From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Jul 11 2002 - 02:27:36 MDT
On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 05:17 pm, John K Clark wrote:
> let's see, you want to charge me with slander, that is charge me with
saying
> things about you that were untrue, because I called you thin skinned.
I never said that. You are again arguing against things I never said.
Maybe I am thin-skinned. Maybe slander is too harsh a word. Maybe I'm
just tired. But I am tired of you responding to my posts with non
sequiturs like above. Instead of responding to what I actually claimed
was slanderous, you responded to a made-up position I never held. I
never mentioned "thin skinned" in relation to slander. In fact, I never
mentioned it at all. It was too juvenile to even respond to. In fact,
it was you who used the term in response to my slander claim, not the
other way around. Your response is to an imaginary scenario that
doesn't match real life. I can't tell if you think you are joking, if
you really believe this is reality, if you are deliberately
misrepresenting me, or if you are just confused in your mind from one
posting to the next.
You have your history backwards. Your sequence of events does not match
reality. The cause and effect are the exact opposite of what you
claim. You defend your slander in one post and then deny being able to
find the reference in your next. You ridicule me for examples you
invented, and then claim credit for "your" example which is the one I
actually invented. You are constantly responding to points I haven't
made. You post whole diatribes against a position I haven't expressed.
You seem to be having entire conversations that only exist in your own
brain. Your postings seem to be in the middle of a
stream-of-consciousness flow and I don't know what you are talking
about. You quote some minor line from my posts and then whole
paragraphs that only seem tangentially related to the topic I
mentioned. Your response to my slander accusations were so convoluted
that I can't tell if you conceded, retracted, supported or didn't
remember your points. You don't seem to be able to hold a consistent
thesis from one post to the next.
I seriously think you need help. I don't know if you are doing this
deliberately to see how far you can string me along. I don't know if
you are actually having difficulty distinguishing between what I really
said and what you expected me to say. I don't know if you really
"remember" me saying the things you are answering, or if you merely lump
me in with other "liberals" or "luddites" and assume what I "would"
say. I'm not sure what is causing your string of non sequiturs in
response to my posts. But in any case, this has got to be one of the
worst examples of talking past each other that has ever occurred on this
list.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com> ______________________________________________________________________ Here are some John Clark non sequiturs still in my active mailbox. Who knows how many dozens have already been deleted from previous threads. On Saturday, July 6, 2002, at 10:50 am, John K Clark wrote: >By the way, would you also be in favor of >forcing people to put the astrological sign of the head of the company on >the label too? It seems to me if you are for the one you should be for the >other, after all, the average consumer almost certainly believes more >strongly in the veracity of astrology than of genetics and so would be even >more interested in it. You brought this up. I never mentioned astrology, nor do I believe in it. On Sunday, July 7, 2002, at 01:02 am, John K Clark wrote: > "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> > I think astrology is a total crock but the fact remains that > many millions of people disagree and would love to know what the stars > portend for their Oreo cookies. Nearly every newspaper in the USA has a > daily astrology column because it sells papers but there are not too many > genetics columns, so I repeat my question, how can you be for one but not > the other? After my correction, you are still pushing me on the astrology angle. On Sunday, July 7, 2002, at 01:02 am, John K Clark wrote: > Humans have been modifying the genetics of their food crops and domestic > animals for thousands of years, the only difference is that now we can do it > more carefully and just change the genes we want to. You brought this up. I never mentioned genetics, either natural or designed, nor do I dispute this claim. On Sunday, July 7, 2002, at 01:02 am, John K Clark wrote: > How about Kosher food, should the US government get involved in that > religious practice too and decide if the correct prayers have been said and > so decree who can and can not call their food Kosher, even though like GM no > nutritional difference can be found by science? You brought this up. I never mentioned kosher food, nor government involvement, nor do I endorse either. On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 09:50 am, John K Clark wrote: > Stopping the genetic modification of crops would increase the net total of human misery. > There is not one scrap of evidence that genetic engineering of food crops has produced > so much as a belly ache, but there is plenty of evidence that millions of people starve to > death every year. If you could increase the amount of salt rice could tolerate by just 2% > you could greatly increase the area of cultivated land because of irrigation and save > thousands from death You brought this up. I never mentioned stopping genetic modification of crops, nor do I think we should do so. I never mentioned that GM crops won't decrease suffering, nor do I believe that. I never mentioned GM food causing any health problems, nor do I know of any specific problems. I never denied the benefits of GM food. On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 05:18 pm, John K Clark wrote: > Interesting example. There is a test in this case, just look for beta > carotene the precursor of vitamin A, no natural strain of rice has the gene > to make it so you'll never get it from crossbreeding. The idea was to take > a gene from the carrot and put it into the most popular agricultural crop in > the would so a 10 ounce bowl of rice would contain all the vitamin A you > need in a day. 124 million people are deficient in vitamin A in the third > world, between 1 and 2 million people die from it each year, it is also the > leading cause of blindness in children. All in all golden rice seems like a > pretty worthwhile project to me. You brought this up. I never mentioned anything negative about golden rice, nor do I dispute its worthwhile nature. I mentioned the positive aspects of golden rice to demonstrate why it should be labeled as special. On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 02:04 am, John K Clark wrote: > You said yourself the rice looks different so there is no big secret that > it's not the same as regular rice, but if you force people to brand the > label with some sort of a scarlet letter saying the product was made with > Frankenstein technology then the golden rice project will fail, it's as > simple as that. And then millions will continue to die and go blind > who need not have. You brought this up. I never mentioned any scarlet letter of Frankenstein technology, nor do I think any such warning labels should be used. On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 11:09 am, John K Clark wrote: > "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> Wrote: > > I don't want to label it as "Frankenstein" technology. > Yes you do, You brought this up. Even after my correction, you reassert your claims. On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 11:09 am, John K Clark wrote: > "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> Wrote: > > I want to label it as "golden rice" so people can tell the > > difference from regular rice. > I have not the slightest objection to putting "golden rice" on the label, > assuming it's even needed as one look will tell you what it is; > I object to forcing people to put "A PRODUCT OF GENETIC ENGINEERING" > on the label when there is no health befit from doing so and lots of health benefits from not doing so. You brought this up. Even after my correction, you reassert your claims. Even after I give an exact quote how I want it labeled, you argue against a different wording that I don't support. On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 01:21 am, John K Clark wrote: > "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> Wrote: > > I want full disclosure on the labels. > Personally I'm not interested in astrology and only want to read about stuff > that is likely to have a health impact of some sort but if you think it a product > doesn't give you enough information then don't buy it; buy the stuff that talks > about the stars or is certified non genetically engineered You brought this up. I never mentioned astrology, nor do I believe in it. Even after repeated corrections, you still act as if I want this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:19 MST