How wrong is it to be messing with our food supply ...and why to such extreme?!?

Selectively cross-bred (and claimed by some to be genetically altered), this partially sheared Belgian Blue bull has 40% more muscle mass than it's originating breeds; The Durham Shorthorn and The Friesian. More recently in 1974, The Belgian Blue was 'manipulated' into two distinct branches, one for continued use as a dual purpose animal and the other exclusively for meat production (pictured here). I tend to agree with, "what is hidden from the general public, is the fact that these bulls are genetically modified."...

http://www.adguk-blog.com/2013/08/mo...w-reality.html

The result of cross-breeding and genetic technology is an abomination to Mother Nature, whether it be plant or animal. So why is it happening, regardless of how disdainful most of us feel about it? GMOs continue to infiltrate our grocery stores and still don't require any special labelling! There is a current disregard about any adverse health affects that may arise from the daily consumption of GMOs. Now is the time to ask yourself some tough questions 'bout the future of our food sources. Whether you oppose or support this technology and genetic manipulation ...speak up and be heard!

By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores was organically grown or raised food. Now we pay triple for that luxury. Perhaps we should be taking a step back in time to reconsider the benefits of healthier, simpler, tried and true farming techniques... when a cow looked like a cow!

In this related article; Chinese scientists have genetically modified cattle to produce human breast milk...

http://news.sky.com/story/860873/chi...an-breast-milk

In article >,
ImStillMags > wrote:
>How wrong is it to be messing with our food supply ...and why to such extre=
>me?!?=20
>
>By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores was orga=
>nically grown or raised food. Now we pay triple for that luxury. Perhaps we=
> should be taking a step back in time to reconsider the benefits of healthi=
>er, simpler, tried and true farming techniques... when a cow looked like a =
>cow!=20

Are you really saying that no pesticides or herbicides were used in
food production before 1974? Or is there some definition of "organic"
of which I am unaware?

Cindy Hamilton
--

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:31:03 AM UTC-6, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags wrote:
>
>
>
> > The result of cross-breeding and genetic technology is an
>
> > abomination to Mother Nature, whether it be plant or animal.
>
>
>
> Chickens have been abnormally large for decades - before the
>
> possibility of actual genetic manipulation VIA DNA. So the idea that
>
> a crossbred cow is a GMO species is pure speculation and prime kook
>
> bait, IMO.
>
>
>
> Especially when it comes from a site called "Alien Disclosure Group".
>
> They have taken a credible National Geographic story that has
>
> documented it's legitimate heritage and turned it into a conspiracy is
>
> just two sentences. And then put it out there for all the kooks to
>
> pick up on.
>
>
>
> -sw

You are correct for once...good analysis.

===

In article >,
says...
>
> How wrong is it to be messing with our food supply ...and why to such extreme?!?
>
> Selectively cross-bred (and claimed by some to be genetically altered),

It's an old breed which carries a natural, inherited genetic mutation
affecting muscle development. The gene mutation long precedes the
discovery of DNA and was not created in a laboratory.

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/belgianblue/

Virtually every animal or plant we eat (or wear) today, is the result
of centuries of selective breeding.. not the same technique or science
as genetic manipulation of DNA in a laboratory.

> By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores was organically grown or raised food.

That's absurd. Commercial agriculture has been using synthetic
fertilisers far longer.

http://www.tandontech.net/fertilisers.html

Janet UK

On 13/08/2013 10:40 AM, ImStillMags wrote:

> By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores
> was organically grown or raised food. Now we pay triple for that
> luxury. Perhaps we should be taking a step back in time to reconsider
> the benefits of healthier, simpler, tried and true farming
> techniques... when a cow looked like a cow!

I think you are a little confused there. Farmers used organic
fertilizers for a long time before scientists discovered ways to make
chemical fertilizers, which can be tailored for various soil conditions
and crops. By the early 1900s they were developing new processes for
chemical fertilizer production. Herbicides and pesticides were widely
used throughout the late 19th and early to mid 20th century before
people even started to think about possible dangers and government
agencies started to seriously regulate agricultural chemicals.

