Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Wow, these guys are worse than I thought.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.

---

Your post sounds less fact-based than prejudice-based there AU, but then your fierce, desperate devotion to the status-quo is well known in these parts.

You just don't get it Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Chris, Rap never actually reads the posted links, cause they might interfere with his carefully constructed bubble.

Might wanna take that into account, since he's likely unaware of the articles content.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So, Rap

Now that you know this HAS happened - anything to say about these FACTS ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
the burden would be on Monsato

---

Quote:

---

Hey RAP It took me less than 20 seconds to find this (and I'm a bad typist) ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:


Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits

---

Quote:

---

This is not the issue in these lawsuits. The issue is simple breach of contract. Monsanto requires all farmers using their patented seeds to sign a contract agreeing not to use seeds from the previous years crops. There is no reason the farmer can't choose not to use Monsanto seeds.

---

Quote:

---

The landmark lawsuit centers on whether ... a producer has the right to make truthful statements about what a product does not contain, right along with what it does contain. Oakhurst's label tells the truth. But Monsanto contends that, although truthful, the label is misleading and prompts consumer skepticism that undermines the company's lucrative markets.

Monsanto sued Oakhurst on July 3, claiming that a label on Oakhurst milk jugs that states "Our farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones" is hurting the multinational chemical company's relationship with dairy farmers and misleads consumers into thinking that there is something wrong with milk produced with artificial hormones. Stanley Bennett II, president of Oakhurst, on Thursday reasserted his stand against changing the label. "We don't feel we have any obligation, nor will we be required or bullied into somehow qualifying our standards," he said.

"Our customers have told us in no uncertain terms that they don't want artificial growth hormones in their milk. Our label is an accurate and
honest attempt to communicate to consumers what we are trying to do. It is our obligation to our customers." This is the third such suit filed by Monsanto against dairy processors
regarding labeling issues. The two other suits, one in Texas and the other in Chicago, were settled out of court.

---

Quote:

---

"Two veteran news reporters for Fox TV in Tampa, Florida have been fired for refusing to water down an investigative report on Monsanto's controversial milk hormone, rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone).

---

Quote:

---

Many American farmers are wealthy enough to fight Monsanto.

---

Quote:

---

I would think that...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Hey RAP It took me less than 20 seconds to find this (and I'm a bad typist) ...

---

AW RUE!!! DAMNIT! You did Rap's homework for him! And now, instead of either (a) being shown for the gutless no-nothing coward that he is or (b) actually have to come to the facts himself (c) you gave him an easy out! Now he can once again cover his eyes, plug his ears, and put his brain thru the spin cycle.

Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Now he can once again cover his eyes, plug his ears, and put his brain thru the spin cycle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

In addition, big business has a direct effect on the media, including the enforcement of "food disparagement laws" against Oprah - when she discussed the issue of mad cow disease in beef... and

---

Quote:

---

This is a contracts issue. Monsanto is trying to make seed like software, you don't "own" it you effectively "license" it for a growing season. Any seed company could in theory make you agree to not replant next years crop, the problem would be proving it if you did. GM crops can be recognised as such and so it's easier to prove.

---

Quote:

---

One moment your telling us about how the big evil Monsanto is hurting the poor farmer, and then you're defending ill-informed reporters that can ruin an entire sector of US agriculture with a biased story that the pubic believes

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

This is a contracts issue. Monsanto is trying to make seed like software, you don't "own" it you effectively "license" it for a growing season. Any seed company could in theory make you agree to not replant next years crop, the problem would be proving it if you did. GM crops can be recognised as such and so it's easier to prove.

---

Perhaps you didn't read my post?

Monsanto has brought suit against people who have not planted their crops and against dairies who do not use their hormones. Its like Microsoft which reserves the right to break your home, business, or university apart on the suspicion that you might be using unlicensed software.

---

Quote:

---

Iwas discussing the original article.

---

Quote:

---

Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”

When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

Actually you missed some parts of the linked reports which DO show that the patents themselves are invalid. Now if the patent is invalid, enforcing said patent is also invalid - no matter what the contract says.

But more than that, farmers are coming under legal threat even when they haven't signed a contract OR planted seeds. The mere threat of having to spend hundreds of thousands to defend against a deep pockets lawsuit is enough to make people 'settle'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

It's the same problem with Frakenfoods or hormone-boosted milk production. There was a dairy in Maine- Oakhurst- which marketed its milk as being "hormone-free". Monsanto, which makes rGBH (the recombinant growth hormone) sued Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk with a PERFECTLY TRUTHFUL statement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- You're "less inclined" to believe an article because it was in Vanity Fair?

Okay, DON'T believe it. You shouldn't. You should be a skeptic. Do some research. Find out for yourself. Give us a few solid, well-researched reasons why the linked article is wrong.

But I know you won't do that because you fear accidental contact with fact more than anything. You're afraid of what you might find it you actually rooted around that big wide world of facts out there.

BTW- how's that economy going?

You see 'Rap, you can try to avoid the truth. Run and hide. But sooner or later, it'll bite you anyway.


I agree with Rue, not surprisingly. Corporate-libertarians are so fucking focused on gummint they don't see the nasty big alligator behind them.

---------------------------------
.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Credible " isn't the first word I'd use on this magazine's take on - well, ANYTHING. But then your own lack of facts didn't stop YOU from posting. Despite, I might add, a complete lack of credibility on your part. So, now that you know different - that you were wrong - do you have anything to say ?

"btw- MY economy is doing great. Best it's ever been. Why such interest ?" And uh, I hope you're not talking about the US economy. B/c then, I'd have to believe you're just plain nuts. So, how's that roaring US economy going there, Rap ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Tell me... why is is that you like Firefly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"First there are no such things as common law rights."
As a matter of fact, there are common law rights. Roe v Wade was decided to some extent on common law privacy rights - pregnancy 'before quickening' being considered a personal and private, not public, matter.

"Second the common law is not statute."
But when a contract violates common law the contract can be invalid. For example, no matter how many 'rights' you sign away to your employer they cannot put up a camera in a place where you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.

---

Quote:

---

One issue in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protect a state employee, while in her cubicle, from covert and secret video surveillance, and whether that right was clearly established in this situation. A second issue is whether a state agency’s failure to train and supervise its employees in the proper use of covert surveillance was a “discretionary function” of the agency so as to make the agency immune from liability for that failure.

After the trial court dismissed Ms. Nelson’s claims, she appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Before the court reached a decision, the Supreme Judicial Court decided to take the case. The court held in April 2006 that the college's surveillance did not violate Ms. Nelson's constitutional rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

"If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.

I'm just reminded of the 'chicken little' crusades ...

What's to believe ?"

---

Quote:

---

So, being skeptical about something equates to being WRONG in your world ?

---

Quote:

---

But since the Dems have gained control of the Congress and the Senate, the US economy has gone in the crapper.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:

I repeat there are no common law rights. In the US the right to privacy is constitutional and granted by the Fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:

I repeat there are no common law rights. In the US the right to privacy is constitutional and granted by the Fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"

---

I wonder if the common misconception about "common law" is a result of so many laws in the US having a "grandfather clause". For example, in some States if a piece of land is improperly surveyed and a certain amount of time passes, that parcel of land becomes the legal property of the "squater" even if they originally occupied the land in error. There may appear to be "common law" rights but they are actually just regular statutory law.

---