> > Tree huggers like you think something is *impossible* if the solution
> Is that a name?
> > The anti-GMO side is ignorant to the extreme (hell, they can't even
> It that a name?
No, it's an adjective.
> > pronounce 'nuclear' right), their whole argument is based on ignorance,
> Is that another name---or two?
No, I don't see any there either. Overgeneralization, maybe.
> > and a willful ignorance at that. Their science is pseudo-science of the
> Is that two more?
> > 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.
You clearly have a definition of "name-calling" that bears no resemblance
to mine. And anyway, an occasional name or two should be expected when
you're taking a position different from most of those in the forum in
which you speak. If I had a nickel for every time I've been called a
"thief" when I talk about eliminating patents and copyrights...
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <email@example.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:57 MDT