If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Research)   Federal judge rules that Monsanto can sue farmers for the wind   (globalresearch.ca) divider line 243
    More: Stupid, GMOs, Monsanto, Supreme Court, Organic Seed Growers, organic labels, farmers, United States courts of appeals, plain  
•       •       •

12572 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 5:09 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



243 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-15 05:49:16 PM

sprgrss: Teiritzamna: sprgrss: The nuisance action wouldn't be against Monsanto, but against the neighboring farmers, if such a tort claim actually exists.  It's too attenuated.

Read my above response, i mostly agree with you.  I do however think there could be a claim if it could be shown that Monsanto pollen is more likely to spread/Monsanto products are harder to contain.  I personally have heard no evidence suggesting this, or course, but I haven't heard anything to the contrary either.  I could see in a suit against a neighboring farmer joining Monsanto and alleging that they the seller sold "defective goods" in that they were more likely to spread.

I think anyone making such a claim would lose - but they might be able to get past a 12(b)(6)

The plaintiff would lack privity of contract with Monsanto, so they wouldn't be able to sue for Monsanto selling "defective goods."


I believe he meant that the defendant would bring in Monsanto as a rule 14 third party defendant to indemnify them.
 
2014-01-15 05:50:18 PM

KidneyStone: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

More like pollen, but yeah. And Monsanto has been doing it for years.


No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.
 
2014-01-15 05:51:27 PM
If you're a local farmer whose crop has been contaminated, you should sue Monsanto for damaging your property.
 
2014-01-15 05:52:18 PM

sprgrss: KidneyStone: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

More like pollen, but yeah. And Monsanto has been doing it for years.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.


Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!
 
2014-01-15 05:53:38 PM

megarian: This is f*cking stupid.


It's only gonna get worse.

There will be blood.

Eventually.
 
2014-01-15 05:53:53 PM

sprgrss: tlars699:
Then the organic farmers' lawyers are stupid, because polluting the environment, inhibiting your productivity, is a very real thing that you can sue over.
Organic Non-GMO farmers' corn would be polluted by Monsanto DNA, thus ensuring that the farmers can only sell their inspected goods as inferior product at lower prices- ie GMO corn.

Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.


The highly-underfunded and -understaffed regulatory bodies that are supposed to be covering more than they can reasonably handle? Those? Yeah, that reassures me quite a bit...

/When you don't fund your regulatory bodies, you sell them to megacorporations
//And if Product X sells for more than Product Y because it is not Product Y, then when it becomes Product Y that is a major loss, regardless of your feelings on GMOs. GMO and non-GMO are not the same thing in any sense.
 
2014-01-15 05:54:15 PM

The Life Of Brian: sprgrss: KidneyStone: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

More like pollen, but yeah. And Monsanto has been doing it for years.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.

Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!


Considering that every single person with legal training in here is saying that this decision was proper, regardless of their feelings towards Monsanto, is it more likely that he's right or that we're all shills?

/yesterday, I was apparently the CEO of EA, so I'm fine with being called the CEO of Monsanto today. It's a step upwards in dignity.
 
2014-01-15 05:56:46 PM

Theaetetus: I believe he meant that the defendant would bring in Monsanto as a rule 14 third party defendant to indemnify them.


Sorry - wasn't clear.  Yes, i could see a third party practice action.

Also, thinking about it (although i think they are fairly ridiculous) there have been enough "private pollution suits" against manufacturers with no privity between the parties (see MTBE suits) that i could see some state negligence tort getting jujitsued into a CoA against Monsanto.
 
2014-01-15 05:57:31 PM

Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: Farmers who've been contaminated can't bank their own seeds and replant without being in violation of the patent law despite the fact that they've never bought the product and that it was the wind that put it on their property (or Monsanto employees with a vendetta).

Bad facts make bad law. In the Bowman case, he wasn't just an innocent farmer who happened to have windblown patented seeds in his field - he bred several generations while applying RoundUp specifically to kill off all of the non-Monsanto crops and get a genetically pure Monsanto field. Him being a dick and trying to get something without paying for it basically killed any chance of a favorable decision on patent exhaustion.


Is bowman the guy in food inc?
 
2014-01-15 05:57:52 PM
You know I'm not sure WHAT I think of GMO products.... Is it ok to take a fish gene and put it in corn (just making up something)...

What I hate is the corporate control and 'ownership' the courts seem to be giving to corporations..

HOW can you patent LIFE? Modified or not?

