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
|