PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)
-   -   Should Genetically Modified Foods Be Labeled? (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/345507-should-genetically-modified-foods-labeled.html)

link 10-27-2013 12:00 PM

Should Genetically Modified Foods Be Labeled?
 
There is a lot of debate about the disclosure of foods which have been genetically modified (GMO or GE). The food industry has been aggressively campaigning to suppress disclosure about this detail, while just about everyone else is strongly in favor. Following is an article in support of labeling GMO, but my question is what are your thoughts on this?


Why Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled

by
Carole Bartolotto
Registered dietitian

Did you know that you have been enrolled in the largest research study ever conducted in the United States but you never signed a consent form or agreed to participate? That's because since 1996 you -- and basically everyone you know -- have been eating genetically modified foods.


from: Why Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled | Carole Bartolotto

aklim 10-27-2013 12:05 PM

IMO, Yes. Let the consumer decide whether they want it or not. However, like the supplements groups, I suspect the best we will get is a fine print of "These statements have not been approved......."

spdrun 10-27-2013 12:15 PM

Yes. If they're harmless, then why the fear of labeling from Big Pig Ag?

Botnst 10-27-2013 01:56 PM

Sure, why not? I'd buy 'em anyway.

ramonajim 10-27-2013 02:03 PM

This one is so far over in the "but of course - this is just common sense" camp that it makes my brain hurt that we're even debating it.

Label 'em. Let those that don't care about anything other than the price tag buy 'em. More power to them.

But let those who care about what we're eating tell the difference. Some of us will pay more for quality. Let us do so based on FACT, not marketing.

Botnst 10-27-2013 03:31 PM

Frankenveggies are safe as a traditionally bred crops.

The difference between them is in the perception of the consumer.

spdrun 10-27-2013 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 3229772)
Frankenveggies are safe as a traditionally bred crops.

The difference between them is in the perception of the consumer.

So let the consumer decide.

t walgamuth 10-27-2013 04:03 PM

Nothing wrong with the crop except that genetically modified means it will tolerate a huge amount of pesticides and or herbicides which are clearly causing health issues. Note the genetically modified crops are illegal all over Europe, I am told.

This is the cause of the decline of the honey bees. I hope we move to correct the situation before the whole ecosystem collapses.

Botnst 10-27-2013 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun (Post 3229777)
So let the consumer decide.

As with any product or service.

Botnst 10-27-2013 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3229789)
1. Nothing wrong with the crop except that genetically modified means it will tolerate a huge amount of pesticides and or herbicides which are clearly causing health issues. Note the genetically modified crops are illegal all over Europe, I am told.

2. This is the cause of the decline of the honey bees. I hope we move to correct the situation before the whole ecosystem collapses.

1. That is too narrow a definition. GA is also used to increase vitamin and/or protein content, shorten growing seasons, drought tolerance. You have confused notorious reporting with factual knowledge. Like people who think Obama's both certificate is a fraud. Superficial knowledge and lazy thinking results in poor deductive reasoning.

Europeans (and others) use it as an excuse to embargo cheaper food sold by countries that export GA crops. It protects European ag from competition. Same with India. The agricultural scientists in India even went so far as to tell their gov that there was no scientific evidence supporting the import ban. In response the gov fired their scientists.

2. Wrong. See above.

elchivito 10-27-2013 06:28 PM

I would like them labeled, yes. I like to know what I'm eating.

SwampYankee 10-27-2013 07:21 PM

Genetically Engineered foods, ie. foreign DNA introduced in a lab, yes.

Genetically Modified, ie. every conventionally bred hybrid or naturally occuring selected OP varieties, no. The average consumer won't buy good ol' Butter & Sugar or Silver Queen sweet corn from the roadside farmer when he/she's got to hang a GMO advisory on their farmstand.

When the time comes, I hope they get the terminology correct so there are no unintended consequences. I have little to no faith in them to do so.

