Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I had posted this before: DDT was not banned.
http://www.malaria.org/inthenews.html
There was a proposal to ban it entirely in December,
it failed becuase
of the poor countries who still use it for malaria
control.
Why use DDT? It can be
Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, Yahoo is truncating messages again, so I can't
quote Debbi. Damn. We appear to agree that the
charges against the Bush Administration about
mercury have been vastly exaggerated.
I'd disagree with the
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Deborah Harrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
think I'm being fair in paraphrasing her concluding
thought by saying that she suggests that in the
conclusion to
Eric, wiff his feewwings hurt:
But not all disagreements are worthy of respect.
Understood. People disagreeing with you must respect you, but
you don't have to respect people you disagree with. Crystal clear.
No, Eric, the crystal clear point is that when you get stupid enough, we
don't
Gautam wrote:
Since the environmental movement has done more harm to
the poor of the world than any other such supposedly
well-intentioned group, their dogma gets a very
visceral reaction from me. When you get down to it,
you've got a bunch of people who would rather millions
of poor brown
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:42:37PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
No, I admit I left it Gautam to do that.
No, you didn't.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:53:02PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
They died because environmental activists _didn't care_, and they won
the argument, against all reason and evidence.
There are any number of other examples. Golden rice. Genetically
engineered food crops in Africa. That was a
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:53:02PM -0700, Gautam
Mukunda wrote:
Sounds like you are attributing malevolence to them.
Maybe they honestly
disagree with you? Perhaps they feel that they are
saving billions of
lives (the human race) sometime in the
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 05:02:57AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as it doesn't strike to close to home, they can disagree.
But if it feels too personal, then they are evil.
I don't think so, no. Golden rice doesn't strike particularly close
At 08:52 AM 4/23/04, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think the blindness of millions of kids is
worth stopping some
unspecified and very small risk that genetically
engineered rice might
in some way harm someone, then you're into a
morally
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:52:49AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Look Erik, this isn't actually that hard.
Right, double standards make things quite easy.
But not all disagreements are worthy of respect.
Understood. People disagreeing with you must respect you, but you don't
have to respect
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:52:49AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Look Erik
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:05:07AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
There is considerable empirical evidence both in his response and in
past series of posts that contradict this assertion. Why do you make
it?
Huh?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
Erik wrote
Understood. People disagreeing with you must respect you, but you don't
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 12:26:23PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Yet, he has also clearly stated that there are some people that he feels
hold an immoral position that he disagrees with. Thus, the reasonable
hypothesis is that he respects some, but not all, of the people he
disagrees with.
Eh?
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 12:26:23PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Yet, he has also
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading your post this way, you appear to miss his
point. His complaint
was about people who put virtually everyone they
disagree with in the
immoral category. The complaint was not that
liberals thought some
conservatives, like Lott, were immoral,
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do feel that way. I have no doubt that Gandhi
(for
example) would say that my support of violent
intervention to stop mass killings (in Iraq, but
also,
for example, in Rwanda) is actively immoral. Thomas
Jefferson, to pick another example,
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
or support killing
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040422_314.html
A national group of Christian leaders is sending a
scathing letter to President Bush to coincide with
Earth Day, accusing his administration of chipping
away at the Clean Air Act. The National Council of
Churches argued that planned changes to
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, if one thinks that Armegeddon is just
'round the corner, one might ignore possible future
consequences of one's actions.
Debbi
Responsible Stewards Maru
And if one is so fiercely committed to defeating
Republicans that one entirely
Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, if one thinks that Armegeddon is just
'round the corner, one might ignore possible
future consequences of one's actions.
Debbi
Responsible Stewards Maru
And if one is so fiercely
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam: this administration's proposed alterations
to
the Clean Air Act allow increased mercury emissions,
yet guidelines for consumption of mercury-containing
fish (such as tuna) by pregnant women and young
children have already been recently
Here's information on mercury in fish, several years old. I don't
know what Bush has done to help or hurt, but mercury in fish from
environmental contamination is definitely an issue:
***
THE MERCURY PROBLEM
One persistent problem is that unacceptably high levels of toxic
methylmercury
Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam: this administration's proposed alterations
to the Clean Air Act allow increased mercury
emissions, yet guidelines for consumption of
mercury-containing
fish (such as tuna) by pregnant women and
On 22 Apr 2004, at 10:34 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam: this administration's proposed alterations
to
the Clean Air Act allow increased mercury emissions,
yet guidelines for consumption of mercury-containing
fish (such as tuna) by pregnant women and
William T Goodall wrote:
And I buy free-range eggs because even chickens deserve a little
happiness Maru :)
Dunno if y'all have problems with salmonella in the eggs in the UK, but
eggs from free-range chickens are significantly less likely to be
carrying salmonella.
Happy chickens are good.
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, Yahoo is truncating messages again, so I can't
quote Debbi. Damn. We appear to agree that the
charges against the Bush Administration about mercury
have been vastly exaggerated. What does it say, btw,
that with absolutely no knowledge of the
28 matches
Mail list logo
