Monsanto Strike 3

[pmcgrady]

Since I live in the corn belt I see a lot of agriculture commercials on local TV.
Monsanto has been having lots of problems lately...
Strike 1 : Roundup (Glyphosate) Has been found to cause a type of cancer
Strike 2 : Diacamden (spelling?) Has destroyed 1000's of acres of crops this year
Strike 3 : Nemostrike I've seen lots of commercials about this and thought it might
might help tomato growers that have problems with nematodes. Then I read up on it
and found out it was a seed treating chemical made by Monsanto ... Not Good! Today
I read, it was pulled off the market because it was causing rashes on humans exposed to it.
Strike 3... you're outta here!

[Worth1]

Yet if I get caught in Texas with a pot plant I go to jail.
Worth

[TC_Manhattan]

Dicamba..

And yes, this has caused much uproar among soybean growers.
Sadly, some predict this episode with just encourage many of them to switch to the new(er) Roundup Ready 2 Xtend seeds, instead of away from them.

That means dicamba use and its subsequent drift will pose even more threat to other crops. This GMO hybridization is like a cancer. It thrives on disruption.

Here's a link: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/...ns-in-arkansas

Scary stuff.

[Sun City Linda]

Monsanto is very active on Facebook under different names. If you post anything in opposition to their story line....like THE TRUTH various posters who are so obviously paid by Monsanto gang up on you.

[BigVanVader]

The scariest sh__t about Monsanto is their long term plan to eradicate all OP seeds. Want food? Pay me whatever I say is fair and I will give you some poison seeds...your welcome. Read up on how they bought seeds from all the farmers around India who had been growing/saving the same varieties for generations then incinerated them. Can you be anymore evil than that?

[bower]

First I heard of dicamba... good to know about it, thanks.
Heck I even learned something about pigweed.
http://articles.extension.org/pages/...amaranthus-spp

[pmcgrady]

Originally Posted by BigVanVader

The scariest sh__t about Monsanto is their long term plan to eradicate all OP seeds. Want food? Pay me whatever I say is fair and I will give you some poison seeds...your welcome. Read up on how they bought seeds from all the farmers around India who had been growing/saving the same varieties for generations then incinerated them. Can you be anymore evil than that?

About 4 years ago an old farmer wanted some cheap soybeans to plant as a second crop from winter wheat...
He went to the local grain elevator and bought 5-6 bushel and planted them, they did
pretty good and made 100 bushels...
Monsanto found out about it and sued for millions and won...
Seems a couple of the beans he planted were Roundup Ready and Monsanto still owned an interest in them... how f'up is that?

[kurt]

Kinda tuff when you have a ex employee on speed dial.Im just presenting fact no opinion today.Years ago it was discussed here and then it kinda went sideways.Lots of reading,but worth it.8th line down.

Early careerEdit

Official Equal Employment Opportunity Commission portrait of Thomas


Thomas was admitted to the Missouri bar on September 13, 1974.[26] From 1974 to 1977, Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under State Attorney General John Danforth, who met Thomas at Yale Law School. Thomas was the only black member of Danforth's staff.[27] As Assistant Attorney General, Thomas first worked at the criminal appeals division of Danforth's office and moved on to the revenue and taxation division.[28]Retrospectively, Thomas considers Assistant Attorney General the best job he has ever had.[29] When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976, Thomas left to become an attorney with the Monsanto Chemical Company in St. Louis, Missouri.[30] He moved to Washington, D.C. and returned to work for Danforth from 1979 to 1981 as a Legislative Assistant handling energy issues for the Senate Commerce Committee.[31] The two men shared a common bond in that they had studied to be ordained (although in differentdenominations). Danforth was to be instrumental in championing Thomas for the Supreme Court.
In 1981, he joined the Reagan administration. From 1981 to 1982, he served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. From 1982 to 1990, he was Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission("EEOC"). Journalist Evan Thomas characterized Thomas as "openly ambitious for higher office" during his tenure at the EEOC. As Chairman, he promoted a doctrine of self-reliance, and halted the usual EEOC approach of filing class-action discrimination lawsuits, instead pursuing acts of individual discrimination.[32] He also asserted in 1984 that black leaders were "watching the destruction of our race" as they "★★★★★, ★★★★★, ★★★★★" about President Reagan instead of working with the Reagan administration to alleviate teenage pregnancy, unemployment and illiteracy.[33]
Federal judgeEdit