MTUpower 10-27-2013 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link (Post 3229719)
There is a lot of debate about the disclosure of foods which have been genetically modified (GMO or GE). The food industry has been aggressively campaigning to suppress disclosure about this detail, while just about everyone else is strongly in favor. Following is an article in support of labeling GMO, but my question is what are your thoughts on this?


Why Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled

by
Carole Bartolotto
Registered dietitian

Did you know that you have been enrolled in the largest research study ever conducted in the United States but you never signed a consent form or agreed to participate? That's because since 1996 you -- and basically everyone you know -- have been eating genetically modified foods.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as genetically modified or engineered foods, are created by forcing a piece of DNA from a totally different species, such as bacteria or viruses, into the DNA of a plant or animal. For example, genetically engineered soybeans have DNA from bacteria and viruses spliced into their DNA to help them tolerate weed killers such as Roundup.

This genetic feat creates a whole new species of plant that would have never occurred in nature. Most soybeans, corn, canola, cotton, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, some zucchini and yellow squash, and alfalfa are genetically modified. Products such as oil, high fructose corn syrup, and sugar are created from these crops and added to processed foods. This explains why nearly 80 percent of processed and most fast foods contain GMOs.

The question is, are GMOs safe for us and the environment? Actually, the answers are not clear. There are no long-term studies demonstrating that GMOs are safe for humans and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not do its own safety testing of GMOs. Instead, the biotech companies that are tying to commercialize these crops do their own safety assessments, which the FDA only reviews. However, there are animal studies with negative findings, including organ damage, infertility, and immune system changes. It is clear we need more research in this area.

The environment is another issue. What are the implications when a genetically modified plant crossbreeds with other plants? The monarch butterflies are declining due to the destruction of milkweed. What other consequences are possible? Super bugs and super weeds are already showing up. Do we really want to irreversibly change the face of plant life with unknown consequences for the monetary benefit of a few large corporations and their investors?

The bottom line is that we have a product in our food supply with unknown health and environmental implications. At the very least, we should have these foods labeled. However, try as we might, we cannot make that happen in the U.S. Even though 9 out of 10 people want them labeled, the biotech companies and food manufacturers do not. If their products are beneficial and safe, why not label them? Why not be proud of your product? Over 60 countries, including China, label GMOs and some countries ban them. Why can't we have transparency in our food supply?

Washington's Initiative 522 to label genetically engineered foods, on the November ballot, will help us get the transparency we desire. But companies such as Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agrosciences, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (a trade group) will pay millions to create misleading and factually incorrect ads telling Washingtonites that labeling will cost money, hurt farmers, and isn't necessary because GMOs are safe. However, we know if a food has high fructose corn syrup, trans fat, or is irradiated. Why can't we know if it's genetically engineered? The biggest fear of these companies is that once GMOs are labeled, we won't want to eat them anymore. And that may happen, just like it did when we found out there was pink slime in our hamburgers!

Our country is based on a free market economy. If you are supplying a product and we don't want it, then the market dictates it will go away. This is why the biotech companies and food manufacturers will probably spend over 25 million dollars to prevent the labeling of GMOs.

I don't know about you, but I always loved a good David and Goliath story. If Washington's Initiative 522 passes and genetically modified foods are labeled, that is exactly what we will have. And, it just might change the face of American agriculture forever.

This post was adapted from an article originally published in LA Progressive.

from: Why Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled | Carole Bartolotto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TylerH860 (Post 3224521)
I dont know the laws well, but I don't think an exerPt is supposed to be more than a few sentences/paragraph. Just to be safe we delete threads to not subject the website to any trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TylerH860 (Post 3224517)
Whunter deleted the thread due to copyrighted materials being posted. Post the link, not the text.

So shouldn't this thread be deleted?

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/345507-should-genetically-modified-foods-labeled.html

t walgamuth 10-27-2013 09:36 PM

It is not an infringement because its source is named.

MTUpower 10-28-2013 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3229895)
It is not an infringement because its source is named.

