i'm not an expert in this, but i think maybe a scientific exploration of the problem of 'wimminslibbers' might be warranted---another problem.  'too many problems, why am i here...the problem is you' (j. rotten).   (not to mention the problems of the  militant homosexual lobby and anti-racists,  some of whom even have an issue with 'white' australians----imagine that; came all the way from the uk to spread civilization, and all you get is complaining).    perhaps a neutral expert could be appointed to study the problem (its extent, and if it exists); i think Gary Null, PhD would be a good nominee.   maybe his 2nd PhD degree (after his pioneering research showing drinking coffee raised blood pressure!!!).  i wonder,  are the wimminslibbers hooked up with al qaeda, for example?     if the analyses shows this is not a problem, perhaps we should all get in lock step with IFPR and the gates foundation, and get as many GM foods where they are needed immediately to cull the flacks.    

--- On Sun, 8/24/08, Mandi Smallhorne <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Mandi Smallhorne <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: pseudo-experts on GM
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2008, 9:31 AM

This is the primary reason why anything from Robt Mann goes straight into the garbage. I have no problem with someone taking issue with the information and statements presented by Mae Wan-Ho or anyone else; but to attribute their errors to their being "Wimminslibbers" (I wonder if he knows that the spelling is womyn - or is this just some eccentricity peculiar - and how I relish using that word in this context - to him?) is - oh, let me use the word again - peculiar!
Impassioned labelling like this generally says a lot more about the labeller than the labellee.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Michael Balter
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: pseudo-experts on GM

I guess Robert is saying that the movements against GMOs and nukes should be exclusively of men, by men, and for men, and then we could be sure of the accuracy of their statements. Or did I read this wrong?


On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]> 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.


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

Email: [log in to unmask]

Balter's Blog: