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
******************************************