| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 22141 | 2002-07-13 00:28:00 | Corngate, appalling ignorance... | Terry Porritt (14) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 61975 | 2002-07-14 02:06:00 | I really wish we had a secret police service in this country, who could quietly wax people like Hager. People had got tired of his the 'americans are out to get us" theories and so he had to make the news with some idiot theory of a GE coverup. Cheers Ted |
tedheath (537) | ||
| 61976 | 2002-07-14 02:29:00 | While i'm unaware of hagars statement(s) it sounds like it's yet another distraction from the issue. Hagar is being used to make idiot noise, just like the small noisy bunch of protesters in the chch area get used to make stupid freakshow protests to discredit whatever issue they are going to jump up and down about. They do get used, and because they will jump up and down about anything anti govt, they will discredit issues that are sometimes valid... the masses are easily (mis)led Hagar has his uses GE IS politically sensitive, so people making plans WILL be discrete, this is normal business practice, however to sensationalize by calling it "American cover up" will ensure that very few people will look into what actually may be happening. It is ridiculous to say the americans are "out to get us". They are just looking after themselves. This pathetic little unheard of set of islands are of no importance to America, or the companies behind the GE push. |
Chris Wilson (431) | ||
| 61977 | 2002-07-14 02:47:00 | > And yes i know the GEfreeNZ argument is flawed by the > fact that some impurities will get in, but we still > have the chance to be the nation with the pure food > that a large chunk of the planets populous will want. >And if the govt did any research to the HUGE GEfree market out there, (GE free, nuclear free clean green NZ product) and made noises about the results to the said farmers, thus exploiting our size and location, making the rural community happy, instead of playing follow the leaders for international cred, we'd ALL be better off Chris - i think i would have to back you on that - my personal feelings are similar to yours. Its a tough one though cause GE can have huge implications on both sides of the issue eg. better product etc... but at what cost. As you said why not keep our Clean, Green, N.Z image intact and use it to our advantage!!! Well just my 2cents worth as they say! (as J Zep ducks for cover before the flaming) As for the Media all they manage to do is add more confusion to the issue. |
J ZEP (336) | ||
| 61978 | 2002-07-14 03:45:00 | JM: No, you passed (skite;-)), but you got a score of 40/50 in a test. The test may have been a (very roughly) random sampling of your knowledge, but if you had a "normal distribution" of knowledge, the "80" figure is wrong: the second digit is meaningless. 80 +/- 7 might be reasonable. Why don't they just use the score? I don't know. ?:| Maybe "they" think it looks "more scientific", on the principle that any number is a statistic. :-( Have you noticed the opinion surveys? They say (sometimes) the sample size. They also give a figure which is the uncertainty. This is to compensate for the fact that the sample is not of the whole population. It relies on a normal distributionn and confidence interval. But when a newspaper sends a reporter out to interview 8 or 10 people to get "public opinion", she comes back and reports that 70 % are for something. Bloody nonsense. X-( The rugby commentators say " he has a success percentage of 66%" --- he has succeeded with 2 out of there. IT'S NOT A PERCENTAGE. They might say that this is a deterioration, because last match he had 75% (3/4). There is a well ignored (by the ignorant) term called regression to the mean . That's why we're not all geniuses . It does not explain the fact that often all the featherless bipeds appear to be morons. ]-) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 61979 | 2002-07-14 11:57:00 | Chris, Before you discard vaccinations out of hand..... Mum is deaf from measles at the age of 10 and I nearly died from it at the age of 4. Yes my kids were vaccinated. There are 2 sides to the story. |
Heather P (163) | ||
| 61980 | 2002-07-14 12:09:00 | Ok, granted with the measles one, but the flu vaccinations seem to only benifit the flu vacination companys, I'm sure there is research that suggests flu vaccines are a good idea. There's alot which is excepted just because someone in authority says it is so, even if that authority is the one to make the money. With the GE debate the authorities that pay for "balanced scientific data" refuse to fund anything that shows problems with GE and its associated products The same companys are devoloping herbiside resistant plants, and making herbisides that will wipe out all the weeds in any given feild, including the standard plants. Its a bit like cancer research paid for by the tabbaco companys and meat boards, certain results will not be favourable to continued employment of the researchers. | Chris Wilson (431) | ||
| 61981 | 2002-07-14 12:36:00 | Or casinos funding parks for the kids outside the casinos. "There was an old lady who swallowed a fly....." |
Heather P (163) | ||
| 61982 | 2002-07-14 20:44:00 | Trying to get back to the meat of this matter, on Morning Report this morning, political commentator Al Morrison showed quite a reasonable grasp of sampling statistics. Shaun Plunkett , ( my opinion of him is private), showed no understanding at all. Now we also have Marion Hobbs back tracking for political damage control, by claiming that as initial testing of a small sample showed no GE contamination, then she 'was advised by her officials' that the shipment was clear and had no GE contamination. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 61983 | 2002-07-14 23:53:00 | >Shaun Plunkett , ( my opinion of him is private), showed no understanding at all. :^O :^O :^O :^O :^O :^O :^O :^O :^O He is such a plonker ... |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 61984 | 2002-07-15 00:19:00 | Well Chris - you may not get sick, but I've known plenty of people who bought into the "vaccinations are the problem, not the cure" argument who have got plenty sick . Nothing is perfect - not western medical science, not eastern medical science, and not holistic alternative science . Nothing is perfect . That goes for the GE debate too . Both sides have points . There is merit in the arguments of both camps, when you can get to the real arguments and bypass the spin and hysteria on both sides . But I will say this - I do not for one moment believe in the pipe dream of a GE-free NZ which will become wealthy through the export of GE-free produce . It is a Utopia, and like most Utopias, persuing it is dangerous . GE is an infant technology, but one with great potential . We should be cautious . But deciding now that the best future for this country is GE-free is NOT being cautious . It is making a rash decision based on few facts and dangerous assumptions . Those assumptions? 1] That there will continue to be consumer resistance to GE worldwide at a level which will make trying to sustain a GE-free agricultural economy not just viable, but desirable . Name a previous advance in technology where resisting it and purging it from your economy has lead to such a commercial advantage? This argument is like someone in the 18th century saying: "This industrial revolution thing sucks . It's smelly, and creates poor products . Let's make sure there are no factories in our country and we'll be the world leaders in exporting quality, hand-made goods!" Of course, there were folks who thought like that - they were called the Luddites and went around smashing up machinery . 2] That maintaining a GE-free country is a viable thing to do . This assumption implies that it will be possible to legislate to keep GE out of the country indefinitely . This is despite the fact that there is not a consensus now, or is likely to ever be a consensus, that this should be done . It will become ever harder to achieve as the technology matures and becomes accepted elsewhere . It is hard enough keeping our shores free of biological pests . What will it cost to keep it free of GE contaminants? Is it even possible? 3] That the government has a right to keep out the technology . The Greens currently poll in the 5% to 7% range . Let's day then that 5% to 7% of the voting population feel strongly enough about the issue to support a total GE ban . In a democracy, how long can a government maintain a ban on a potentially beneficial technology unless it has a clear mandate to do so? Right now the ban is on filed trials . But in 12, 24 or 36 months, there will come a time when the technology is ready, and scientifically proven enough that some of it is going to be ready for release . What then? If the mandate at the polls is not there to keep the finger in the dyke, what government is going to be able to do so, or indeed have the right to do so? Now I'm not saying that the outcome of all this will be all good . Large corporates will exploit the technology ruthlessly . That's just a fact of modern life . There will be problems, even horror stories . It's not like the industrial revolution was a bed of roses . But it is a change that WILL happen, and the question is, what will happen to NZ if we try to stop it dead in its tracks? I believe we must be pragmatic, and do our best to guide the adoption of the technology and its affect on our lives . But to try and stop it will not work, and will be a disaster for our economy . We are too small to gamble liie that . |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||