On topic, HOW can you sue me if I grow your shiat on MY property - If I STOLE it then there are laws against that already on the books....If I bought it, or it blew in, too bad - it's MINE.

There should be no laws against what nature does, well, naturally!
 
2014-01-15 05:58:23 PM

The Life Of Brian: sprgrss: KidneyStone: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

More like pollen, but yeah. And Monsanto has been doing it for years.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.

Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!


If they HAVE sued someone for being contaminated with their stuff then that would be outrageous! Please can you supply some links of info on that I would love to know more.
 
2014-01-15 05:59:43 PM

SquiggsIN: Beyond the cases where this exact scenario has happened?  Monsanto has frequently done "spot inspections" of non-customers fields and then sued them for having a portion of their crop that had been contaminated by the glyphosate-resistant (Round-up ready) version of crops they've patented


[citation needed.jpg]

Monsato has not sued any farmer for having inadvertent wind blown seeds that contaminated their crops.  In fact, they have promised they will never sue a farmer that has only trace amounts of their patented seed in their field.

This lawsuit was apparently an effort by some people to proactively force Monsato to give them preemptive immunity to use Roundup ready seeds even if it's more than the trace amounts that might appear in their crops by the wind.    That's just silly.  No company is going to give blanket immunity to a set of plaintiffs ahead of time that would essentially allow those plaintiffs to steal their intellectual property in unlimited amounts and pay no fees or royalties.

 
2014-01-15 05:59:45 PM

Theaetetus: legal training


Oh, Theae, look to your  4th Edition Farktionary:

Shill: A person who actually knows something about a subject and attempts to correct urban legends/"Everyone Panic!" stories
 
2014-01-15 06:00:51 PM

Theaetetus: Considering that every single person with legal training in here is saying that this decision was proper, regardless of their feelings towards Monsanto, is it more likely that he's right or that we're all shills?



WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAW IS ON MONSANTO'S SIDE.  We understand that you/etc might be lawyers.  The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?
 
2014-01-15 06:01:47 PM
This confirms my belief in HAARP being funded by Monsanto so they can take over the globe by seeding winds they create and direct via high power transmissions into the ionosphere.


Did they pinky-swear to not sue? If you don't have it in writing you can bet they reserve the right to do so.

/Thanks Obama!
 
2014-01-15 06:02:16 PM

simkatu: SquiggsIN: Beyond the cases where this exact scenario has happened?  Monsanto has frequently done "spot inspections" of non-customers fields and then sued them for having a portion of their crop that had been contaminated by the glyphosate-resistant (Round-up ready) version of crops they've patented

[citation needed.jpg]

Monsato has not sued any farmer for having inadvertent wind blown seeds that contaminated their crops.  In fact, they have promised they will never sue a farmer that has only trace amounts of their patented seed in their field.

This lawsuit was apparently an effort by some people to proactively force Monsato to give them preemptive immunity to use Roundup ready seeds even if it's more than the trace amounts that might appear in their crops by the wind.    That's just silly.  No company is going to give blanket immunity to a set of plaintiffs ahead of time that would essentially allow those plaintiffs to steal their intellectual property in unlimited amounts and pay no fees or royalties.


This law suit is bs, but if I am a farmer who collects and reseeds, with everyone around me using round up ready, then I'd think in a few seasons, despite my wishes, my fields are going to be a lot more than trace amounts.
 
2014-01-15 06:02:26 PM

The Life Of Brian: You know I'm not sure WHAT I think of GMO products...


All I know is that Monsanto cucumbers cause genital baldness.  Google it!
.
.
.
.
.
/KIDDING!
 
2014-01-15 06:03:42 PM

The Life Of Brian: HOW can you patent LIFE? Modified or not?


Because if it's an artificially created organism that didn't exist in nature before, and it's not obvious to create it, then why shouldn't you be able to patent it? They've got biological computers now that can do simple calculations - should they be unpatentable, simply because they use RNA instead of transistors?

More importantly, organisms have been patentable for 30 years, during which time, Congress has twice amended the patent act without adding a single exemption, so there's a presumption that Congress intended the patent act to cover such things.

/incidentally, the same argument applies to processes performed by a computer
 
2014-01-15 06:04:01 PM

sprgrss: tlars699:
Then the organic farmers' lawyers are stupid, because polluting the environment, inhibiting your productivity, is a very real thing that you can sue over.
Organic Non-GMO farmers' corn would be polluted by Monsanto DNA, thus ensuring that the farmers can only sell their inspected goods as inferior product at lower prices- ie GMO corn.

Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.


I hope you're not a real lawyer.  If someone (like one of the plaintiffs) is growing heirloom seed as a business, and their seed is contaminated by GMO genetic material, they can no longer sell that seed to those who do not want GMO seed.  They have been injured.

GMO seed is not yet mandatory.

Give it time.
 
2014-01-15 06:05:13 PM

SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.


Sure, but then your complaint shouldn't be about "stupid judges" or "corrupt courts", but rather "stupid legislators" and "corrupt congress". 

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?

Nah, it's normal. People tend to hate and fear that which they don't understand.
 
2014-01-15 06:05:30 PM

SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.


So you should be allowed to sue someone to stop them from doing something that they are not doing and have agreed they won't do?  Could you explain exactly what part of this law is wrong?  How would you fix it?

SquiggsIN: Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?


Because they understand how laws work?  Because as far as I can tell, you really really want to be mad about something here, are deeply misinformed about what that thing is, and are now lashing out against those who are attempting to help you remedy your ignorance.  I mean, whatever floats your boat, but pissed off and ignorant is no way to  . . . well ok its actually the American Pastime.  Carry on.
 
2014-01-15 06:05:38 PM
The US Supreme Court upheld biotech giant Monsanto's claims on genetically-engineered seed patents and the company's ability to sue farmers whose fields are inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto materials.

/So, in other words, unless you use our seed, we will sue the shiat out of you until you do. So much for a free and fair market..
 
2014-01-15 06:05:38 PM

Theaetetus: The Life Of Brian: sprgrss: KidneyStone: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

More like pollen, but yeah. And Monsanto has been doing it for years.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.

Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!

Considering that every single person with legal training in here is saying that this decision was proper, regardless of their feelings towards Monsanto, is it more likely that he's right or that we're all shills?

/yesterday, I was apparently the CEO of EA, so I'm fine with being called the CEO of Monsanto today. It's a step upwards in dignity.


So does that mean I cannot have a different opinion? I may have a GED in law somewhere around here..hell I think there are some homeless people buried under the crap I have in my house!

(FYI - I have you fav in green with the comment " favorite: Cool. Shoots down morons" So I'm not being an ass, or at least not try to..I have been drinking!)
 
2014-01-15 06:07:03 PM

Teiritzamna: Oh for the love of . . .

1) the Supreme Court denied to hear the case.  This isnt a ruling, they generally deny to hear +99% of cases.

2) this was a suit by organic farmers suing Monsanto to preclude them from suing farmers in the future for inadvertant infringement (i.e. wind based distribution) .

3) As Monsanto hasn't brought such a suit, the organic farmers had no standing to sue.  There was no controversy (farmers were asking the court to prevent Monsanto from doing something Monsanto wasn't doing).

4) There is really no new or interesting law here, so of course the SCOTUS passed.

I may hate Monsanto too, but Jesus, this is a serious non-story here


Yep

/stop making since on this site. it will get you called all kinds of names.
 
2014-01-15 06:07:24 PM
*shrugs* watch Monsanto's GMO products get affected by an unstoppable virus strain
 
2014-01-15 06:07:57 PM

NickelP: simkatu: SquiggsIN: Beyond the cases where this exact scenario has happened?  Monsanto has frequently done "spot inspections" of non-customers fields and then sued them for having a portion of their crop that had been contaminated by the glyphosate-resistant (Round-up ready) version of crops they've patented

[citation needed.jpg]

Monsato has not sued any farmer for having inadvertent wind blown seeds that contaminated their crops.  In fact, they have promised they will never sue a farmer that has only trace amounts of their patented seed in their field.

This lawsuit was apparently an effort by some people to proactively force Monsato to give them preemptive immunity to use Roundup ready seeds even if it's more than the trace amounts that might appear in their crops by the wind.    That's just silly.  No company is going to give blanket immunity to a set of plaintiffs ahead of time that would essentially allow those plaintiffs to steal their intellectual property in unlimited amounts and pay no fees or royalties.

This law suit is bs, but if I am a farmer who collects and reseeds, with everyone around me using round up ready, then I'd think in a few seasons, despite my wishes, my fields are going to be a lot more than trace amounts.


Just reread it. They pledged not to sue if less than 1% is their seed. What a joke.
 
2014-01-15 06:08:13 PM

AdamK: *shrugs* watch Monsanto's GMO products get affected by an unstoppable virus strain


You tease.
 
2014-01-15 06:08:39 PM

Cathedralmaster: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

Yes.