On October 30, 1989, Thomas was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated by Robert Bork,[34] despite Thomas's initial protestations that he would not like to be a judge.[35]Thomas gained the support of other African Americans such as former Transportation Secretary William Coleman, but said that when meeting white Democratic staffers in the United States Senate, he was "struck by how easy it had become for sanctimonious whites to accuse a black man of not caring about civil rights."[35]
Thomas's confirmation hearing was uneventful.[36] He was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 6, 1990, and received his commission the same day. He developed warm relationships during his 19 months on the federal court, including with fellow federal judgeRuth Bader Ginsburg.[35][37]
Supreme Court nomination and confirmationEdit

Main article: Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination
After Justice William Brennan stepped down from the Supreme Court in July 1990, Thomas was one of five candidates on President Bush's shortlist for the position and Bush's favorite of the five. Ultimately, after consulting with his advisors, Bush decided to hold off on nominating Thomas, and nominated Judge David Souter of the First Circuit instead.[35] Justice Thurgood Marshall announced his retirement, and on July 1, 1991, President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace him. Marshall had been the only African-American justice on the court.[38] In announcing his selection, Bush called Thomas the "best qualified [nominee] at this time."[35]
U.S. presidents of that era submitted lists of potential federal court nominees to the American Bar Association (ABA) for a confidential rating of their judicial temperament, competence and integrity on a three-level scale of well qualified, qualified or unqualified.[39] However, as noted by Adam Liptak of the New York Times, the ABA has historically taken generally liberal positions on divisive issues, and studies suggest that candidates nominated by Democratic presidents fare better in the group’s ratings than those nominated by Republicans.[40]Anticipating that the ABA would rate Thomas more poorly than they thought he deserved, the White House and Republican Senators pressured the ABA for at least the mid-level qualified rating, and simultaneously attempted to discredit the ABA as partisan.[41] The ABA did rate Thomas as qualified, although with one of the lowest levels of support for a Supreme Court nominee.[42][43][44][45][46][47] Ultimately, the ABA rating ended up having little impact on Thomas' nomination.[39][41]
Some of the public statements of Thomas's opponents foreshadowed the confirmation fight that would occur. Both liberal interest groups and Republicans in the White House and Senate approached the nomination as a political campaign.[48][49]
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh had previously warned Bush that replacing Thurgood Marshall, who was widely revered as a civil rights icon, with any candidate who was not perceived to share Marshall's views would make the confirmation process difficult.[50] Civil rights and feminist organizations opposed the appointment based partially on Thomas's criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that Thomas might not be a supporter of Roe v. Wade.[51]
Thomas's formal confirmation hearings began on September 10, 1991.[52] Thomas was reticent when answering Senators' questions during the appointment process, recalling what had happened to Robert Bork when Bork expounded on his judicial philosophy during his confirmation hearings four years prior.[53] Thomas's earlier writings had frequently referenced the legal theory of natural law; during his confirmation hearings Thomas limited himself to the statement that he regards natural law as a "philosophical background" to the Constitution.[54][55][56]
Anita Hill allegationsEdit

After the conclusion of the confirmation hearings, an FBI interview with Anita Hill was leaked and the confirmation hearings were reopened.[57] Hill, a black attorney, had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and had subsequently moved with Thomas to the EEOC.[58] After the leak, Hill was called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings. She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, which she felt constituted sexual harassment or at least "behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court."[59][60][61][62] Hill's testimony included lurid details, and some Senators aggressively questioned her.[63]
Thomas denied the allegations, saying:[64]

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.[65]

Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings that there had been unsolicited sexual advances.[66] Angela Wright, who worked under Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her,[67] decided not to testify,[68] but submitted a written statement alleging that Thomas had pressured her for a date and had made comments about the anatomy of women. However, she said she did not feel his behavior was intimidating nor did she feel sexually harassed, though she allowed that "Some other women might have".[69][70][71] Also, Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant, wrote to the Senate committee that although Thomas had not harassed her, "If you were young, black, female and reasonably attractive, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."[72][73]
Clarence Thomas being sworn in by Byron White, as wife Virginia Lamp Thomaslooks on


Other former colleagues testified on Thomas's behalf. Nancy Altman, who shared an office with Thomas at the Department of Education, testified that she heard virtually everything Thomas said over the course of two years, and never heard any sexist or offensive comment. Altman did not find it credible that Thomas could have engaged in the conduct alleged by Hill, without any of the dozens of women he worked with noticing it.[74] SenatorAlan K. Simpson questioned why Hill met, dined, and spoke by phone with Thomas on various occasions after they no longer worked together.[75]
According to the Oyez Project, there was a lack of convincing proof produced at the Senate hearings.[5] After extensive debate, the Judiciary Committee split 7–7 on September 27, sending the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century.[76] The final floor vote was: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination.
Thomas received his commission and took the two required oaths several days after the Senate vote; this process was delayed by the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist's wife, but the delay was reduced at the request of Thomas.[77][78] He indicated that he was eager to get to work,[78] and an additional reason for reducing the delay was to end further media inquiry into Thomas's private life.[49][79] Reporters largely stopped such inquiries after Thomas joined the court.[49][80] Throughout this episode, Thomas defended his right to privacy, refused to describe discussions that he may have had outside the workplace regarding his personal life, and promised that he would not allow anyone to probe his private life.[81]
Clarence Thomas wrote an autobiography addressing Anita Hill's allegations, and she also wrote an autobiography addressing her experience in the hearings.[82]

[pmcgrady]

It's all bad... anything with Monsanto on it will kill you...

[MissS]

Bayer and Monsanto have a merge in progress. Big business is getting enormous.

[imp]

Excluding the possible merger of Monsanto and Bayer, many of the posts I am reading are not showing any scientific proofs of the claims being posted. Many are partial 'truths", which can be used to twist facts to the public.

I'd like to see the scientific studies or the court cases, please, before I buy into something on the news or posted on a site. I admire critical thinking and fact driven articles that meet the standards of science. In light of that statement, please do not bother to bring up Serelini's discredited studies.

Misuse of pesticides and herbicides are in the hands of the individuals, the people who use them.

As far as seed prices, doesn't each company, big or small, charge what they choose to for seeds? Johnny's does, Baker Creek does, even the companies that post on here set their own prices. Good or bad, many regulate how seed may be used, even after the initial purchase, even the Pledge to not charge for seeds such as the Dwarf project pledge, is an entailment in a contract.

Disclaimer: Since there was already an allusion to people "paid by Monsanto" , I have never worked for nor received any pay of any sort from Monsanto, nor worked for a company that directly benefited from Monsanto. I do not love nor hate Monsanto, they are a company run for profit, as is the intent of most companies.

Side note: Has it ever been proven that Monsanto has paid people to counter post? If so, would like to see those facts as well. If not proven to be so, it is a way to discredit anyone with a differing viewpoint, and to close off a rational and calm discussion of facts.

Edit:

Here is a link, though I doubt some will read it and look at the court cases linked in there to the actual online court documents. But if you follow through, some interesting information can be had, both pro and con. What one does with such information is up to the person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

[pmcgrady]

Originally Posted by imp

Excluding the possible merger of Monsanto and Bayer, many of the posts I am reading are not showing any scientific proofs of the claims being posted. Many are partial 'truths", which can be used to twist facts to the public.

I'd like to see the scientific studies or the court cases, please, before I buy into something on the news or posted on a site. I admire critical thinking and fact driven articles that meet the standards of science. In light of that statement, please do not bother to bring up Serelini's discredited studies.