On 8/13/2013 10:31 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> And then put it out there for all the kooks to
> pick up on.
>
> -sw

That certainly defines you, kook.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>How wrong is it to be messing with our food supply ...and why to such extreme?!?
>
>Selectively cross-bred (and claimed by some to be genetically altered), this partially sheared Belgian Blue bull has 40% more muscle mass than it's originating breeds; The Durham Shorthorn and The Friesian. More recently in 1974, The Belgian Blue was 'manipulated' into two distinct branches, one for continued use as a dual purpose animal and the other exclusively for meat production (pictured here). I tend to agree with, "what is hidden from the general public, is the fact that these bulls are genetically modified."...
>
>http://www.adguk-blog.com/2013/08/mo...w-reality.html
>
>The result of cross-breeding and genetic technology is an abomination to Mother Nature, whether it be plant or animal. So why is it happening, regardless of how disdainful most of us feel about it? GMOs continue to infiltrate our grocery stores and still don't require any special labelling! There is a current disregard about any adverse health affects that may arise from the daily consumption of GMOs. Now is the time to ask yourself some tough questions 'bout the future of our food sources. Whether you oppose or support this technology and genetic manipulation ...speak up and be heard!
>
>By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores was organically grown or raised food. Now we pay triple for that luxury. Perhaps we should be taking a step back in time to reconsider the benefits of healthier, simpler, tried and true farming techniques... when a cow looked like a cow!
>
>In this related article; Chinese scientists have genetically modified cattle to produce human breast milk...
>
> http://news.sky.com/story/860873/chi...an-breast-milk

The trait has been around since the 1800s. I believe it is called
double muscling. It's natural.
Janet US

Dave Smith wrote:
> I think you are a little confused there.

Sez a canuck?

LOL!

On 13/08/2013 10:40 AM, ImStillMags mused:

> By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores
> was organically grown or raised food.

I assume this disregards the ubiquitous use of ddt from the late 40's
until 1972, right?

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> How wrong is it to be messing with our food supply ...and why to such
>> extreme?!?
>>
>> Selectively cross-bred (and claimed by some to be genetically altered),
>
> It's an old breed which carries a natural, inherited genetic mutation
> affecting muscle development. The gene mutation long precedes the
> discovery of DNA and was not created in a laboratory.
>
> http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/belgianblue/
>
> Virtually every animal or plant we eat (or wear) today, is the result
> of centuries of selective breeding.. not the same technique or science
> as genetic manipulation of DNA in a laboratory.
>
>> By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores was
>> organically grown or raised food.
>
> That's absurd. Commercial agriculture has been using synthetic
> fertilisers far longer.
>
One might quibble about the use of pesticides but I fail to see the
objection to using so-called "artificial" fertilisers.
Graham

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:54:40 AM UTC-7, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>
> Are you really saying that no pesticides or herbicides were used in
>
> food production before 1974? Or is there some definition of "organic"
>
> of which I am unaware?
>

No, I'm not saying anything. I just posted the article for discussion.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:31:03 AM UTC-7, Sqwertz wrote:

> They have taken a credible National Geographic story that has
>
> documented it's legitimate heritage and turned it into a conspiracy is
>
> just two sentences. And then put it out there for all the kooks to
>
> pick up on.


I don't care who posted the video's. They are legitimate videos.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:06:44 AM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:

>
> I think you are a little confused there. Farmers used organic
>
> fertilizers for a long time before scientists discovered ways to make
>
> chemical fertilizers, which can be tailored for various soil conditions
>
> and crops. By the early 1900s they were developing new processes for
>
> chemical fertilizer production. Herbicides and pesticides were widely
>
> used throughout the late 19th and early to mid 20th century before
>
> people even started to think about possible dangers and government
>
> agencies started to seriously regulate agricultural chemicals.


Again. It is no my story or opinion. I merely posted it for discussion.

On 2013-08-13 19:30:09 +0000, ImStillMags said:

> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:31:03 AM UTC-7, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> They have taken a credible National Geographic story that has
>> documented it's legitimate heritage and turned it into a conspiracy is
>> just two sentences. And then put it out there for all the kooks to
>> pick up on.
>
> I don't care who posted the video's. They are legitimate videos.

Sure they are legitimate videos, as opposed to being frying pans or
washing machines. You're saying all information is purely 100% factual?
You've verified all the information personally?

In article >, says...
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> t...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> How wrong is it to be messing with our food supply ...and why to such
> >> extreme?!?
> >>
> >> Selectively cross-bred (and claimed by some to be genetically altered),
> >
> > It's an old breed which carries a natural, inherited genetic mutation
> > affecting muscle development. The gene mutation long precedes the
> > discovery of DNA and was not created in a laboratory.
> >
> > http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/belgianblue/
> >
> > Virtually every animal or plant we eat (or wear) today, is the result
> > of centuries of selective breeding.. not the same technique or science
> > as genetic manipulation of DNA in a laboratory.
> >
> >> By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores was
> >> organically grown or raised food.
> >
> > That's absurd. Commercial agriculture has been using synthetic
> > fertilisers far longer.
> >
> One might quibble about the use of pesticides but I fail to see the
> objection to using so-called "artificial" fertilisers.

