In article ,
Major Ursa wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in :


I find it hard to believe that _anyone_ could be so rigid in trusting
the evidence around a product coming from a company ...


In other words, ignore the science, ignore the evidence,
ignore any rational considerations about the product
itself whatsoever.

Roundup is dangerous because you don't like Monsanto.
No other evidence is needed or accepted.

If you read that in my words I think it's time to sit back and read it
again. I did not say that.

I'm only saying there are other concerns beside the purely rational ones.
If you do not allow for that the rest of your arguments will never be
heard. Fact of life.


OK. We can agree then. That there is no rational basis for believing
that Roundup is a danger to humans when used correctly.

You believe that Roundup is a danger to humans when used correctly
based purely on irrational, unscientific, ideologic bases.

OK. Go with God.

Just don't *pretend* that you have a rational or scientific
basis for your belief.



Any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed out of
hand. The fact there is *no* evidence whatsoever that
Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed
is *irrelevant.*

Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their trust.
They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational) doubts.



And by "ignore" you mean "fail to pander to." As in

"Oh, yes, there is absolutely no rational basis for
it, but let's pretend that Roundup is dangerous because
it makes us feel better."




Funny, you don't have any problems with *that*
conflict of interest, do you?

I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.


On the contrary. That is exactly what you accuse Monsanto of. You may
have not joined the lynch mob around *me,* but you somehow decline to
use the same criteria when evaluating the critics of Roundup as you do
when evaluating the claims of Monsanto. Tell me, Ursa, what about the
conflict of interest by those in the organic gardening industry --
those who make money pandering to what you agree are irrational fears?





Roundup must be declared dangerous because it represents
unacceptable thought.

Pure and simple.

Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought...


I didn't say "Monsanto." I said "Roundup."


Recognizing the science, and noting that ther is no evidence of danger
to humans when Roundup is used as directed is a *thought crime.*

Whether or not Roundup actually causes damage to humans is
*irrelevant.*



If you refuse to acknowledge these simple facts you can not expect us to
take your position seriously.


If you have any *facts* that show that Roundup is a danger to humans
when used as directed, bring them out.

Simply saying you don't like Monsanto doesn't make Roundup dangerous to
humans when used as directed.

Your argument boils down to the fact that your dislike for Monsanto
means that you don't care about the facts about Roundup.

That's fine. Just recognize that your opinion about Roundup is totally
irrational and not based on science or fact.

And don't pretend otherwise.



billo