Misuse of pesticides and herbicides are in the hands of the individuals, the people who use them.

As far as seed prices, doesn't each company, big or small, charge what they choose to for seeds? Johnny's does, Baker Creek does, even the companies that post on here set their own prices. Good or bad, many regulate how seed may be used, even after the initial purchase, even the Pledge to not charge for seeds such as the Dwarf project pledge, is an entailment in a contract.

Disclaimer: Since there was already an allusion to people "paid by Monsanto" , I have never worked for nor received any pay of any sort from Monsanto, nor worked for a company that directly benefited from Monsanto. I do not love nor hate Monsanto, they are a company run for profit, as is the intent of most companies.

Side note: Has it ever been proven that Monsanto has paid people to counter post? If so, would like to see those facts as well. If not proven to be so, it is a way to discredit anyone with a differing viewpoint, and to close off a rational and calm discussion of facts.

Edit:

Here is a link, though I doubt some will read it and look at the court cases linked in there to the actual online court documents. But if you follow through, some interesting information can be had, both pro and con. What one does with such information is up to the person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

Boy you're really trolling with that post...

How can a company own a seed and all of its offspring... forever? Even though their GMO seed contaminated your OP plants/seed?

I see your link is to Wikipedia... I can get in, write whatever I want, change whatever I want, publish it...
And until someone catches it, it's good as gold?

[imp]

Originally Posted by pmcgrady

Boy you're really trolling with that post...

How can a company own a seed and all of its offspring... forever? Even though their GMO seed contaminated your OP plants/seed?

I see your link is to Wikipedia... I can get in, write whatever I want, change whatever I want, publish it...
And until someone catches it, it's good as gold?

Now you are calling my post "trolling"?!!

I present a civil discussion and that is what you come up with?! Name calling and no presentation of factual information at all?

As far as owning the seed, yes, it is in our law as such, not a law from or written by Monsanto or Bayer or Jackson Perkins or many other companies that patent seed or plants, but by our own duly passed laws that restrict who and how plants or seeds may be used.

Even the OSSI is making restrictions on future seed use:

The OSSI Pledge - http://osseeds.org - "You have the freedom to use these OSSI-Pledged seeds in any way you choose. In return, you pledge not to restrict others' use of these seeds or their derivatives by patents or other means, and to include this Pledge with any transfer of these seeds or their derivatives."

Yes, wiki can be edited, but since you obviously did not use the links in that article as suggested, even the ones to the actual court papers which cannot be changed, you became self fulfilling re my remark that most would not.

[bower]

Originally Posted by imp

...
I'd like to see the scientific studies or the court cases, please, before I buy into something on the news or posted on a site. I admire critical thinking and fact driven articles that meet the standards of science. In light of that statement, please do not bother to bring up Serelini's discredited studies...

Disclaimer: Since there was already an allusion to people "paid by Monsanto" , I have never worked for nor received any pay of any sort from Monsanto, nor worked for a company that directly benefited from Monsanto. I do not love nor hate Monsanto, they are a company run for profit, as is the intent of most companies.

Side note: Has it ever been proven that Monsanto has paid people to counter post? If so, would like to see those facts as well. If not proven to be so, it is a way to discredit anyone with a differing viewpoint, and to close off a rational and calm discussion of facts....

Sorry Imp, but I find your statement about Seralini extremely offensive. You are the one bringing it up, and at the same time dismissing all other comments and the facts in the case.

The Seralini controversy is not about the question "are GMO's safe". It is about the heinous power that a large corporation can exert, to prevent valid research findings from being published.

FACT: The retracted study has been republished by a reputable journal after passing yet another peer review, and stands as part of the scientific literature, furthermore a rare example of a study on the subject which was not paid for by the company itself.
Here is a link to the published study. Enjoy.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/a...302-014-0014-5

Scientific literacy is the most important (maybe the only) thing I got from my bachelor of science degree. I have continued to read hundreds of scientific and medical papers, always with a critical eye for methods and statistical weaknesses or sources of error that were missed. I read the original Seralini paper and in my opinion there were no legitimate scientific grounds for the retraction. Yes I also read the criticisms that were made - many of them nonsensical in attempting to hold this research to a standard not followed by anyone else, including NIH (such as the use of Sprague-Dawley rats, as in NIH standards). And yes, it seems to me that many of the criticisms were intended to mislead the general public. The SD rat issue, for example, would sound like a valid objection to anyone unfamiliar with actual standards of research, which the study followed to a T.

