I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?

nb

On 2014-11-13, Sqwertz > wrote:

> Nice nose, BTW. It must be cold there!

Couldn't be me. He has hair up above his earlobes.

nb

notbob wrote:
>
> I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
> lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
> bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
>
> nb

Troll-o-Meter = Full Scale


There are two main issues with GMO foods:

1. The make the scientifically challenged population paranoid with
unsubstantiated "what if" scenarios.

2. For the GMOs that are disease / insect resistant they are a short
term solution only since diseases and insects have this little thing
called evolution and they evolve their way back to infecting/infesting
the GMO crops. This is already happening with some of the earlier GMO
crops.

On 13 Nov 2014 17:33:15 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
> lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
> bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
>
How thick would you like your serving of pesticides?



--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

sf wrote:
>
> On 13 Nov 2014 17:33:15 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> > I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
> > lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
> > bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
> >
> How thick would you like your serving of pesticides?

And the GMOs built-in pesticides are so different from the sprayed on
pesticides of non-GMO crops?

Organic is all peachy and lulls people into a false sense of security
just like "herd immunity" with vaccinations, then a blight of whatever
sort comes around and you have massive crop failures and suddenly people
are starving, much like the anti vaccination crowd is bringing back all
manner of nasty diseases that were forgotten and now kids are dying as a
result.

For my little hermit farm as I get it going, I'll do what I can organic,
but I'll have a dammed good supply of fungicide and pesticide on the
shelf as a backup.

Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:37:05 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >notbob wrote:
> >>
> >> I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
> >> lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
> >> bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
> >>
> >> nb
> >
> >Troll-o-Meter = Full Scale
> >
> >
> >There are two main issues with GMO foods:
> >
> >1. The make the scientifically challenged population paranoid with
> >unsubstantiated "what if" scenarios.
> >
> >2. For the GMOs that are disease / insect resistant they are a short
> >term solution only since diseases and insects have this little thing
> >called evolution and they evolve their way back to infecting/infesting
> >the GMO crops. This is already happening with some of the earlier GMO
> >crops.
>
> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can make
> up their own mind about using them or not.

Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:19:08 -0800, The Other Guy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:18 +1100, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>>> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can make
>>>>> up their own mind about using them or not.
>>>>
>>>>Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.
>>>
>>>Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.
>>
>>Right, because the average consumer is smart enough to MAKE the right
>>choices.
>
> Are you suggesting withholding information from consumers because
> they're too stupid to use it sensibly?

that was the premise behind Obummercare.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:37:05 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>notbob wrote:
>>
>> I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
>> lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
>> bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
>>
>> nb
>
>Troll-o-Meter = Full Scale
>
>
>There are two main issues with GMO foods:
>
>1. The make the scientifically challenged population paranoid with
>unsubstantiated "what if" scenarios.
>
>2. For the GMOs that are disease / insect resistant they are a short
>term solution only since diseases and insects have this little thing
>called evolution and they evolve their way back to infecting/infesting
>the GMO crops. This is already happening with some of the earlier GMO
>crops.

The problem is that GMO plants can escape.. There is currently a big
payout for Idaho, Washington and Oregon. It seems that a wheat that
was only 'tested' ten years ago, escaped and is currently found in
fields in those 3 states.
Janet US

Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:49:36 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:37:05 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >notbob wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
> >> >> lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
> >> >> bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
> >> >>
> >> >> nb
> >> >
> >> >Troll-o-Meter = Full Scale
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >There are two main issues with GMO foods:
> >> >
> >> >1. The make the scientifically challenged population paranoid with
> >> >unsubstantiated "what if" scenarios.
> >> >
> >> >2. For the GMOs that are disease / insect resistant they are a short
> >> >term solution only since diseases and insects have this little thing
> >> >called evolution and they evolve their way back to infecting/infesting
> >> >the GMO crops. This is already happening with some of the earlier GMO
> >> >crops.
> >>
> >> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can make
> >> up their own mind about using them or not.
> >
> >Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.
>
> Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.

You mean like the cult of climate change clinging to their falsified
data?