Monsanto: The First Ones Up Against the Wall When the Revolution Comes


Get your Guy Fawkes masks, ham radio's and pitchforks ready...

But seriously there is a diminishing retruns effect going on.  Things continue to get so bizarre and f'd that there is less ability to form a reaction.  This just seems like another move toward a straight corporatocracy.

Am I that wrong?
 
2014-01-15 06:09:47 PM

The Life Of Brian: So does that mean I cannot have a different opinion?


Nah - see above. Saying "the law  should be changed" is one thing, and may even get us agreeing. Saying "the court was wrong" is a different thing. The latter is objectively wrong, and gets our pedantic and judiciary-supportin' hairs up, while the former is more of a subjective political and policy question.

(FYI - I have you fav in green with the comment " favorite: Cool. Shoots down morons" So I'm not being an ass, or at least not try to..I have been drinking!)

Aw, thanks!
 
2014-01-15 06:10:19 PM

vudukungfu: This federal judge sponsored by Monsanto.


QFT
 
2014-01-15 06:10:21 PM

meow said the dog: It is not something which I have the familiarity but sometimes I do the wearing of the boy briefs because they have the comfort so perhaps for the boy this is also the thing which provides to he the comfort. Was this the boyshorts or the thong of the underwear? I am not someone who has the assureness of this but would wish for learning of so.


Loving very much to be having the pleasure of reading this, Meow.
 
2014-01-15 06:11:00 PM

Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

Sure, but then your complaint shouldn't be about "stupid judges" or "corrupt courts", but rather "stupid legislators" and "corrupt congress". 

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?

Nah, it's normal. People tend to hate and fear that which they don't understand.


That's the worst part about most lawyers.  You all think you're smarter than the rest of us because you're in the DELIBERATELY-CONVOLUTED PROFESSION of law-making.
 
2014-01-15 06:11:54 PM

highendmighty: The Life Of Brian: You know I'm not sure WHAT I think of GMO products...

All I know is that Monsanto cucumbers cause genital baldness.  Google it!
.
.
.
.
.
/KIDDING!


Well I keep putting those cuc's in my salad and STILL have to man-scape every week!

WHY cannot Monsanto get on the IMPORTANT genetic stuff - MORE hair on TOP, LESS hair down low!

Come on - REALLY - would that not be where the REAL money is - and what's with back hair! I LAY on my back so its not like it needs insulation!

/ya ya...have an appointment with my psychiatrist tomorrow..nobody call 911, or 999 or ...
 
2014-01-15 06:12:35 PM
I wonder how long it will be before people rightfully start blowing up Monsanto offices and facilities?
 
2014-01-15 06:13:04 PM

SquiggsIN: Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

Sure, but then your complaint shouldn't be about "stupid judges" or "corrupt courts", but rather "stupid legislators" and "corrupt congress". 

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?

Nah, it's normal. People tend to hate and fear that which they don't understand.

That's the worst part about most lawyers.  You all think you're smarter than the rest of us because you're in the DELIBERATELY-CONVOLUTED PROFESSION of law-making.


I'm also an engineer. That makes me even more technical and pedantic.
 
2014-01-15 06:14:26 PM
Hmmm tying to decide...should I go with citation needed? or It's a conspiracy! in this thread.
 
2014-01-15 06:15:48 PM

tlars699: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

Actually if Monsanto Pollen can be found to have germinated your corn, then yes, they can sue you for not buying their genetics. They have developed a genetic code that enables them to figure that out fairly quickly, sort of like a trademark on DNA.
See, you're not paying them for seed corn. You're paying them for a genetic product that they exclusively developed from scratch. So, if you have their genetic product in your corn, then you're stealing their product.

However, this would all change if it were considered biological contamination, otherwise known as pollution.



-- Best response there.

---- FTA:
"If Monsanto can patent seeds for financial gain, they should be forced to pay for contaminating a farmer's field, not be allowed to sue them,"said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, in a statement  "Once again, America's farmers have been denied justice, while Monsanto's reign of intimidation is allowed to continue in rural America."

I'm REALLY surprised there haven't been terrorist attacks on anything Monsanto yet.
Or have they happened and the Monsanto-bought PRESS didn't mention it?
 
2014-01-15 06:16:35 PM

sprgrss: tlars699: sprgrss: tlars699:
And just because they haven't sued these particular farmers yet, their behavioral trend shows that they would have, if the farmers hadn't prevented it.

No, not even remotely close.  The farmers didn't prevent anything.

Are they being sued right this very minute? No? Would they have been by now if they hadn't started this process? Yes? Prevention occurred... for now.
Though agreed, it doesn't really stop Monsanto, once this blows over.

Have they ever been sued for what they putatively stopped Monsanto from suing them for?  No.

They didn't stop anything.


Those particular farmers, no. Other farmers who used seed corn derived from their crops after being incidentally pollinated by Monsanto growing neighbors? Yes.
Though this NPR link makes the dude with the most profiled case of this set of circumstances look like a real douche bag.
Still, they sued him even though it took him several growing seasons to cultivate that kind of corn.
Saying you own a patent on genetics on any living organism should not hold up in court. He did not buy their seeds, true, but it wasn't really their DNA either.
It was a knock-off that he created for his own use.
 
2014-01-15 06:16:54 PM

Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

Sure, but then your complaint shouldn't be about "stupid judges" or "corrupt courts", but rather "stupid legislators" and "corrupt congress". 

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?

Nah, it's normal. People tend to hate and fear that which they don't understand.

That's the worst part about most lawyers.  You all think you're smarter than the rest of us because you're in the DELIBERATELY-CONVOLUTED PROFESSION of law-making.

I'm also an engineer. That makes me even more technical and pedantic.


After going to engineering school and being around nothing but engineers for a few years I decided I didn't want to be around assholes like you all the time.  Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.
 
2014-01-15 06:17:01 PM
"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters. "

I swear their garden division said they would not be pursuing home seed savers, mostly because 1) no GMOs are available to the home gardener, and 2) you typically don't save hybrid seed; but I cannot ind it again.

Haven't those sued so far had like 90%+ purity, pretty much negating any claims of "accidental" contamination?

I'd also like to add that piracy of the product also negates claims that "no farmer really wants this stuff"

Finally, and far more strenuously, can we please, please, PLEASE!!!!!! rethink the patenting of life, especially plant life?
 
2014-01-15 06:17:07 PM
Why isn't Monsanto being sued for polluting neighboring farms with GMOs?
 
2014-01-15 06:17:50 PM

gaspode: The Life Of Brian: sprgrss: KidneyStone: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

More like pollen, but yeah. And Monsanto has been doing it for years.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.

Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!

If they HAVE sued someone for being contaminated with their stuff then that would be outrageous! Please can you supply some links of info on that I would love to know more.


I'll preface this with the fact I'm too lazy to look it up and its from memory, but I've watched a couple times a documentary on CBC - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - about a farmers who decided to fight Monsanto over them taking legal action after they kept seed from their OWN fields that got cross contaminated by adjacent Monsanto fields of 'patented' plants.

Now I could look it up... But hey, I'm drunk..and you can easily look it up on Google too..
 
2014-01-15 06:18:40 PM

NickelP: Just reread it. They pledged not to sue if less than 1% is their seed. What a joke.


But in all the years of Roundup there has never been a person with more than 1% of their crop that was Roundup ready that has been sued that wasn't intentionally and knowingly stealing the product.   While, 1% might seem like an unreasonably small amount to guarantee, it seems like it's a level that has worked so far, seeing as how not a single person has ever inadvertently discovered had a crop with more than 1%.
 
2014-01-15 06:19:11 PM
images.sodahead.com

\ahh this one always makes me laugh so WINNER!
 
2014-01-15 06:19:40 PM
Damn my last comment, before I get jumped on..they MAY have bough Monstanto seeds they harvested some to keep the next year...I cannot remember for sure and I don't want to get punched for giving the wrong info!
 
2014-01-15 06:20:12 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: megarian: This is f*cking stupid.

It's only gonna get worse.

There will be blood.

Eventually.


Yeah, our blood
 
2014-01-15 06:20:15 PM
SquiggsIN:
Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.

I work on making AIDS drugs cheaper and defend the rights of the homeless.  I sleep great.
 
2014-01-15 06:20:47 PM

Copper Spork: Many thanks to Greenpeace for paying for the laws that made both this lawsuit and Monsanto's dominant market position possible.


White ringer says what?
 
2014-01-15 06:21:40 PM

simkatu: has ever inadvertently discovered had a crop


s/b "has ever inadvertently discovered he had a crop"
 
2014-01-15 06:21:56 PM

Teiritzamna: SquiggsIN:
Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.

I work on making AIDS drugs cheaper and defend the rights of the homeless.  I sleep great.


I talk to other nerds about nerdy things, write them up in huge detail, and then argue with more nerds about why they're cool. It's like Fark, but I get paid.
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report