What I found most unpleasant of all, the personal attacks to damage the reputation of a conscientious scientist, who dared to study a commercial product without sponsorship of its owner. I still find this really upsetting, and why I had to respond to your flippant remarks.

With regards to the question of comments being paid by Monsanto, the conflict of interest of major detractors of Seralini, including the editor who retracted the study, is an established fact. This is not slander or "fake news". These detractors were in Monsanto's pay.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/out-in...-paper/5610139

Certainly I don't think you were paid to make a derogatory comment about Seralini. But I think you are not well informed at all, to be making such remarks and purporting to be the voice of reason, and the final word! By all means enlighten me if you have some special expertise or dedicated your intellect to the subject in some way that makes you feel you have the best informed opinion.

It is hard to find any published comment that doesn't come down on one side of the story or the other. But it is clear that Seralini continues to have both detractors and supporters among his peers. Over 1000 scientists have boycotted Elsevier for retraction of his work. So I am not alone in the conclusion that the work was legitimate and deserved publication. Again I have to stress the fact, this is not about drawing a final conclusion about the subject of the study. This is about duly accepting legitimate scientific results into the literature.

Seralini's work raises questions about the adequacy of 90 day studies to assess health effects of these products. That is a reasonable conclusion, which calls for further work to be done. The fact that some people will take a single study and wrongly run with its conclusions as if they are carved in stone, or exaggerate the conclusions that can be drawn, is not a valid reason to deny publication of science. We see this all the time in science/health journalism. Every new study is the be-all and end-all... final word. This is not a scientific standpoint, it is public opinion running amock. It could equally be said that the company and its supporters have done the same thing by insisting that no further research can challenge their 90 day studies, and have simply refused to consider any other possibility regardless of the evidence. This is not a scientific attitude, and where money is obviously at stake the conflict of interest is self evident.

One last comment, Monsanto is not at all the only corporation to have undue influence on the publication of science. There is increasing concern about the pharmaceutical industry practice of withholding from publication many of the studies they carried out on their products, so that negative results and serious side effects have sometimes been swept under the rug, with the consequence that the product is put out for sale and the consumers end up with consequences that could have been (or were) foreseen. The scientific standpoint (calm and rational) is that all of the studies should be reviewed before a conclusion is reached about health and safety. I agree with other scientists, this is in the public interest, and hope to see it become a law or standard in the future.

[imp]

Originally Posted by bower

Sorry Imp, but I find your statement about Seralini extremely offensive. You are the one bringing it up, and at the same time dismissing all other comments and the facts in the case.

The Seralini controversy is not about the question "are GMO's safe". It is about the heinous power that a large corporation can exert, to prevent valid research findings from being published.

FACT: The retracted study has been republished by a reputable journal after passing yet another peer review, and stands as part of the scientific literature, furthermore a rare example of a study on the subject which was not paid for by the company itself.
Here is a link to the published study. Enjoy.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/a...302-014-0014-5

Scientific literacy is the most important (maybe the only) thing I got from my bachelor of science degree. I have continued to read hundreds of scientific and medical papers, always with a critical eye for methods and statistical weaknesses or sources of error that were missed. I read the original Seralini paper and in my opinion there were no legitimate scientific grounds for the retraction. Yes I also read the criticisms that were made - many of them nonsensical in attempting to hold this research to a standard not followed by anyone else, including NIH (such as the use of Sprague-Dawley rats, as in NIH standards). And yes, it seems to me that many of the criticisms were intended to mislead the general public. The SD rat issue, for example, would sound like a valid objection to anyone unfamiliar with actual standards of research, which the study followed to a T.