On 2014-11-14 9:29 AM, Janet B wrote:

> The problem is that GMO plants can escape.. There is currently a big
> payout for Idaho, Washington and Oregon. It seems that a wheat that
> was only 'tested' ten years ago, escaped and is currently found in
> fields in those 3 states.
>



Funny how that product can be identified in other local fields but some
here are concerned about the cost of labeling GMO foods as a result of
expensive testing. One of my issues about GMO is the way it allows
companies to patent genetic material and the way that they insist on
licensing fees to use their seed. Farmers used to retain a portion of
their crop to use for seed for the next year's crop. It certainly made
more sense for them do that. They saved the cost of trucking the crop to
the buyer and then having to pay more to buy seed and truck it back.
Monsanto does not allow that. If you buy their GMO product and save
seed for replanting, you have to pay them. If your neighbours have GMO
and it starts growing in your fields you owe them money, and I think
that stinks.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:48:32 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> How thick would you like your serving of pesticides?
> >
> > And the GMOs built-in pesticides are so different from the sprayed on
> > pesticides of non-GMO crops?
>
> There's nothing preventing pesticides from being sprayed on GMO crops
> the same as non-GMO crops.

Nothing preventing, other than cost. Much of the premise of the GMO
crops was to reduce or eliminate spraying pesticides. As noted however
it has a short term gain since the pests evolve resistance to the GMO
crops.

Dave Smith wrote:

> If your neighbours have GMO
> and it starts growing in your fields you owe them money, and I think
> that stinks.

I've got to call urban (rural?) legend on this. There is more than
enough (baseless) anti-GMO sentiment that if that was a real issue there
would be a well funded counter suit for "pollen trespass" and claims for
damage to the farmer's non-GMO crops as a result of the contamination.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:18 +1100, Bruce > wrote:

> Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.
>
Agree.



--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:37:28 -0800, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:

>
> "Bruce" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:19:08 -0800, The Other Guy
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:18 +1100, Bruce > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can make
> >>>>> up their own mind about using them or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.
> >>>
> >>>Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.
> >>
> >>Right, because the average consumer is smart enough to MAKE the right
> >>choices.
> >
> > Are you suggesting withholding information from consumers because
> > they're too stupid to use it sensibly?
>
> that was the premise behind Obummercare.
>
and people are benefiting from finally having affordable healthcare.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
>I want to know more about GMOs. Seen a lotta documentaries and read a
> lotta websites. Looks like a lotta hype/spin/etc from both sides. The
> bottom question is: can they hurt me? If so, how. If not, why?
>

No. NO! Alright - NO as in NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!

This message brought to you by Monsanto - the company that just wants to
fill every tummy with nourishing food. EVen if it kills you. Got that?
You better or you can talk to our lawyers.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 2014-11-14 11:04 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> If your neighbours have GMO
>> and it starts growing in your fields you owe them money, and I think
>> that stinks.
>
> I've got to call urban (rural?) legend on this.

Yes. I am well aware that you would rather play the denial game than to
do the research.


>There is more than
> enough (baseless) anti-GMO sentiment that if that was a real issue there
> would be a well funded counter suit for "pollen trespass" and claims for
> damage to the farmer's non-GMO crops as a result of the contamination.
>


That might help to explain Monsanto's case before they US Supreme Court
where the ruling upheld their ability to sue farmers whose fields had
been accidentally contaminated by Monsanto material and it denied
farmers standing in cases against Monsanto for the contamination of
their crops. FWIW. There have been more than 100 suits against farmers
for unauthorized use of the genetically modified seed and 700 settled
without going to court.


















http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:36:19 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:37:28 -0800, "Pico Rico"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Bruce" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:19:08 -0800, The Other Guy
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:18 +1100, Bruce > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>>> 3. GMO products should be labeled as such, so that everybody can make
> >> >>>>> up their own mind about using them or not.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Nah, you're too scientifically challenged to make such decisions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Never trust those who want to withhold information from consumers.
> >> >>
> >> >>Right, because the average consumer is smart enough to MAKE the right
> >> >>choices.
> >> >
> >> > Are you suggesting withholding information from consumers because
> >> > they're too stupid to use it sensibly?
> >>
> >> that was the premise behind Obummercare.
> >>
> >and people are benefiting from finally having affordable healthcare.
>
> A sign of civilization. Not surprising Republicans are against it.

