biotechngmo Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 There is a website called, Conversations About Plant Biotechnology (http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/), in which ordinary farmers narrate their experiences with genetically modified foods. From Africa to Europe, to Asia, to Latin America and North America, farmers tell of how genetically modified crops have boosted their economic standing. Genetically modified crops, they say, yield high, require fewer pesticides and herbicides, and therefore save farmers millions of dollars. Make a point of visiting the site to read for yourself what farmers think of genetically modified crops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluenoise Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Hey I'm all for GM foods, but your post reads like an add for mosanto. Not to mention that that site that you link to is hosted by mosanto....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Genetically modified crops, they say, yield high, require fewer pesticides and herbicides, and therefore save farmers millions of dollars. Reallllly? Well good, because that's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluenoise Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Lol I just realised what that user name stands for. Biotechnology mosanto, I'd be willing to bet the guy is involved with mosanto PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Well he's certainly earning his crust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 That's for sure. This would have to qualify as spam, wouldn't it? I mean, it is more well-thought out and well-written than the average spam, but it is spam nonetheless, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Maybe if we demonstrate how bad he is at spreading the word, he will be fired. I heard Monsanto whacks the people it fires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casperl Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 There is a website called, Conversations About Plant Biotechnology (http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/), in which ordinary farmers narrate their experiences with genetically modified foods. From Africa to Europe, to Asia, to Latin America and North America, farmers tell of how genetically modified crops have boosted their economic standing. Genetically modified crops, they say, yield high, require fewer pesticides and herbicides, and therefore save farmers millions of dollars. Make a point of visiting the site to read for yourself what farmers think of genetically modified crops. You are right, it seems that the guy is working for Monsanto. But in my opinion, spam is mostly related to value. He is not sending a message to our mailbox (which should be considered private), he is sending a message to a public forum. And the main points are whether the information is related and useful for the community or not. I think it is related to forum and adds a value. So it is not really a spam in my opinion. But these are just my general comments. If majority of people in this forum consider this post as spam then this should be considered spam for this forum in my opinion. And the last word is for the forum owner of course since s/he is free to add extra rules to this forum.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Spam is unsolicited advertising. The reason this qualifies is because he started a new thread. If he had posted that as a relevant and informative reply to an existing thread, it would not be spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 There are many different definitions of spam. At least in this case it is well written and properly targeted- we are a group who might want to hear about the GM debate. Also, to be strictly fair, just because he's paid by monsanto doesn't mean that it's advertising- very few of us are going to go out and by GM tomato seeds as a result of his posting. To me it seems patronising to ignore the opinions of the farmers concerned just because we heard of them from a (possibly) biassed source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veedo Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 "The reason this qualifies is because he started a new thread. If he had posted that as a relevant and informative reply to an existing thread, it would not be spam." Don't give him any ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Also, to be strictly fair, just because he's paid by monsanto doesn't mean that it's advertising- very few of us are going to go out and by GM tomato seeds as a result of his posting. Hmm... I wonder what the point was then? there's no refferer id in the urls, so he's not getting payed by commission. maybe the intent is to googlebomb monsana? maybe, then, we should change the links to read 'poop'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 There are many different definitions of spam. At least in this case it is well written and properly targeted- we are a group who might want to hear about the GM debate.Also, to be strictly fair, just because he's paid by monsanto doesn't mean that it's advertising- very few of us are going to go out and by GM tomato seeds as a result of his posting. The only definition of spam that matters on this site is the one that administrators such as myself use. To me it seems patronising to ignore the opinions of the farmers concerned just because we heard of them from a (possibly) biassed source. Discarding (or at the very least, questioning) biased sources is something proper scientists do every day, so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise to see that happen on a science forum. The post was probably not even made by a human, but a botscript. As you can see "biotechngmo" has no interest in discussing the topic. Let's move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts