Seed Keepers

["Elise Lutrick" <seedsaverslist@gmail.com>]

She also spoke at the curcubits conference in 2002. There is a more
detailed agenda available on the 2002 conference than there is on the
2006 conference. I actually took the time to read what was discussed
at that conference. It actually was a pretty well-balanced agenca and
included discussions of traditional and conventional and biotech
methods. I think genetic manipulation was given maybe a sixth of the
available time for discussion at that meeting.

At the 2002 conference her topic had the same title as her book,
"Melons for the Passionate Grower". She did not speak during the
biotech segments of the agenda.

If you will notice, this conference was done in conjunction with North
Carolina State University. The 2002 conference was done through the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at Florida State
University.

It is a sad statement of fact that most research at today's
institutions of higher learning are funded by companies such at those
that funded these two meetings. However, having attended a few such
scientific meetings over the years myself, I think it's pretty
impressive that a fair amount of conference time was given to
discussion of  traditional methods of breeding and growing. Because
both conventional and biotech methods are where the real money is.

I don't think that Ms. Goldman's appearance at this conference
necessarily brands her as a turncoat.

Look, lots of folks got tiffed because Mr. Whealy was booted from his
job. He may or may not have behaved inappropriately and he may or may
not have deserved it. It seems as though in the eyes of most folks
that this issue is immaterial, that regardless of the cause of the
action, Mr. Whealy was above reproach no matter what may have
precipitated the action. As a result, a veritable tidal wave of
accusations have been flying from every quarter at everyone connected
with the organization EXCEPT for Mr. Whealy. Not one of us knows the
facts, but lots of potentially actionable libelous accusations are
being openly flung about about every other person connected with the
institution. I personally do not know who did what, but I am willing
to bet based on the evidence that I have seen flow through this mess
that eventually there are going to be lots of embarrassed folks. For
myself, I choose the wait and see method. The proof is in the pudding,
as the old saying goes. I am not going to accuse folks baselessly, and
I am not going to blindly follow anyone in hero worship.

I encourage everyone here to carefully investigate links produced here
and elsewhere as evidence, including going to the root and parallel
sites and thoroughtly researching accusations for yourselves before
jumping to conclusions.

No, I do not work for SSE. I am interested in SSE because I have
grandchildren whose lives may very well depend on what resides in the
SSE seed vaults. Therefore, until I see concrete signs that the
organization is not to be trusted, I will continue to watch carefully
and participate in the same manner that I have for the last decade. I
will also do what I can to establish and support regional equivalents
to the SSE.

Elise

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Lawrence F. London, Jr.
<lflj@intrex.net> wrote:
> oowonbs@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > Were I she, I *might* infiltrate the "enemy."
> > I mean, be cynical, fine... also keep an open mind.
> > So just maybe, Amy could change her spots. Dunno...
>
> Good grief. This will not happen as you should know. Take a good look at 
> those people.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seedkeepers mailing list
> seedkeepers@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/seedkeepers
>