4% of the population is benefiting. 96% of the population has been
significantly harmed by huge increases in health care costs.

On 2014-11-15 8:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>> What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
>> between countries?
>
> I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
> notably lower than that in the US.
>

I have spent some time in the US. There are a lot of wealthy people
there. There are also a lot of really poor people there. I was amazed at
the range of housing around Washington DC. Coming in from one
direction there are all sorts of nice neighourhoods, but within a
couple of minutes of the White House there were deplorable slums.
Averages area funny thing because they are ...a averages. What is a
more important indication of the wealth and health of a nation is the
distribution of the wealth. If Bill Gates were to live in a town of
1,000,000 people the average income would be about $1 million, but it
would be just Bill and the 999 who are destitute.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-15 8:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
> >> between countries?
> >
> > I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
> > notably lower than that in the US.
> >
>
> I have spent some time in the US. There are a lot of wealthy people
> there. There are also a lot of really poor people there. I was amazed at
> the range of housing around Washington DC. Coming in from one
> direction there are all sorts of nice neighourhoods, but within a
> couple of minutes of the White House there were deplorable slums.
> Averages area funny thing because they are ...a averages. What is a
> more important indication of the wealth and health of a nation is the
> distribution of the wealth. If Bill Gates were to live in a town of
> 1,000,000 people the average income would be about $1 million, but it
> would be just Bill and the 999 who are destitute.

DC is not representative of the US by a long shot.

Perhaps we should say median then, the bulk of the US population has a
higher standard of living than the bulk of what I saw in the UK. Yep
there are some slums in the US just as there are in the UK, however as a
percentage of the total population our slums are much smaller. There is
also a lot of distortion in the "poverty" statistics you will see
bandied about by the media. Those statistics substantially distort rural
areas in particular since they will count people with low incomes as in
"poverty" when the reality is they live on family homesteads with no
debt and have gardens so even lower expenses so they are most certainly
not in "poverty" by any rational analysis.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:09:51 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2014-11-15 8:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> >> What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
>> >> between countries?
>> >
>> > I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
>> > notably lower than that in the US.
>> >
>>
>> I have spent some time in the US. There are a lot of wealthy people
>> there. There are also a lot of really poor people there. I was amazed at
>> the range of housing around Washington DC. Coming in from one
>> direction there are all sorts of nice neighourhoods, but within a
>> couple of minutes of the White House there were deplorable slums.
>> Averages area funny thing because they are ...a averages. What is a
>> more important indication of the wealth and health of a nation is the
>> distribution of the wealth. If Bill Gates were to live in a town of
>> 1,000,000 people the average income would be about $1 million, but it
>> would be just Bill and the 999 who are destitute.
>
>DC is not representative of the US by a long shot.
>
>Perhaps we should say median then, the bulk of the US population has a
>higher standard of living than the bulk of what I saw in the UK. Yep
>there are some slums in the US just as there are in the UK, however as a
>percentage of the total population our slums are much smaller. There is
>also a lot of distortion in the "poverty" statistics you will see
>bandied about by the media. Those statistics substantially distort rural
>areas in particular since they will count people with low incomes as in
>"poverty" when the reality is they live on family homesteads with no
>debt and have gardens so even lower expenses so they are most certainly
>not in "poverty" by any rational analysis.

You ignoramus. Poverty doesn't mean you have to live in a slum.
Janet US

On 2014-11-15, jmcquown > wrote:

> Paid for by extremely high taxes in those countries with "free" health
> care for all.

What!?