Oh good! Thanks Tom I appreciate that from our sites sticky author regarding copyright infringement. here's a good read about GM corn... and it's not the whole article. Read more on the link.

By ANDREW POLLACK
<---- Here is it's name!
Published: October 7, 2013

WAIMEA, Hawaii — The balmy tropical isles here seem worlds apart from the expansive cornfields of the Midwest, but Hawaii has become the latest battleground in the fight over genetically modified crops.
Enlarge This Image
Toby Hoogs for The New York Times

“Without G.M.O., there would be no papaya in Hawaii,” said Eric Weinert, general manager of Hawaii operations for Calavo Growers, a papaya packer.

EDITED
...

Botnst 10-28-2013 07:50 AM

Jesus Christ, get over it.

Mods aren't paid. Each Mod looks at things a bit differently and so combining a thankless job with human nature you're gonna have differences. SFW?

Move along.

MTI 10-28-2013 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 3229976)
Jesus Christ, get over it.

Mods aren't paid. Each Mod looks at things a bit differently and so combining a thankless job with human nature you're gonna have differences. SFW?

Move along.

You do know who you're talkin' to, right? ;)

tjts1 10-28-2013 11:05 AM

Quote:

Should Genetically Modified Foods Be Labeled?
no

P.C. 10-28-2013 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower (Post 3229974)
Oh good! Thanks Tom- here's a good read about GM corn... and it's not the whole article. Read more on the link.

By ANDREW POLLACK
<---- Here is it's name!
Published: October 7, 2013

WAIMEA, Hawaii — The balmy tropical isles here seem worlds apart from the expansive cornfields of the Midwest, but Hawaii has become the latest battleground in the fight over genetically modified crops.
Enlarge This Image
Toby Hoogs for The New York Times

“Without G.M.O., there would be no papaya in Hawaii,” said Eric Weinert, general manager of Hawaii operations for Calavo Growers, a papaya packer.

The state has become a hub for the development of genetically engineered corn and other crops that are sold to farmers around the globe. Monsanto and other seed companies have moved here en masse, and corn now sprouts on thousands of acres where sugar cane or pineapples once grew.

But activists opposed to biotech crops have joined with residents who say the corn farms expose them to dust and pesticides, and they are trying to drive the companies away, or at least rein them in.

The companies counter that their operations are safe and that the industry is essential to Hawaii’s economy.

In the last two weeks, legislative committees on the islands of Kauai and Hawaii have approved proposed ordinances that would restrict the ability of the seed companies to operate. The Kauai bill will go before the full County Council on Tuesday.

“It’s a paradise over here that is being ruined by this,” said Michiyo Altomare, who lives in this small town on Kauai that is just across a narrow river from a bluff upon which the seed company Pioneer grows corn.

Ms. Altomare and her husband, Corrado, built their dream house here 30 years ago, hoping to enjoy the winds that waft down from the bluff. But when sugar cane gave way to corn, she said, those winds began carrying fine red soil that coated her counters, forcing the family to shut their windows and install central air-conditioning.

On some occasions, Ms. Altomare smelled pesticides and called the police. Mr. Altomare suffers from high platelet levels that his doctor said could have resulted from chemical exposure. The couple’s grown children, she said, “don’t want to live here.”

The seed companies say the pesticides and genetically engineered crops are already well regulated by the federal and state governments. They say curtailment of the Hawaii operations would disrupt agriculture for the nation.

“Almost any corn seed sold in the U.S. touches Hawaii somewhere” in its development, said Mark Phillipson, an executive of Syngenta, a Swiss seed and agrochemical company. Mr. Phillipson is also president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, which represents the seed companies.

The companies are supported by those who say the seed business is vital to the economy. Seeds are Hawaii’s leading agricultural commodity, contributing $264 million to the economy and 1,400 jobs, according to a study commissioned by the companies.

Hearings on the bills have often lasted into the night and overflowed their locations.

