In article ,
wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:48:56 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"sherwin dubren" wrote in message
In response to all the chatter about Dr. Scharcz being on the payroll
of the chemical companies, as well as his office, I sent him the
comments from this forum and he replied with the following:
Thanks for forwarding me that nonsense. Nobody funds me....except McGill
University . I do know where the CBI stuff comes from....a while ago
CBI funded some summer scholarships for McGill students, a couple of whom
ended up working in our office. That had nothing to do with
anything....certainly not with my book. These "organic" people are
paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think that
some conspiracy is afoot. They generally have a very poor scientific
background and have no understanding of chemistry. They could use a
little oil for their mental machinery. Organic oil if they so wish.
regards
Dr. Joe Schwarcz
Steve can take pot shots at Dr. Schwarcz to try and malign his knowledge
and connections, but he is only trying to divert people from understanding
what this well educated man has to say. He is well
recognized in the scientific community and well accepted by the public
who buy his books and watch his regular TV show up in Canada. Too bad
certain people have closed minds. Some may call that dogmatism but I
tend to think it is fanaticism.
Several thought occur to me on reading your post.
Does Dr Schwarcz know that you were going to post a private email to a
public forum so that anyone can read it?
If, and I stress the 'if', you are really posting what Dr Schwarcz has
written to you, then his response to you is simply extraordinary.
Any scientist worth taking note of who responds to an email from a stranger
and who using such sloppy thinking to write words like "These "organic"
people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they
think that some conspiracy is afoot. " and that they "could use a little oil
for their mental machinery" is of questionable sense.
If he is a serious scientist, he would have been more temperate in his
language because he'd be used to the process of peer reviews and know that
he'd have to justify everything he says.
I doubt that you emailed him at all or that he responded.
You have obviously never talked to a scientist. We come in all
stripes, just like most other professions. One thing we have in
common is a distain for those who never bothered to learn to think.
Unfortunately that is more than 90% of even well educated people. That
trait makes us most unpopular at parties and family reunions. If you
really want to rile a scientist up, imply his or her work is tainted
by conflicts in funding sources that don't actually exist. I
certainly don't find the tone or language of Dr. Schwarcz' reply
unusual for a casual conversation. We laugh at you all the time.
Tough talk for someone who won't identify themselves. Be quiet and hide
in the shadow and we won't laugh too much at you.
Must be "Open Gate Day" at the funny farm. You are obviously not a
scientist, for scientists justify their words, and I doubt your
education has anything to do with your lack of popularity.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our
humanity.
Albert Einstein
A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?
Albert Einstein
Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not
giving the kiss the attention it deserves.
Albert Einstein
--
- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html