Fourty-four percent of my paycheck was withheld in my final working
days. That's closer to one half my paycheck than it is to one-quarter
of my paycheck. You consider that to NOT be extremely high taxes??

nb

Janet B wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:09:51 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2014-11-15 8:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >> >> What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
> >> >> between countries?
> >> >
> >> > I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
> >> > notably lower than that in the US.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have spent some time in the US. There are a lot of wealthy people
> >> there. There are also a lot of really poor people there. I was amazed at
> >> the range of housing around Washington DC. Coming in from one
> >> direction there are all sorts of nice neighourhoods, but within a
> >> couple of minutes of the White House there were deplorable slums.
> >> Averages area funny thing because they are ...a averages. What is a
> >> more important indication of the wealth and health of a nation is the
> >> distribution of the wealth. If Bill Gates were to live in a town of
> >> 1,000,000 people the average income would be about $1 million, but it
> >> would be just Bill and the 999 who are destitute.
> >
> >DC is not representative of the US by a long shot.
> >
> >Perhaps we should say median then, the bulk of the US population has a
> >higher standard of living than the bulk of what I saw in the UK. Yep
> >there are some slums in the US just as there are in the UK, however as a
> >percentage of the total population our slums are much smaller. There is
> >also a lot of distortion in the "poverty" statistics you will see
> >bandied about by the media. Those statistics substantially distort rural
> >areas in particular since they will count people with low incomes as in
> >"poverty" when the reality is they live on family homesteads with no
> >debt and have gardens so even lower expenses so they are most certainly
> >not in "poverty" by any rational analysis.
>
> You ignoramus. Poverty doesn't mean you have to live in a slum.
> Janet US

Try some reading comprehension for a change.

"Janet B" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:09:51 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2014-11-15 8:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> >> What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
>>> >> between countries?
>>> >
>>> > I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
>>> > notably lower than that in the US.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I have spent some time in the US. There are a lot of wealthy people
>>> there. There are also a lot of really poor people there. I was amazed at
>>> the range of housing around Washington DC. Coming in from one
>>> direction there are all sorts of nice neighourhoods, but within a
>>> couple of minutes of the White House there were deplorable slums.
>>> Averages area funny thing because they are ...a averages. What is a
>>> more important indication of the wealth and health of a nation is the
>>> distribution of the wealth. If Bill Gates were to live in a town of
>>> 1,000,000 people the average income would be about $1 million, but it
>>> would be just Bill and the 999 who are destitute.
>>
>>DC is not representative of the US by a long shot.
>>
>>Perhaps we should say median then, the bulk of the US population has a
>>higher standard of living than the bulk of what I saw in the UK. Yep
>>there are some slums in the US just as there are in the UK, however as a
>>percentage of the total population our slums are much smaller. There is
>>also a lot of distortion in the "poverty" statistics you will see
>>bandied about by the media. Those statistics substantially distort rural
>>areas in particular since they will count people with low incomes as in
>>"poverty" when the reality is they live on family homesteads with no
>>debt and have gardens so even lower expenses so they are most certainly
>>not in "poverty" by any rational analysis.
>
> You ignoramus. Poverty doesn't mean you have to live in a slum.
> Janet US

Poverty doesn't mean much at all anymore, since they keep changing the
numbers.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...rty-in-america

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...t-of-humanity/

On 2014-11-15 8:50 AM, Pete C. wrote:

> As for what you pay per capita on health care vs. the US there are two
> factors involved there. The first is that the Canadian population is in
> general healthier than the US population due at least in part to
> lifestyle differences like more exercise.


Maybe we are in better shape because he had better medical care.

>The second reason for the
> apparent discrepancy is that the true cost of your health care is being
> hidden via accounting tricks to disguise the various taxes that feed
> into any socialized health care system. If a true and honest accounting
> was made public, your perception of the value of your "free" health care
> would shift a good deal.

Wow. Someone has you well indoctrinated. The figures are out there for
anybody who cares to do the research but you dismiss their credibility
because you claim that the costs are being hidden.


Wow... I guess this is another of your arguments that deserves another
Yeah... whatever.
>

