Wow
Someone hasn't gotten over being called a "cunt" when he was seven, no doubt.



At 01:19 AM 8/24/2008, you wrote:
>         I have observed that many concerned 
> scientists stay on the fence, using as an 
> excuse the unreliable ravers who over the past 
> decade insist on fronting in the media for our movement.
>
>         Is it not overdue to bring into focus 
> those who claim a 'right' to issue any sloppy 
> utterance they carelessly fabricate or relay, 
> and why they are not held to any duty to 
> refrain from uttering errors that would tend to 
> bring into disrepute the movement for control 
> of this most dangerous technology?
>         The credibility of the cause is of very 
> great importance, for reasons which are widely 
> known and obvious.  The hazards of 
> gene-tampering are comparable to those of 
> nuclear weapons; this has been clear to experts 
> like Jonathan King, Ruth Hubbard, David 
> Straton, etc since gene-splicing was invented 3 
> decades ago.  Prince Charles has more recently 
> given an immaculate lead in opposition to this 
> dangerous technology, and in developing organic 
> horticulture as the only alternative.  He 
> evidently gets his statements checked by 
> experts before he puts them out, and the result 
> is an impeccable record for accuracy.  Reliable 
> facts, and clear reasoning, will be required if 
> the public are to bring gene-tampering under 
> control.  This principle has yet to be adopted by loose cannon Mae-Wan Ho.
>         I have argued for some years that the 
> main reason for the persistence of the 
> embarrassing usurpers is that they are 
> primarily WimminsLibbers.  Some of them have 
> expert editors or ghost-writers who help 
> somewhat, but those servants tend to be 
> transient; this does not bother the 
> PowerHarpies, because their own 
> overassertiveness is their main goal.  Not 
> subject to internal criticism, and so scornful 
> of the enemy that arming them with valid 
> criticisms is assumed to be a negligible 
> blunder, these megalomaniacs  -  typefied by 
> the radically sloppy & insolent Ho  -  just 
> flail about themselves fecklessly;  they insult 
> and try to intimidate anyone who attempts to 
> help them, even privately, to achieve 
> reasonable standards of accuracy.  What a wonky scene!
>         Many of their errors turn out with luck 
> to be minor, not strictly material to the 
> correctness of the general gist.  But the game 
> is not played honestly, by Monsanto PR agents 
> or by Vivian Moses, Rick Roush, Marta 
> McGloughlin, and other PR agents.  These 
> operatives will make great play with any defect 
> issuing from 'our side', discrediting in the 
> eyes of uncommitted observers any 
> scientifically inaccurate utterance and by 
> (dishonest) implication discrediting the whole 
> case for control of GM.  I have encountered 
> numerous scientists who do feel at least 
> vaguely concerned about GM but wouldn't go near 
> our movement because they despise such sloppies 
> as Ms Ho or her protégée "Sam" Burcher.
>         The zero-defects approach of, for 
> instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists is 
> not a discipline Ho, Cummins, etc are willing 
> to undergo.  One effect is that the UCS 
> GM-experts (Margaret Mellon Ph.D J.D & Jane 
> Rissler Ph.D) refuse to have much to do with 
> most anti-GM activists.  This awful 
> fragmentation is a severe handicap for the main 
> task of bringing GM under control.
>         I for one am sick & tired of this 
> warped scene.  When UCS founder Henry Kendall showed the
>way to zero-defects criticism of nuclear 
>reactors, no usurper like Ho tried to set 
>herself up as a comparable expert.  Then arose 
>prototypical reckless errormongers e.g Helen 
>Caldicott M.B, Rosalie Bertell, and a few 
>others.  Surrounded by buffer-zones of wimps, 
>these harpies plunge on recklessly with 
>error-strewn utterances that would repel any 
>careful scientist who took them as 
>representative of the scientific criticisms of 
>nuclear weapons & nuclear power.
>         In my country the media have presented 
> as experts on GM unqualified PowerHarpies who 
> are unable to discuss GM  -  some unaware of 
> the difference between a protein and a nucleic 
> acid.  Thus sexist politics overpowers the fine Kendall tradition.
>
>RM