They don't support (and may kill) beneficial soil micro-organisms;
unlike fertilisers made from decomposing animal and plant material.

http://projects.cals.ncsu.edu/ristai.../default/files
/ApplSoilEcol_article.pdf

Janet

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:13:55 PM UTC-7, gtr wrote:
> On 2013-08-13 19:30:09 +0000, ImStillMags said:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:31:03 AM UTC-7, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> They have taken a credible National Geographic story that has
>
> >> documented it's legitimate heritage and turned it into a conspiracy is
>
> >> just two sentences. And then put it out there for all the kooks to
>
> >> pick up on.
>
> >
>
> > I don't care who posted the video's. They are legitimate videos.
>
>
>
> Sure they are legitimate videos, as opposed to being frying pans or
>
> washing machines. You're saying all information is purely 100% factual?
>
> You've verified all the information personally?

No, as I stated before, I posted this for discussion. No need to get attacking or snotty about it. What do YOU think? Did you verify them to see if the information was 100% factual?

On 13/08/2013 4:40 PM, ImStillMags wrote:

>>
>> You've verified all the information personally?
>
> No, as I stated before, I posted this for discussion. No need to get
> attacking or snotty about it. What do YOU think? Did you verify
> them to see if the information was 100% factual?
>


Ouch. You are getting pretty testy about this. Perhaps, if you posted it
for discussion, you should have put the material in quotes. I had
assumed that the "By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in
grocery stores was organically grown or raised food. Now we pay triple
for that luxury." was your comment because it doesn't sound like
something that would have been quoted in an article, and that was what I
questioned, and I got the same response from you.

On 2013-08-13 20:40:05 +0000, ImStillMags said:

>>> I don't care who posted the video's. They are legitimate videos.
>>
>> Sure they are legitimate videos, as opposed to being frying pans or
>> washing machines. You're saying all information is purely 100% factual?
>>
>> You've verified all the information personally?
>
> No, as I stated before, I posted this for discussion.

Right, then you said it was "legitimate". I'm trying to find out what
was "legitimate", the content or the vessel.

> No need to get attacking or snotty about it.

Okay. I could have said "Please clarify", but I think you would have
clarified it as you have; not at all.

> What do YOU think?

I don't take video links from usenet. I come here to read, not watch
videos. Honestly. If I watched half the videos I'd be here all day.

> Did you verify them to see if the information was 100% factual?

I didn't claim it was a "legitimate video", nor claim it was
"illegitimate": In fact I still don't know what you mean by legitimacy
in this context, but have lost interest.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:31:03 AM UTC-5, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags wrote:
>
>
>
> > The result of cross-breeding and genetic technology is an
>
> > abomination to Mother Nature, whether it be plant or animal.
>
>
>
> Chickens have been abnormally large for decades - before the
>
> possibility of actual genetic manipulation VIA DNA. So the idea that
>
> a crossbred cow is a GMO species is pure speculation and prime kook
>
> bait, IMO.
>
>
>
> Especially when it comes from a site called "Alien Disclosure Group".
>
> They have taken a credible National Geographic story that has
>
> documented it's legitimate heritage and turned it into a conspiracy is
>
> just two sentences. And then put it out there for all the kooks to
>
> pick up on.
>
Even if true, if we don't limit population, we need GMOs. Can we start a collection to pay for Angela Bove's tubal ligation?
>
> -sw

--Bryan O|O

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:30:09 PM UTC-5, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:31:03 AM UTC-7, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>
>
> > They have taken a credible National Geographic story that has
>
> >
>
> > documented it's legitimate heritage and turned it into a conspiracy is
>
> >
>
> > just two sentences. And then put it out there for all the kooks to
>
> >
>
> > pick up on.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't care who posted the video's. They are legitimate videos.

What about legitimate apostrophes?

--Bryan O|O

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:

> Ouch. You are getting pretty testy about this. Perhaps, if you posted it
>
> for discussion, you should have put the material in quotes. I had
>
> assumed that the "By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in
>
> grocery stores was organically grown or raised food. Now we pay triple
>
> for that luxury." was your comment because it doesn't sound like
>
> something that would have been quoted in an article, and that was what I
>
> questioned, and I got the same response from you.


OK I see your point. None of the post is my original thought. You are correct. I should have put it in quotations or made a note that this was found elsewhere. MY bad.

Not trying to be testy here, really.