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:47:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Janet B wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:09:51 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dave Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2014-11-15 8:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> What's wrong with that? Care to compare the average living standards
>> >> >> between countries?
>> >> >
>> >> > I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
>> >> > notably lower than that in the US.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I have spent some time in the US. There are a lot of wealthy people
>> >> there. There are also a lot of really poor people there. I was amazed at
>> >> the range of housing around Washington DC. Coming in from one
>> >> direction there are all sorts of nice neighourhoods, but within a
>> >> couple of minutes of the White House there were deplorable slums.
>> >> Averages area funny thing because they are ...a averages. What is a
>> >> more important indication of the wealth and health of a nation is the
>> >> distribution of the wealth. If Bill Gates were to live in a town of
>> >> 1,000,000 people the average income would be about $1 million, but it
>> >> would be just Bill and the 999 who are destitute.
>> >
>> >DC is not representative of the US by a long shot.
>> >
>> >Perhaps we should say median then, the bulk of the US population has a
>> >higher standard of living than the bulk of what I saw in the UK. Yep
>> >there are some slums in the US just as there are in the UK, however as a
>> >percentage of the total population our slums are much smaller. There is
>> >also a lot of distortion in the "poverty" statistics you will see
>> >bandied about by the media. Those statistics substantially distort rural
>> >areas in particular since they will count people with low incomes as in
>> >"poverty" when the reality is they live on family homesteads with no
>> >debt and have gardens so even lower expenses so they are most certainly
>> >not in "poverty" by any rational analysis.
>>
>> You ignoramus. Poverty doesn't mean you have to live in a slum.
>> Janet US
>
>Try some reading comprehension for a change.

I'm reading just fine. Your contention is that when low income people
have a house and a garden they no longer qualify for poverty status.
Your definition of poverty lacks comprehension of the reality.
Janet US

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:24:46 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-11-15 8:50 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>> As for what you pay per capita on health care vs. the US there are two
>> factors involved there. The first is that the Canadian population is in
>> general healthier than the US population due at least in part to
>> lifestyle differences like more exercise.
>
>
>Maybe we are in better shape because he had better medical care.
>
>>The second reason for the
>> apparent discrepancy is that the true cost of your health care is being
>> hidden via accounting tricks to disguise the various taxes that feed
>> into any socialized health care system. If a true and honest accounting
>> was made public, your perception of the value of your "free" health care
>> would shift a good deal.
>
>Wow. Someone has you well indoctrinated. The figures are out there for
>anybody who cares to do the research but you dismiss their credibility
>because you claim that the costs are being hidden.
>
>
> Wow... I guess this is another of your arguments that deserves another
> Yeah... whatever.

Agreed.

On 15/11/2014 12:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-11-15 8:50 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>> As for what you pay per capita on health care vs. the US there are two
>> factors involved there. The first is that the Canadian population is in
>> general healthier than the US population due at least in part to
>> lifestyle differences like more exercise.
>
>
> Maybe we are in better shape because he had better medical care.
>
>> The second reason for the
>> apparent discrepancy is that the true cost of your health care is being
>> hidden via accounting tricks to disguise the various taxes that feed
>> into any socialized health care system. If a true and honest accounting
>> was made public, your perception of the value of your "free" health care
>> would shift a good deal.
>
> Wow. Someone has you well indoctrinated. The figures are out there for
> anybody who cares to do the research but you dismiss their credibility
> because you claim that the costs are being hidden.
>
A bit like that MP who claimed there was an increase in unreported crime!
Graham

In article >,
says...

> I've spent a month in the UK and their average standard of living is
> notably lower than that in the US.

Whatever UK "standard of living" you encountered in the UK was limited
by your own financial/social standing.

It's highly unlikely any tourist encounters an "average" spread of the
population's living standards, in the space of a month.


Janet UK

In article >,
says...
> Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
> through the university level.
>
Students in UK don't receive free university education.

Janet UK

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 23:20:26 -0000, Janet > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
> > through the university level.
> >
> Students in UK don't receive free university education.
>

I was thinking about Scandinavian countries. Undergraduate and PhD
programs are still free for all, regardless of nationality in Finland.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 15/11/2014 4:20 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
>> through the university level.
>>
> Students in UK don't receive free university education.
>
> Janet UK
>
>
More's the pity! I doubt that I would have gone to uni under the present
fiscal regime. Although the post-grad grants were limited, I lived quite
well, if frugally.
Graham

On 15/11/2014 4:20 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
>> through the university level.
>>
> Students in UK don't receive free university education.
>
> Janet UK
>
>
But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
university for nothing couldn't you?
Graham

In article >, says...
>
> On 15/11/2014 4:20 PM, Janet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >> Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
> >> through the university level.
> >>
> > Students in UK don't receive free university education.
> >
> > Janet UK
> >
> >
> But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
> university for nothing couldn't you?
> Graham

Personally, no, because Scottish free tuition only applies to first
degrees and I already have one.

