to think exists.  A farmer purchased soybean seeds from a grain mill.  The farmer had no clue they had Monsanto DNA in them.  Monstanto sued the farmer and won the Supreme Court ruling.  So now, if you buy seeds from some place other than Monsanto you better have them DNA tested to make sure cause you are liable even though you never signed the damn contract.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682048/monsanto-wins-major-patent-case-against-75-year-old-farmer

But what is really great about this article is one of the things that I think should be an exception to the patent laws.  Note it says that researchers are not allowed to purchase Monsanto seeds.  No shit.  It is in their contract.  Tiny ass print.  You can only purchase their patented seeds for specific purposes. Research is not one of the purposes.

Call me zany if you will, but when entire nations are banning various GMO products and the producer of a GMO product says nobody is allowed to research the thing, I dont want to put it into my children's mouths.

We started AG as sustanance farmers, just trying to put food on my table after a fairly serious injury left me unable to do much else.  Went to heirloom (for lack of a better term) and seed saving because I didn't want to pay for seed year after year.  Found the quote in Genesis about the third day of creation and what the Lord intended.  Started reading up on some of the zany things going on in the seed industry.  You so will not win me over, but I would honestly love to have the discussion to further my understanding of other points of view.
 
ajdrew said:
 
To purchase a bag of round up ready seed stock a person has to sign a contract.  If there are no lawsuits, that means either nobody is breaking the contract or Monsanto just doesn't care.  I am trying to imagine nobody breaking the contract and I just can't do it.  I try to imagine Monsanto not caring and I just can't do it.  I am thinking lawsuits exist.

But I don't really need logic to make that judgement.  I can just take Monsanto at their word.  They say they investigate people, hire private investigators, settle out of court, and yes they sue and go to court over seed saving.  Of course they do, it is their intellectual property being stolen.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx
 
My solution is that I do not knowingly buy Monsanto seed or any seed that comes with a contract.  I suspect this is why the new seed is not flying the Monsanto flag.  People dont like them.  Frankly, I am more sickened by their efforts to purchase my democracy than anything else they have been up to.

 

Here is a fun lawsuit the Supreme Court seems to think exists.  A farmer purchased soybean seeds from a grain mill.  The farmer had no clue they had Monsanto DNA in them.  Monstanto sued the farmer and won the Supreme Court ruling.  So now, if you buy seeds from some place other than Monsanto you better have them DNA tested to make sure cause you are liable even though you never signed the damn contract.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682048/monsanto-wins-major-patent-case-against-75-year-old-farmer

But what is really great about this article is one of the things that I think should be an exception to the patent laws.  Note it says that researchers are not allowed to purchase Monsanto seeds.  No shit.  It is in their contract.  Tiny ass print.  You can only purchase their patented seeds for specific purposes. Research is not one of the purposes.

Call me zany if you will, but when entire nations are banning various GMO products and the producer of a GMO product says nobody is allowed to research the thing, I dont want to put it into my children's mouths.

We started AG as sustanance farmers, just trying to put food on my table after a fairly serious injury left me unable to do much else.  Went to heirloom (for lack of a better term) and seed saving because I didn't want to pay for seed year after year.  Found the quote in Genesis about the third day of creation and what the Lord intended.  Started reading up on some of the zany things going on in the seed industry.  You so will not win me over, but I would honestly love to have the discussion to further my understanding of other points of view.
Click to expand...
 
have you bothered to read the whole thread yet?
 
this has been covered a number of times.
 
regarding the supposedly innocent farmer. the on referenced in your supreme court case.
 
he did nothing 'accidentally'...
 
Queque, someone (I think you) said the law suites do not exist.  I simply explained and demonstrated with a Monsanto page that the statement was not true.

You seem to like to make statements that are not true or which are misleading.  I don't see that I said the farmer in the Supreme Court case did anything 'accidentally' and yet there are the quotes you put around the word.  Why must you resort to such straw man tactics?

Someone says the lawsuits do not exist.  I show they do.  That argument lost, you decide to create an argument over one of the many lawsuits using the word 'accidentally' when nobody said the farmer accidentally did a thing.  You are right, he was risking a second crop, did not want to risk the money for quality seed, and bought second hand scrapings that probably got swept up from the floor of the grain mill.  It was an intentional effort to buy inferior seed as opposed to Monsanto seed.

Until there is a home DNA tester, it is ridiculous to put the burden on the buyer to assure they are not getting patented seeds.  If anyone stole intellectual property from Monsanto, it was the seller.

What is your argument now?  Maybe that water is wet at room temperature?

 
 
ajdrew said:
Queque, someone (I think you) said the law suites do not exist.  I simply explained and demonstrated with a Monsanto page that the statement was not true.

You seem to like to make statements that are not true or which are misleading.  I don't see that I said the farmer in the Supreme Court case did anything 'accidentally' and yet there are the quotes you put around the word.  Why must you resort to such straw man tactics?

Someone says the lawsuits do not exist.  I show they do.  That argument lost, you decide to create an argument over one of the many lawsuits using the word 'accidentally' when nobody said the farmer accidentally did a thing.  You are right, he was risking a second crop, did not want to risk the money for quality seed, and bought second hand scrapings that probably got swept up from the floor of the grain mill.  It was an intentional effort to buy inferior seed as opposed to Monsanto seed.

