On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:44:08 -0400, paghat wrote:

In article , (Bill Oliver)
wrote:

In article , paghat
wrote:


Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of
law, there's just no question but that they are never a source of
truth. Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of
Sturgeon Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up
losing the court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they
lie about? Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in
their "experts" (including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and
"studies" so that they could "prove" the chemical spill couldn't
possibly hurt anyone, & then they published as "science" fraudulant
studies, & hired spin doctors to interpret the false science in
simpler terms for a population they clearly regarded as gullible
hicks.



As opposed, of course, to the hired guns put on by the plaintiffs.

You know that your scientific case is lost when you resort to quoting
torts as your basis for "truth." The bottom line is that class action
torts are not a test for truth in any sense of the word. Junk science
is much more often introduced by plaintiffs than defendants in torts,
and the courts are incapable of telling the difference.

Yes, yes, independent peer reviewed science is not as good as Monsanto's
famously fabricated "science," & testimony under oath is not as good as
testimony from Monsanto PR flacks. I get ya.


I suppose you only believe fake green science from the likes of
Needleman, Gould, Epstein, or Landrigan. And what about that big green PR
machine that calls itself Greenpeace? They just keep repeating the same
lies till people like you start to believe them.

Idle curiosity, you're not the same William Oliver who has chaired
Monsanto love-fest symposia through the American Chemical Society,
inviting primarily Monsanto and DuPont researchers as speakers,
persistently giving recognition dinners & awards to Monsanto workers &
retirees, gives out chemistry awards funded by Monsanto, &
"Fund"amentally kisses Monsanto's butt in order to get them to write out
more checks for non-independent research?

I don't really think that's you, as I've never regarded you as that
sneaky & have enjoyed so many of your posts for, what, three or for
years?, but did want to be sure that in this case you're honestly
misguided rather than willfully & as a matter of professional courtesy
repeating by rote so many Monsanto whoppers right down their "safe as
salt" cliche & their idea that testimony under oath is not as reliable
as their PR people, that people concerned about the environment are not
as truthful as people profiting by selling toxins, & any science not
paid for or conducted by Monsanto can't possibly be correct but their
press releases are the real truth.

-paghat the ratgirl