"Free tuition" is only within Scotland so doesn't cover all study
expenses; for instance compulsory field trips and study periods abroad;
those expenses are borne by the student. In addition the student still
has to pay living expenses in Scotland for four years (accommodation
food books travel etc) So, Scottish students are not exactly "going to
university for nothing".

Janet UK

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:40:35 -0000, Janet > wrote:

> In article >, says...
> >
> > On 15/11/2014 4:20 PM, Janet wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > >> Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
> > >> through the university level.
> > >>
> > > Students in UK don't receive free university education.
> > >
> > > Janet UK
> > >
> > >
> > But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
> > university for nothing couldn't you?
> > Graham
>
> Personally, no, because Scottish free tuition only applies to first
> degrees and I already have one.
>
> "Free tuition" is only within Scotland so doesn't cover all study
> expenses; for instance compulsory field trips and study periods abroad;
> those expenses are borne by the student. In addition the student still
> has to pay living expenses in Scotland for four years (accommodation
> food books travel etc) So, Scottish students are not exactly "going to
> university for nothing".
>
It's still free higher education.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:40:35 -0000, Janet > wrote:
>
>> In article >, says...
>> >
>> > On 15/11/2014 4:20 PM, Janet wrote:
>> > > In article >,
>> > >
>> > > says...
>> > >> Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
>> > >> through the university level.
>> > >>
>> > > Students in UK don't receive free university education.
>> > >
>> > > Janet UK
>> > >
>> > >
>> > But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
>> > university for nothing couldn't you?
>> > Graham
>>
>> Personally, no, because Scottish free tuition only applies to first
>> degrees and I already have one.
>>
>> "Free tuition" is only within Scotland so doesn't cover all study
>> expenses; for instance compulsory field trips and study periods abroad;
>> those expenses are borne by the student. In addition the student still
>> has to pay living expenses in Scotland for four years (accommodation
>> food books travel etc) So, Scottish students are not exactly "going to
>> university for nothing".
>>
> It's still free higher education.

It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"graham" > wrote in message
...

> But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
> university for nothing couldn't you?

A young lassie worked with me. Her mother had died and her father was an
alkie so no money from there.

She is now a Chartered Surveyor. She had all her education paid and grants
for everything even accommodation.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 11/17/2014 5:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:

> It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.
>
Not _all_ foreigners - only EU nationals.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:40:35 -0000, Janet > wrote:
>
> > In article >, says...
> > >
> > > On 15/11/2014 4:20 PM, Janet wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > says...
> > > >> Higher taxes are well worth free health care and free education
> > > >> through the university level.
> > > >>
> > > > Students in UK don't receive free university education.
> > > >
> > > > Janet UK
> > > >
> > > >
> > > But living where you do, if you wanted, you could go to Scottish
> > > university for nothing couldn't you?
> > > Graham
> >
> > Personally, no, because Scottish free tuition only applies to first
> > degrees and I already have one.
> >
> > "Free tuition" is only within Scotland so doesn't cover all study
> > expenses; for instance compulsory field trips and study periods abroad;
> > those expenses are borne by the student. In addition the student still
> > has to pay living expenses in Scotland for four years (accommodation
> > food books travel etc) So, Scottish students are not exactly "going to
> > university for nothing".
> >
> It's still free higher education.

Students pay for university tuition in England Wales and Ireland.

Janet UK

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/17/2014 5:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.
>>
> Not _all_ foreigners - only EU nationals.
>

I guess the English are EU nationals too?


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 11/17/2014 8:35 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> "S Viemeister" > wrote
>> On 11/17/2014 5:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> It is free to all residents and foreigners except anyone from England.
>>>
>> Not _all_ foreigners - only EU nationals.
>>
> I guess the English are EU nationals too?
>


Well, yes - but not _foreign_ EU nationals.
Had the recent referendum gone the other way, they _would_ be foreign,
and entitled to free tuition...