"R. Harrill" wrote:
> Michael S. Lorrey" added his attack to the prior attack I grumbled about:
> > I've been on the list for years, and I've NEVER heard of any such thing.
> > Either you made it up or you deliberately misunderstood someones
> > recommendation that you just listen for a while to get into the flow of
> > the list.
> Here's the July 10th message I was referring to. Are you saying it's not an attack?
> "Well, hello troll, I haven't seen you around here before... do you have
> anything substantive to say, or are you just a hit & run luddite?"
> According to my files, I had posted twice prior to the attack so I really do feel like
> the author was trying to Catch-22 me ("don't post here until you've been seen posting
> for a while"). I don't know if he is the moderator or not.
And how long have you been subscribed to the list? And were you aware of the
decidedly anti-luddite bent of the list beforehand? If you were aware of this,
your choice to subscribe and post luddite posts does in fact indicate that your
only purpose was to be a troll.
> > There is no *impossible*, only difficult, expensive, or time consuming.
> Obviously, we have different opinions. Not everything can be stuffed back in Pandora's
> Box. BTW, I'm here at ground-zero (i.e, farming the soil). How many miles back are
I've farmed the soil, fished the rivers, ponds and streams, and hunted in the
wilderness since I could ride a bike. Nature is the most resilient force there
is, but it does things in its own sweet time, NOT on YOUR schedule.
> Interesting that you would bring that up. Really good farmers, as opposed to the
> "spread bagged stuff and poison the sh*t out of anything that moves" variety knew
> beforehand that Mt. St. Helens would go a long way toward remineralizing thousands of
> square miles of needy land.
Yet if the force of that explosion had been man made rather than natural, I
doubt very much that you would be singing the same tune. You'd likely be suing
whoever did it (and the government as well for allowing it), and make up some
more pseudo-science to 'quantify' your losses...You'd be bitching and whining
about 'fallout', and increased incidence of respiratory illness, etc. while
hiding all the monster sized veggies you can now grow thanks to all those new
> > The anti-GMO side is ignorant to the extreme (hell, they can't even
> It that a name?
Merely a descriptive, and an accurate one at that.
> > pronounce 'nuclear' right), their whole argument is based on ignorance,
> Is that another name---or two?
more mere accurate descriptive based on real experience. Never met a greenie
that could pronounce nuclear right.
> > and a willful ignorance at that. Their science is pseudo-science of the
> Is that two more?
More accurate descriptives.
> > worst sort, that any real scientist would laugh at as the product of a
> > sixth grade student, with logical errors abounding and much unaccounted
> > for evidence.
> Two more---what is the name count up to?
> I generally fire up the killfile when the name-calling count hits ten. Besides, I was
> only trying to offer another opinion and don't always have time for battles.
Coming on a known anti-luddite list and spouting pure luddite and tree hugger
propaganda is one sure way to get a a battle. Apparently you don't have time for
battles when you are apparently losing them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:56 MDT