Print

Print


Oh, by the way, when I suggested a debate about GMOs I meant more than just
re-reading Robert's posts. Unless, that is, other list members consider them
to be the last word on the subject.

MB

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Adjunct Balter wrote:
>
>  I think this list could use a real scientific debate on whether the
>> concerns about GMOs that SftP first raised more than 30 years ago are still
>> entirely valid today.
>>
>
>        The deployment of the polymerase chain reaction decreased some
> GM-risks in a big way.  But, overall, the grounds for concern have become
> clearer, more varied, and more detailed, in the 3 decades.
>        I have given you, a y ago or so, more than enough scientific fact &
> reasoning for you to see that GM is a grave threat to the health of the
> biosphere.  This material is attached again, for those uncommitted observers
> of this 'debate'.
>        You have also been given (what you should have been well aware of)
> The Schubert Letter.
>        Yet you're still acting dumb.
>        What is your motive?
>
>
>
>   That would also be a way of getting past the focus on Robert Mann's
>> anti-woman attitudes
>>
>
>        Here you flag the fact that you're a liar.  You well know that this
> accusation is unwarranted, and indeed refuted by my record of crediting good
> women scientists.  But you're a front-wimp for the hatemongers exemplified
> by ace spewer of vituperation Ms C. H. Pine. Why haven't you more courage?
>
>
>
>   and get to the substance of the matter.
>>
>
>        You have made it clear that you don't want to do that.  Why are you
> still in this "open mind" pose?
>
>
> RM




-- 
******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
Boston University

Email:           [log in to unmask]

Website:       michaelbalter.com
Balter's Blog: michael-balter.blogspot.com
******************************************