Kauai seems to be in a summer camp color war, with supporters of the bill wearing red T-shirts and opponents blue ones. An estimated 1,500 to 4,000 people in red shirts marched in favor of the bill in early September. The seed companies are here because the warm climate allows for three corn crops to be harvested in a year, compared with one in the Midwest. That accelerates the several generations of crossbreeding needed to perfect a new variety.

“Instead of taking 13 years to develop a new variety, it takes seven years,” said Ryan K. Oyama, a research scientist at Pioneer, which is owned by DuPont.

There are as many biotech crop-field trials in Hawaii as in Iowa or Illinois, mostly for corn but also soybeans, wheat and rice. The output of Hawaii is not corn for food or feed, but seeds that are shipped to the mainland, where they are further multiplied and eventually sold to farmers.

Breeding is also needed for nonengineered crops, and some of the companies have had operations in Hawaii since the 1960s.

But the operations have expanded in the last two decades as the sugar and pineapple industries collapsed in the face of cheaper foreign competition and the state began seeking new uses for the abandoned land.

Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, Dow and BASF occupy a combined 25,000 out of the state’s 280,000 acres of agricultural land, with operations on Kauai, Oahu, Maui and Molokai.
The companies lease some land from the state and some from private owners, like the Robinson family, which also owns the island of Niihau, and Stephen M. Case, the Hawaii-born former chairman of AOL.
Enlarge This Image
Cory Lum for The New York Times

Howard Hurst, a teacher at a middle school, described an episode in which pesticides caused an evacuation.

Mr. Case said that using abandoned sugar land for seed crops was better than watching it grow weeds. “Our tenants comply with all local laws and will comply with any new ordinances that pass,” he said in a statement.

The seed companies are not on the Big Island, Hawaii. The proposed bill there, which passed a committee of the county council by a 6-2 vote on Oct. 1, would keep it that way by prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified crops.

A hearing on the bill on Sept. 23 featured a parade of witnesses citing dangers of genetically modified crops that many scientists would not support.

But most of the food eaten in Hawaii comes from outside the state anyway, and will remain largely the same whether the ordinances are enacted.

The Big Island does not have many large parcels suitable for corn in any case. But most of the island’s papayas are genetically engineered to resist a virus that almost wiped out the crop in the 1990s.

“Without G.M.O., there would be no papaya in Hawaii,” said Eric Weinert, general manager of Hawaii operations for Calavo Growers, a papaya packer, using the abbreviation for genetically modified organisms.

Under pressure, the bill was amended to exempt papaya. But papaya growers say the ordinance will still taint the image of their product and might lead to more incidents, such as one that occurred last month, in which vandals cut down their trees at night. More is at stake for the biotech industry on Kauai, which accounts for about half of the total seed company acreage in Hawaii. Even some people sympathetic to the companies said they perhaps did not pay enough attention to community concerns that had festered for years.

In 2000, about 100 residents of Waimea petitioned Pioneer and other growers to control the dust blowing off their farms. In 2011, saying Pioneer had not done enough, more than 150 residents, including the Altomares, sued the company. Pioneer declined to comment on issues under litigation.

Pesticides are an even bigger concern. From 2006 to 2008, students and teachers at Waimea Canyon Middle School, which is near a Syngenta field, complained of noxious odors on several occasions. In the worst incident, the buildings were evacuated and “some kids went to the hospital,” said Howard Hurst, a teacher there. Some doctors say the region seems to have unusually high rates of asthma, cancer and birth defects.

Such anecdotes and suspicions are hard to substantiate. Indeed, a report by the state found that the incidence of cancer on Kauai, including the region around Waimea, was generally the same or even lower than for the state as a whole. Another study, paid for the state and county, lent support to Syngenta’s contention that the middle school odors were from the aptly named stinkweed, not pesticides.

Still, demands have intensified for further studies and for disclosure of what pesticides are used.

The bill before the Kauai County Council, introduced by Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum, would require such disclosure and would establish no-spray zones around schools, hospitals, residences, public roads and waterways.

