In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo, each reader can judge for him/her self what information the abstract
provides; he/she can then decide whether they want to look at the full paper
and/or whether the abstract is sufficient for their purpose.

The abstract does not claim that Roundup is dangerous to humans
when used as directed. Your implication, by including it is
that it does.


In making that
decision I expect that they will take into consideration that the scientists
involved, the editor, and the reviewers have mutually agreed that the paper
was worth publishing and that the abstract represented what is in the paper.

I never claimed that it was a bad paper. I simply note that
it does not claim what you imply. It is a good paper that
does not claim that Roundup is dangerous when used as
directed. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is what I
object to.



If you feel that the editor and reviewers were in error in approving the
wording/publication, you are entitled to submit your own analysis of any
paper for publication.

I don't have to. I have no quarrel with what the paper actually
*says.* I have a quarrel with your implication that it claims
something it does not claim.

In particular, it does not pretend to show that Roundup is
dangerous to humans when used as directed. In fact, the authors
are careful *not* to make that claim. I applaud the authors.
I take issue with your attempt to pretend the authors claim
something they do not claim.

billo