The following was stated: "Are you just simply going to ignore it because I'm not going to go search around Google for links? You couldn't even "keep up" in that thread (because it's out of your realm of study/knowledge), yet you chose to dismiss all of it because I didn't hunt down some Google links for you." H.Kuska comment. Yes, without scientific documentation, it is merely your opinion. Please note how the Podevin and du Jardin, 2012 paper was commented on in this very recent review reported in Google Scholar: PDF][PDF] SCOPING REPORT C Marris, C Jefferson - 2013 - kclpure.kcl.ac.uk 169 days ago - ... Document Version Preprint ��" the version submitted for publication Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Marris, C., & Jefferson, C. (2013). ... This report should be cited as: Marris, C. and Jefferson, C. (2013). ... "One reason for the scepticism displayed by some actors in response to such declarations is that at the time when genetic engineering first merged, strong claims were also made by proponents of the field about the precision of the new techniques. Thus, molecular biologists in the 1980s emphasised the lack of sophistication of previous techniques to emphasise the enhanced predictability of the then new recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques, as exemplified in the seminal OECD report of 1986 (OECD, 1986)11:" H.Kuska comment, the following is a quote from the 1986 report. "While rDNA techniques may result in the production of organisms expressing a combination of traits that are not observed in nature, genetic changes from rDNA techniques will often have inherently greater predictability compared to traditional techniques, because of the greater precision that the rDNA technique affords to particular modifications. […] It is acknowledged that additional research and experience with rDNA micro-organisms, plants, and animals, should certainly increase our ability and precision to predict the outcome of introductions of rDNA organisms into the many varied ecosystems." (H.Kuska comment, end of 1986 quote, now back to recent review quote.) "Despite these claims of greater predictability and precision, studies have now found that unintended additional fragments of DNA are often present (Rang et al., 2005; Windels et al., 2001), and that unintended re-arrangements of sections of the host genome flanking the genetic insert were present in GM crops that have been placed on the market (Hernández et al., 2003; Windels et al., 2001). Also, a recent study by scientists from the European Food Safety Authority demonstrated that some long versions of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter, very commonly used in genetic constructs and present in a number of GM crops on the market, unexpectedly contain an overlapping viral open reading frame which, when expressed, might result in unintended phenotypic changes (Podevin and du Jardin, 2012). This demonstrates that even seemingly well-characterised and routinely used noncoding regulatory DNA sequences can produce unpredicted, unintended effects, yet such sequences are commonly assumed to present little risk when assessed within the EU regulatory framework, and “intergeneric microorganisms resulting only from the addition of well-characterized, non-coding regulatory regions” are excluded from the US Biotechnology Coordinated Framework. Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided about whether any future forms of genetic engineering, including synthetic biology, could ever result in the creation of organisms with reliably predictable behaviours, especially when released into complex, diverse and variable natural ecosystems; and this is directly related to divergent evaluations of the prospects for GMMO products that would need to be released into the environment in order to perform their intended function" H.Kuska comment. Please notice the use of the word "opinions" in the following: "Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided........" i.e. it is my "opinion" that the public is being used as beta testers. ------------------------------------------ Here is a link that might be useful: link to above review

awm thank you ! Everyone's responses have been so great. franksmom..you MUST post your chair !! I would love to see. Beekeeperswife posted 2 chairs from a customer of hers a while back and that got me started thinking . I don't know where the pics are now on GW but a search might turn them up..they were wonderful ! Thank you ! nuts..you are right about that m3d is fantastic ! I am so glad I have someone so talented to work on the chairs. He did do a fantastic job. Thank you ! c this is how the first looked when I found it on the curb...that was fabric on the back stuffed with horsehair..I didn't know but I should have saved it :(....Kenny would have re-used it...oh well...next time !

Salti, I think it's great that you had an experience with an agency that you felt did not get their responsibilities confused. I can also see why it might be more reasonable for the process to take as long as it did with the breed and situation you chose to adopt under, but not everyone is having a similar experience. Granted fosters have lives and scheduling can be an issue, but part of the responsibility of fostering is making the animals you're fostering available. This was actually said to me a few years back when I thanked a foster for her quick response while we were looking to adopt. As with the OP, if a potential family goes through the process of filling out paperwork, a home inspection and a LONG wait period because they want to bring a dog into their home, I'm more inclined to believe that they are probably a positive placement for a dog and the problem is the agency. Granted, placement is not black and white; finding the right forever home does have a lot of grey areas to consider like the animals history, breed compatibility, family dynamics and yes, environmental situations too but it should be a joint effort to figure that out, not the fosters alone. The OP says they only got to see one dog and never got a chance to see if other dogs would be a better fit for them. If you do the research and read some of the articles on this subject, you'll see there is a negative trend in the adoption world. Too many dogs go unadopted and left in less desirable situations because the "agency" trying to adopt them out is over zealous in their placement requirements. Look at how many people posting here have said they were rejected for one reason or another and subsequently had to find a dog elsewhere. All the dogs that they eventually paired up with are absolutely loved and have thrived in good homes. If a family really wants a dog they will get one in spite of the challenges poised by an agency. The family ends up with a dog but what about the dogs that are left behind? Also whether a rejection is for a good reason or not, it just seems like there are a lot of agencies who don't seem to have much regard or concern for the adopting family. If a family, especially one with kids shows an interest in an animal but doesn't qualify for whatever reason, the agency should at least reach out and communicate their concerns. What if the concern is a minor misunderstanding or there is a simple fix that can make things right? The dog could still have a chance at a good home. Follow up regardless of the decision is just common decency and the families deserve that. Lastly, I wouldn't just assume that a pet adoption agency was right just because placing dogs is what they do. As far as I know there are no requirements when it comes to credentials or certifications for the fosters. Obviously, some are pretty confused about what really matters and what doesn't matter at all.

I agree completely with rob's preceding comment, with one added thought: Along with the nearly 50,000 killed during the Vietnam War, there have been hundreds and some thousands killed in various other actions since the Korean War. Including most recently in the Middle East. If I were King, I would have assessed every one of these military actions to be NOT NECESSARY. It would be my responsibility as King, and it is the responsibility of the American public, to make sure that military lives are protected and not wasted on useless military incursions. That's how to best respect and honor those who serve. Keep them safe.