From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 22:25:37 MDT
On Friday 30 August 2002 15:44, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> On Friday, August 30, 2002, at 06:04 pm, Charles Hixson wrote:
> > Of course they deliberately distorted the scientific facts. Selective
> > emphasis is one of the primary forms of distortion. Selective
> > exclusion is the other. Both were being practiced here. Everyone does
> > it, you can't avoid it, but it's done more intensively when you are
> > trying to put forward a political agenda (e.g.: "Stop the planting of
> > BT corn!"). Don't assume that everyone involved had the same goals.
>
> So why did you jump on my reference to conspiracy theories or political
> agendas? You made it sound like I totally misrepresented you and that
> there was no secret political agenda. Then when I backed off, you
> posted the above argument. You are obviously arguing with me, but I
> can't figure out what the disagreement is.
The term "conspiracy", and the implication that it was a totally unreasonable
position. In the broader definition of conspiracy, in which the plumber's
union is a conspiracy, then there is definitely a conspiracy. This, however,
is not the normal usage of the term.
Also, I did not, as you asserted, state that the Monarch butterfly was not
threatened. What I stated was that we couldn't tell. My real point was that
the evidence was so clouded by people with political agendas (on both sides)
that the facts couldn't be determined, and that the choice of a photogenic
"indicator species" (an openly acknowledged tactic of the ecological pressure
groups) resulted in information about other species that might be more
endangered not being presented. (I didn't mention that the corporate
researchers were carefully making certain that all of their research was
presented in the most favorable possible light. I assumed that this was
obvious, by symmetry if nothing else.)
In short, I felt, and feel, that you totally misunderstood what I was talking
about. And that when you paraphrased it, and posted that paraphrase as a
summary of "what Charles clearly believes" you grossly distorted my position,
and omitted the main point that I was making. (I'm still not sure that you
understand it... it's the species that aren't being examined that are the
main source of potential danger ... because we don't know what's happening.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:34 MST