The bill also called for a moratorium on expansion of biotech cropland and a ban on open-air testing of experimental genetically modified crops, provisions that were later removed by the committee after one member argued that the issue was pesticides, not genetic modification..

The companies had argued that the original bill might force them off the island. They also said it would be impractical to disclose pesticide use in advance because spraying decisions were often made only after seeing what pests were present.

On Sept. 27, the day the committee was to consider the bill, supporters in red shirts arrived as early as 2:30 a.m. to ensure they would get seats for the 9 a.m. meeting.

The more numerous opponents in blue shirts, many of them seed company workers, began arriving at 4 a.m. Shortly before 9:30 p.m., more than 12 hours after the meeting began, the committee approved an amended bill 4 to 1. The supporters in red cheered.

...

How old are you?

spdrun 10-28-2013 11:24 AM

Ironic that GMO corn is being tested on lands formerly used for sugar cane, since toxic corn syrup from GMO corn has replaced cane sugar for a lot of things in the US.

Botnst 10-28-2013 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun (Post 3230034)
Ironic that GMO corn is being tested on lands formerly used for sugar cane, since toxic corn syrup from GMO corn has replaced cane sugar for a lot of things in the US.

I didn't know corn-derived sugar was toxic. How did I miss that?

MTI 10-28-2013 01:29 PM

You should have seen how upset some folks in Hawaii got when it a proposal was made to genetically modify taro.

GMO taro pits Hawaiians against some scientists | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper

link 10-28-2013 01:52 PM

MTU

First I suggest you look into fair use. For a reference use the following Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, or the source of your choice.

Secondly, note that this particular source is a blog author, and the work is not copyrighted.

Third to the moderators, and anyone else: if I’ve inadvertently violated a rule here, I apologize. However, I have not violated copyrights nor fair use. If anyone looks at my posts which contain material quoted from another site they always have the author’s name, the date of publication, if provided, and always include a direct link to the source. That itself presents full disclosure and as such is proof not only that there is no plagiarism intended or implied, but, in addition, those details are also crucial for the sake of fulfilling some criteria for fair use.

I do not read every post on this board. There are some authors, MTU among them, whose threads I seldom bother to comment upon or typically to read. People bring their lives everywhere they go and some posters are obviously unhappy. They often make their posts more about being unhappy rather than to contribute to any subject. I’ve been posting here long enough to recognize regulars who do this.

With the above put in text, fair use permits reproduction of articles for a variety of purposes. The one that fits this site the most clearly is the fact that the article is posted for what amounts to academic discussion rather than any commercial gain. In addition, once again, the work is not copyrighted.

P.C. 10-28-2013 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 3230048)
I didn't know corn-derived sugar was toxic. How did I miss that?

You were reeling from a bowl of Crispix at the time.

MTUpower 10-28-2013 02:15 PM

Terms and Conditions

Welcome to The Huffington Post. Please read these Terms and Conditions before using ...

2. We Have All Rights In Our Site and Content; You Grant Us Certain Rights When You Submit Content to Us:
(a) Our site (including all text, photographs, graphics, video and audio content contained on our site) is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries, and we (subject to the rights of our licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) have all rights therein. All individual articles, blogs, videos, content and other elements comprising our site are also copyrighted works, and we (subject to the rights of our licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) have all rights therein. You must abide by all additional copyright notices or restrictions contained on our site.

MTUpower 10-28-2013 02:22 PM

fair use argument vs copyright law posted on site from OP link...
Huffington Post
http://www.ultimatetop10s.com/wp-con..._picture_7.jpg

MTI 10-28-2013 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower (Post 3230100)
Terms and Conditions

Welcome to The Huffington Post. Please read these Terms and Conditions before using ...