In article >,
ImStillMags > wrote:

snippage
> By the way... up 'til around 1974, all they sold in grocery stores was
> organically grown or raised food. Now we pay triple for that luxury. Perhaps
> we should be taking a step back in time to reconsider the benefits of
> healthier, simpler, tried and true farming techniques... when a cow looked
> like a cow!
>
The term "organic" meant nothing back in 1974, because there were no
Federal standards to back it up. Granted, test-tube genetic modification
was not a factor, but there was considerable animal breeding to increase
milk production and speed muscle deposition. (One of my friends had to
get special permission from the University to do undergraduate research
on recombinant DNA at the time.) There were feedlots that mass-produced
cattle, pigs, and chickens for consumption back then. Differences
between then and now is the sheer scale of these operations and the
vertical integration of livestock production. Drive through eastern
North Carolina and see the huge hog operations. (You don't need to see
them; the stench precedes the sight of the barns.) As another example,
farmers who raise chickens for Tyson are glorified sharecroppers. Tyson
dictates everything from feed to time to market weight to what they'll
pay per bird. It often turns out to be a losing proposition for the
farmers.

Cindy, former animal science major

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

On 8/13/2013 3:31 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:06:44 AM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> I think you are a little confused there. Farmers used organic
>>
>> fertilizers for a long time before scientists discovered ways to make
>>
>> chemical fertilizers, which can be tailored for various soil conditions
>>
>> and crops. By the early 1900s they were developing new processes for
>>
>> chemical fertilizer production. Herbicides and pesticides were widely
>>
>> used throughout the late 19th and early to mid 20th century before
>>
>> people even started to think about possible dangers and government
>>
>> agencies started to seriously regulate agricultural chemicals.
>
>
> Again. It is no my story or opinion. I merely posted it for discussion.
>
The problem is you present these things as "facts" as if you believe in
and agree with them. You pretty much declared chemical pestcides were
not used prior to the 1970's. We all know that is not true.

Jill

On 8/13/2013 7:06 PM, Vegan Earthworm Holocaust wrote:

> --Bryan O|O

Are you mooning us?

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 2013-08-13, ImStillMags > wrote:

You know what is a true abomination? Posting from google groups!!

Your post is so fscked up in my newsreader, I can barely read/reply to
it. If Jill can take the time to get her act together and thinks the
readers of this group are worth the time and effort to get a proper
newsreader and post under the standards of usenet, so can you. Until
now, I've made an exception in my killfile for you and a couple others
that use this piece of crap that is google "garbage" groups, but no
more. Blinky didn't do what he did for nothing and I will no longer
tolerate GG users, no matter how much I emjoy their participation.

BTW, kudos to you, Jill, for making the much appreciated effort to
conform to usenet standards by using a usenet compliant newreader that
doesn't make many of us jump through hoops to merely read a simple
text post.

nb

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:30:09 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:31:03 AM UTC-7, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> They have taken a credible National Geographic story that has
>>>
>>> documented it's legitimate heritage and turned it into a conspiracy is
>>>
>>> just two sentences. And then put it out there for all the kooks to
>>>
>>> pick up on.
>>
>> I don't care who posted the video's. They are legitimate videos.
>
> You didn't even WATCH the video they posted. Otherwise you should
> have developed your own informed opinion based on the information
> provided rather than relying on the captions.
>
> Stop the insanity, will ya?

Oh I don't know. I can see she chucked it in thinking it would be of
interest for general discussion. Not much wrong with that! I am sure she
would have joined in with any discussion along with everyone else.

I dunno, I think everybody is a big grumpy at the moment with all the carry
on.
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Vegan Earthworm Holocaust
> wrote:
>
> > Even if true, if we don't limit population, we need GMOs.
>
> Like forest fires and plagues - they are inevitable and beneficial.
> We should not try and stop either of them.
>
> -sw

It used to be only the religious zealots that resisted progressive
science.

G.

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:17:41 PM UTC-5, Cheryl wrote:
> On 8/13/2013 7:06 PM, Vegan Earthworm Holocaust wrote:
>
>
>
> > --Bryan O|O
>
>
>
> Are you mooning us?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN

I don't agree with them 100%, but they are fighters.
In the publicity shots we took a couple of weeks ago,
I am wearing a FEMEN T-shirt.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36178182@N08/9510879396/

--Bryan O|O

On 2013-08-14 12:46:38 +0000, Gary said:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Vegan Earthworm Holocaust
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if true, if we don't limit population, we need GMOs.
>>
>> Like forest fires and plagues - they are inevitable and beneficial.
>> We should not try and stop either of them.
>>
>> -sw
>
> It used to be only the religious zealots that resisted progressive
> science.

DDT was also progressive science.

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:22:57 AM UTC-6, notbob wrote:
> On 2013-08-13, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>
>
> You know what is a true abomination? Posting from google groups!!
>
>
>
> Your post is so fscked up in my newsreader, I can barely read/reply to
>
> it. If Jill can take the time to get her act together and thinks the
>
> readers of this group are worth the time and effort to get a proper
>
> newsreader and post under the standards of usenet, so can you. Until
>
> now, I've made an exception in my killfile for you and a couple others
>
> that use this piece of crap that is google "garbage" groups, but no
>
> more. Blinky didn't do what he did for nothing and I will no longer
>
> tolerate GG users, no matter how much I emjoy their participation.
>
>
>
> BTW, kudos to you, Jill, for making the much appreciated effort to
>
> conform to usenet standards by using a usenet compliant newreader that
>
> doesn't make many of us jump through hoops to merely read a simple
>
> text post.
>
>
>
> nb

We all appreciate Jill no matter what "newsreader" she uses.

===

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

> We all appreciate Jill no matter what "newsreader" she uses.

She cares when we tell her that her posts are hard to read and is
computer capable enough to fix the problem.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:19:27 PM UTC-6, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We all appreciate Jill no matter what "newsreader" she uses.
>
> She cares when we tell her that her posts are hard to read and is
>
> computer capable enough to fix the problem.
>
Are my postings hard to read? Some say they are
and others have no problem with them.

===

On 2013-08-14 20:43:06 +0000, Roy said:

> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:19:27 PM UTC-6, sf wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> We all appreciate Jill no matter what "newsreader" she uses.
>>
>> She cares when we tell her that her posts are hard to read and is
>>
>> computer capable enough to fix the problem.
>>
> Are my postings hard to read? Some say they are
> and others have no problem with them.

Can someone please translate this? I can't figure out what it means.

On 8/14/2013 11:04 AM, gtr wrote:
> On 2013-08-14 12:46:38 +0000, Gary said:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Vegan Earthworm Holocaust
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if true, if we don't limit population, we need GMOs.
>>>
>>> Like forest fires and plagues - they are inevitable and beneficial.
>>> We should not try and stop either of them.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> It used to be only the religious zealots that resisted progressive
>> science.
>
> DDT was also progressive science.
>

As was eugenics, g=favored by liberals at the turn of the century and
widely taught in our university system until a certain madman rolled it
out nationally and everyone went, oh snap!

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:43:06 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:19:27 PM UTC-6, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > We all appreciate Jill no matter what "newsreader" she uses.
> >
> > She cares when we tell her that her posts are hard to read and is
> >
> > computer capable enough to fix the problem.
> >
> Are my postings hard to read? Some say they are
> and others have no problem with them.
>
Your post looks fine to me, but look at what it did to the previous
message - it inserted a blank line, which I kept in so you can see for
yourself. I usually just delete it (if the message is short enough)
and move on, but it does get tiresome after a while.

I don't know what the dynamics are. My news reader is set to wrap to
the window when it comes to the never ending lines - some do and some
don't, so it's out of my hands.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 8/14/2013 4:19 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
>> We all appreciate Jill no matter what "newsreader" she uses.
>
> She cares when we tell her that her posts are hard to read and is
> computer capable enough to fix the problem.
>
Thanks, folks! It was a bit of a PITA to configure Thunderbird but once
I got it configured properly and got used to it, it's fine.

Jill

Sqwertz wrote:
> Stop the insanity, will ya?
>
> -sw

Star with yerself, leave.

On 2013-08-14 21:34:38 +0000, sf said:

> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:43:06 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:19:27 PM UTC-6, sf wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We all appreciate Jill no matter what "newsreader" she uses.
>>>
>>> She cares when we tell her that her posts are hard to read and is
>>>
>>> computer capable enough to fix the problem.
>>>
>> Are my postings hard to read? Some say they are
>> and others have no problem with them.
>>
> Your post looks fine to me, but look at what it did to the previous
> message - it inserted a blank line, which I kept in so you can see for
> yourself. I usually just delete it (if the message is short enough)
> and move on, but it does get tiresome after a while.
>
> I don't know what the dynamics are. My news reader is set to wrap to
> the window when it comes to the never ending lines - some do and some
> don't, so it's out of my hands.

I see this a lot. It's only with Google users, but it might be the
result of google plus some kinda browser or something. I see it quite
a lot indeed.

Yeah, that claim that everything was "organic" before 1974 is totally bogus. I remember my dad using farm herbicides in the '40s.

N.