What I found most unpleasant of all, the personal attacks to damage the reputation of a conscientious scientist, who dared to study a commercial product without sponsorship of its owner. I still find this really upsetting, and why I had to respond to your flippant remarks.

With regards to the question of comments being paid by Monsanto, the conflict of interest of major detractors of Seralini, including the editor who retracted the study, is an established fact. This is not slander or "fake news". These detractors were in Monsanto's pay.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/out-in...-paper/5610139

Certainly I don't think you were paid to make a derogatory comment about Seralini. But I think you are not well informed at all, to be making such remarks and purporting to be the voice of reason, and the final word! By all means enlighten me if you have some special expertise or dedicated your intellect to the subject in some way that makes you feel you have the best informed opinion.

It is hard to find any published comment that doesn't come down on one side of the story or the other. But it is clear that Seralini continues to have both detractors and supporters among his peers. Over 1000 scientists have boycotted Elsevier for retraction of his work. So I am not alone in the conclusion that the work was legitimate and deserved publication. Again I have to stress the fact, this is not about drawing a final conclusion about the subject of the study. This is about duly accepting legitimate scientific results into the literature.

Seralini's work raises questions about the adequacy of 90 day studies to assess health effects of these products. That is a reasonable conclusion, which calls for further work to be done. The fact that some people will take a single study and wrongly run with its conclusions as if they are carved in stone, or exaggerate the conclusions that can be drawn, is not a valid reason to deny publication of science. We see this all the time in science/health journalism. Every new study is the be-all and end-all... final word. This is not a scientific standpoint, it is public opinion running amock. It could equally be said that the company and its supporters have done the same thing by insisting that no further research can challenge their 90 day studies, and have simply refused to consider any other possibility regardless of the evidence. This is not a scientific attitude, and where money is obviously at stake the conflict of interest is self evident.

One last comment, Monsanto is not at all the only corporation to have undue influence on the publication of science. There is increasing concern about the pharmaceutical industry practice of withholding from publication many of the studies they carried out on their products, so that negative results and serious side effects have sometimes been swept under the rug, with the consequence that the product is put out for sale and the consumers end up with consequences that could have been (or were) foreseen. The scientific standpoint (calm and rational) is that all of the studies should be reviewed before a conclusion is reached about health and safety. I agree with other scientists, this is in the public interest, and hope to see it become a law or standard in the future.

My post was not intended to offend, but to open and try to maintain a civil discourse on this subject. I suspect it may not be possible, without seeing body language and the emotional investment some ( NOT saying yourself) carry into this subject.

I certainly never wished to purport that I am the voice of reason, nor have the "final word", and especially "have some special expertise or dedicated your intellect to the subject in some way that makes you feel you have the best informed opinion."; if this was read this way, I regret any lack on my part on making it more clear that all I was trying for was civil discourse on a very polarized topic.

I may well NOT have the best informed opinion, but I do have an opinion from reading the study long enough ago, when this subject erupted on the Food Politics board on iDig, and comparing several other studies with Serelini's study choices in protocols and procedures. That is where I find a lot of fault with Serelini's rat studies ( yes, wrong rat breed, different feeds and amounts, too small of control and study groups, are but 3 off the top of my head) and therefore his conclusions from the study.

People are very polarized about Serelinni's studies. Note this is not the only study he has had retracted or trouble with his peers about his procedures and protocols in/with his studies, thereby calling his results into question.


Since I think it will be pretty impossible to have and maintain a civil and within the rules discussion re Monsanto, etc., with out it veering into politics and also becoming very divisive instead of us all learning from each, I am going to drop it.

I am not wishing normally to offend, hurt feelings nor be offended myself, which is something hard to do after all these years, <smile>, for an argument on a discussion board where I come to have fun and exchange ideas in a positive way. I don't have to be "right" nor am I many times, I just have to understand my own thoughts and seek self improvement for myself.

Edit:

Hopefully, we will all chat and things will be amicable on other subjects. After the above, wishing all a good evening and most pleasant night.