2. We Have All Rights In Our Site and Content; You Grant Us Certain Rights When You Submit Content to Us:
(a) Our site (including all text, photographs, graphics, video and audio content contained on our site) is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries, and we (subject to the rights of our licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) have all rights therein. All individual articles, blogs, videos, content and other elements comprising our site are also copyrighted works, and we (subject to the rights of our licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) have all rights therein. You must abide by all additional copyright notices or restrictions contained on our site.

How about quoting a bit further down . . . like the last sentence of 4(a)?

Just as we from time to time excerpt materials from other sources in order to support the various commentaries and writings contained herein, we respect the right of others to make “fair use” of the materials contained on our site; accordingly, you may from time to time excerpt and use materials set forth on this site consistent with the principles of “fair use”.

http://perusals.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fairuse.jpg

P.C. 10-28-2013 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower (Post 3230100)
Terms and Conditions

Welcome to The Huffington Post. Please read these Terms and Conditions before using ...

2. We Have All Rights In Our Site and Content; You Grant Us Certain Rights When You Submit Content to Us:
(a) Our site (including all text, photographs, graphics, video and audio content contained on our site) is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries, and we (subject to the rights of our licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) have all rights therein. All individual articles, blogs, videos, content and other elements comprising our site are also copyrighted works, and we (subject to the rights of our licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) have all rights therein. You must abide by all additional copyright notices or restrictions contained on our site.

Then you have no alternative but to conclude that your post is itself a copyright violation...

Mölyapina 10-28-2013 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C. (Post 3230113)
Then you have no alternative but to conclude that your post is itself a copyright violation...

Win.

link 10-28-2013 03:24 PM

This is ridiculous. Would a moderator kindly lock this thread. I can’t find how to do it myself.

Someone needs a vacation, imo….

MTI 10-28-2013 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link (Post 3230131)
This is ridiculous. Would a moderator kindly lock this thread. I can’t find how to do it myself.

Someone needs a vacation, imo….

Wait, what . . . you think you own this thread . . . ;)

http://i.qkme.me/3tv16q.jpg

Mölyapina 10-28-2013 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI (Post 3230150)
Wait, what . . . you think you own this thread . . . ;)

Maybe he has a copyright on it... wait, no, Pelican does! Is quoting you copyright fraud?

t walgamuth 10-28-2013 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link (Post 3230131)
This is ridiculous. Would a moderator kindly lock this thread. I can’t find how to do it myself.

Someone needs a vacation, imo….

Since Larry's exile MTU has been on a tear. Its off season so maybe he is very bored.???

P.C. 10-28-2013 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3230190)
Since Larry's exile MTU has been on a tear. Its off season so maybe he is very bored.???

He's Larry's avenger. What a lofty calling!

MTUpower 10-28-2013 05:58 PM

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploa...6-44273473.jpg

we need to have another conference, damn it ... these pesky animals think they are all equal.

TylerH860 10-29-2013 07:46 PM

Here is the sticky. We are simply doing as requested:



The Webmaster has requested that we post this thread to inform members that we will be enforcing our cardinal rule about not posting any copyrighted materials here on the forum.

Clarifications of what is copyrighted material:

It is safe to assume that anything published in the news media, for example, is copyrighted. Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, countless online magazines, etc. Most books are copyrighted. Mercedes WIS, Mercedes EPC, AllData.

It is also pretty easy to spot when someone copies a large volume of text from one of the above sources and simply pastes it into a post. You will notice that it doesn't sound like the poster actually composed these words.

It's ok to link to the source of the copyrighted material but, you can't just copy and paste it...especially if you don't include the source information. It's also ok to include a small segment of an article as long as you list the source. "I read in the Wall Street Journal that speculators are driving up the prices for crude oil even though supplies of crude are near an all time high". Something like that or even more detailed than that is ok. Cutting and pasting the entire article is not ok.

This emphasis will result in automatic banning on the third offense,

Recently deleted threads with such material will be treated with a warning but in the future there will be points applied.

I am going to lock this thread but it may be modified as the subject is further clarified.

Thanks very much!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website