Genetic containment of pollinating, cross-breeding plants is practically ludicrous in the face of it. You'd need a biosecure facility, not a field.

And when the gene shows up in other people's fields, are the neighbors culpable for stealing, or is the originator culpable for contamination? I've read that this is already becoming an issue in India.

I really don't see the merit of debating globalization in terms of an ideal that never has and never will exist.

Large scale, libertarian, laissez faire minimum government will not work with human actors. Period, end of story. It's a nice utopian daydream, but it's not possible. A power vacuum will be filled. In the case of a libertarian system, that filling will be corporate, criminal, or (most likely) a combination thereof. It's inevitable that someone is going to get the upper hand and then take ruthless steps to ensure that they're not displaced.

Haven't we been over this before? A deep comment buried in feministing does not implicate Salon's (or even Feministing's) position on the issue.

3 pairs of pi, I don't see the point in your linking to things that disprove what you're claiming about them. Do you just expect people to not look? If so, you're better off making the observations without providing a handy link with which they can be debunked with a cursory read. But, thanks anyway, I guess.

For the record: anon was not polite (cussing automatically removes that), and still was banned not for disagreeing on subject but for contesting the ban policy - as per the stated ban policy.

anon wasn't polite?

Correct.

that "shit" was one appearance of four appearances on that page. three made by others. one made by amanda. no one else was banned.

All of them impolite, and none of them banned for it. Writing does not get to be called polite just because other, nearby writing is rude.

Mentioning banning is worthy of banning?

"Bitching" about banning is a bannable offense in her comments. If that had been your original complaint I wouldn't have pointed out the discrepancy and would have glossed over your characterization of anon's post as polite.

On a more direct level, personally I don't see why any site would not want to keep some level of control over what they publish. Let's be very clear, here: our comments in Salon letters are published by Salon, not by us. They have both the right and the responsibility to exercise editorial control. You've already cited threats, to which I'd add copywrited material, as examples of things which I could post and they'd automatically(!?) publish and then by law would be required to take down.

You're correct that the boundary delineating abusive writing is fuzzy, but I disagree with the slippery slope argument that that somehow naturally leads to Fahrenheit 451 type censorship. "Slippery Slope" arguments are essentially all fundamentally flawed; these "slopes" go both ways, just as easily. As Joan Walsh pointed out, finding Salon letters that disagree with the article writers' positions is not exactly difficult. Your letters here, for instance, have not been deleted.

I dislike "trolls" and abusive posters, and I don't think they deserve to be published by Salon. I think they drive more reasonable people from forums where they're allowed to run riot. And I think that alone is reason enough to crack down.

I thought it was funny.

They absolutely ARE mutually exclusive if the victim accuses, maliciously or otherwise, a specific person of something they did not in fact do.

Presumption of innocence works both ways. A failure to convict is not a de facto conviction of the accuser.

Seems to me that once a rape or sexual assault accusation has been shown to be unfounded (or even malicious), that the rape shiled laws that protect the accuser's identity become null and void for that accuser in that case.

Sure, once malice is proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

This was a failure to properly investigate, and when the facts started finally coming to light, it was shown that this woman lied about being attacked.

She has not been convicted of that beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

No sane person would argue with "innocent until proven guilty"...

While I won't vouch for their sanity, I certainly see that argument all the time.

this shit may or may not be true but all I can think of is whether Maher expects anyone to take him seriously as a journalist.

As many others have noted, Bill Maher is known as a comedian, not a journalist.

And what's with the sexism?

A sexist comedian, at that.

...they perceive that we think we know better than they do what's good for them.

Well, Bush getting re-elected pretty much cemented that opinion for me.

His liver was lacerated and all you care about is the headline and the politics?

Of course. In a world where an average of over a hundred people shoot themselves with nailguns every day (to name JUST ONE type of accident), someone getting badly injured isn't, in itself, news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1236577020070413

the only solution is for straight girls to start dominating straight boys

Start? I mean, I'm no brightstar, but c'mon, most of my male friends are well and truly whipped.

...as vice president, I don't know anything...

How about as the secret power behind the throne?