Until there is a home DNA tester, it is ridiculous to put the burden on the buyer to assure they are not getting patented seeds.  If anyone stole intellectual property from Monsanto, it was the seller.

What is your argument now?  Maybe that water is wet at room temperature?

 
Click to expand...
 
again, have you even bothered to read the thread?
 
do some legwork, its worth your time.
 
this was all discussed at some length. you are grossly misrepresenting what these lawsuits are and why they are filed in the first place. i am not misrepresenting anything. 
 
its hilarious that you are accusing me of spreading lies and misinformation. 
also here is a link to the only other gmo thread im aware of.
 
http://thehotpepper.com/topic/48842-forum-debate-are-you-for-or-against-gmo/
 
The latest straw man is that I am misrepresenting all these law suits.  In fact, after reading the Supreme Court decision I commented on one.  So first it is there are no lawsuits.  I show that many exist.  Then it is that I am misrepresenting all the law suits after I comment on one.

I think if you were to read this thread as you insist I have not, you will discover I my first insistence that the law suits exist was hinged on the logic that a contract is entered into at the time of purchase and that Monsanto has every right to enforce that contract.  You are confusing me with the type of Monsanto hater that wants some thign for free.  I despise Monsanto for an entirely different reason.  I am sick of big money buying my democracy.  Wouldnt care if they sold widgets, would still hate them for manipulating my government with their money.

As far as I am concerned, if a person enters into their contract and then violates the contract they should be sued.  My solution, dont enter into the contract.  The one case I commented on involved a farmer who did not purchase his seed stock for that crop from Monsanto and did not enter into a contract.
 
Let me ask you this.  If I get a good deal on ebay and the goods turn out to be stolen, should I be charged despite my not knowing the goods were stolen.  I rather think it is the thief that should be arrested.  The farmer got a good deal from a seed seller other than Monsanto.  If that seller knowingly sold Monsanto property, it should be sued.  Not the farmer.

queequeg152 said:
 
those lawsuits are non existant.
 
Click to expand...
Queque replied to Grant saying the above.  I showed the lawsuits to exist.  Yes sir you do misrepresent a thing to say it does nto exist when it does.  To claim I am misrepresenting a bunch of law suits when I briefly commented on one, accurately I might add, is also misrepresenting things.

You said something, you were shown wrong.  It is really that simple.  These are not the droids you are looking for.  Move on.  Move on.
 
haha ok. take a quote out of context and im wrong.
 
ok sure.
 
seriously though, did you read the thread? despite your lengthy yet empty reply its still not clear to me if you ever read beyond the post you are absurdly fixated on.
 
my reply was with respect to grants assertion that these lawsuits were without merit and intended to intimidate rather than to protect intellectual property. this is entirely clear to the third party.
 
of corse you dont include his quote however. clearly you are the objective party here.
 
moreover, farther down in the thread i replied to another, with an identical grievance as your own, and again explained and defended my remarks.
 
yet here you are again, offering the same argument.
 
this is why i do not believe you took the time to read the thread in any meaningfull manner.
 
this is such a facile argument that you are grasping at. would you like me to link to some information that will clarify the reasoning for these lawsuits?
ajdrew said:
Let me ask you this.  If I get a good deal on ebay and the goods turn out to be stolen, should I be charged despite my not knowing the goods were stolen.  I rather think it is the thief that should be arrested.  The farmer got a good deal from a seed seller other than Monsanto.  If that seller knowingly sold Monsanto property, it should be sued.  Not the farmer.
Click to expand...
 
this comparison is not valid. not even remotely.
 
the folks getting sued are demonstrably shown to have stolen the intellectual property.
 
Tons of malathion and diazinon in my childhood from the dog runs ...

Round Up considered evil, now: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/malathion-probably-carcinogenic-to-humans-who-agency-concludes-1.3004084
 
I eat insects so I get the one you posted yesterday. Raised mealworms for feeding fish and wound up with enough to feed the fish and me to snack on. The second one I'm not sure what I was seeing as great ( changing colored water). The one you just posted is a sore spot for me. We spray they become resistant and with every Annie we up they get stronger....
 
Queque logic:. There are no lawsuits.  Oh wait, there are law suits.  Well then you are all wrong about what you said about them.  What's that, you didnt actually say anything about them.  Well then everything you are saying is out of context.

What ever guy. 
 
robbyjoe01 said:
I eat insects so I get the one you posted yesterday. Raised mealworms for feeding fish and wound up with enough to feed the fish and me to snack on. The second one I'm not sure what I was seeing as great ( changing colored water). The one you just posted is a sore spot for me. We spray they become resistant and with every Annie we up they get stronger....
Click to expand...
 
what insects are you eating?
 
The one's that slow down long enough for me to put a fork in em ! If it's mealworms don't eat the adults (crunchy no flavor) the worms.taste better. My favorite is those little Oklahoma yellow scorpions (dried or alive with a little salt).I'm also a big fan of nightshade (don't eat the stripped green ones
BlackNightshade2.jpg
 
IMG_20150322_154937.jpg
I was a weird kid. Some kids ate chalk I ate folly hollies. Oh look right outside my front door......

IMG_20150322_154911.jpg



There he is
Correction slow bug......damn correction soft ware
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top