X-Message-Number: 28190 Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 06:36:42 -0700 (PDT) From: human screener <> Subject: Re: Times (UK) article-- DNA screen-- paradox---anthony--ejay--writing style--DNA blacklist Backtrack link (This link will step you back to the previous post in this thread where you will find a link to the post previous to THAT thread and so on). [11] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28187 In my last post, I made a conclusion and indicated I was finished. And I am-- but then Anthony tried to take a parting shot [10 ] and missed by such a wide margin that I thought I would at least help him aim his shot a little better. Maybe we can assist him in developing a better case against my paradox. Anthony's final shot was that my line of reasoning would mean that we keep zygotes that have DNA for cystic fibrosis-- but this isn't at all valid because Mark himself doesn't have cystic fibrosis and it was Mark I used as my initial example of someone who supports a medical strategy that would have eliminated him had he himself been subjected to it. Aside from the issue of what to do with a zygote with cystic fibrosis, my paradox is found in Mark supporting a zygote elimination program in which he likely has DNA strands in common with the London lab zygotes. That was my point. And that was my only point. My argument does not attack abortions, or the elimination of cystic fibrosis by destroying zygotes that have that gene. It's not the discarding of zygotes that is at the core of my point. It's the existence of a a DNA blacklist that shares DNA in common with Mark, and Mark's support of that list. Furthermore, I'm not so sure the paradox is pointless, as Anthony then says it is. [10]. Maybe the thing to do is to get a copy of that DNA blacklist to see what sequences they're actually trying to eliminate. Since the Zygote Screening Paradox depends so precisely on that list-- and its likely cross-reference with Marks's DNA due to it's extensiveness, my next step would be to claim that a further examination of the list would be in order-- and perhaps a paring down of the list so that it's not so draconian. After all, a fertility lab blacklist could easily be expanded to include 60,000 traits and then 6 million traits and used by a new globalist government to widen the circle of blacklisting of DNA everywhere using the pretext that it's protecting mankind from disease-- when in fact it is, effectively, a massive eugenics program. The precursor for this action can possibly be found in corporate plantseed ownership, control and DNA modification-- for profit. Applying the principles of plants to humans in this way would lead to the H.G.Wells Brave New World future where we have various grades of humans , manufactured for specific functions and cognitive traits. The said messy elimination of 6 million people in the 1940's would be tidied up so that the elimination of 6 million DNA strands from the human genome would be relatively bloodless war ... a DNA war of microscopic proportions but every bit as devastating to mankind as the big, loud horrible ones. If Anthony wants to take a valid parting shot, he ought to aim at the implications of a DNA blacklist as I just described. As far as his claim that he wasn't finished with his thread-- well technically he doesn't have a thread. He had no links in his post-- so it's not technically a thread and it's therefore impractical to find his previous posts. My post, however, is technically a thread because it has a back link at the top that takes you to my yet-previous post with attendent reference links and so on, to the beginning of the this argument. [10] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28188 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28190