Hello Chris >Is this another Holocaust denial/questioning, style, pissing match?
Well, it takes two to tango, but it only takes one to make a screwup. This is just a bit of very inept smokescreening. I wouldn't agree that the "Holocaust denial/questioning" discussion was just a pissing match. There were several, but I guess you mean the most recent one, a few months ago. It got a lot of things in perspective, much needed, and it wasn't only here, it's a trend, at last. The Holocaust can't be used as a big moral stick to defend colonial Zionism here anymore. Not for quite a long time: <http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg35017.html> [biofuel] Oil and Israel <http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg35355.html> Re: [biofuel] Re: Oil and Israel - Keith The more recent bout brought us to the ugly fact that "genocides are a dime a dozen these days", just business-as-usual, for the last 100 years and more, Naomi Klein's disaster capitalism. One genocide is no worse than another. None of that can be overemphasized, especially because of the way it gets obscured so easily, sidelined, magicked out of the public eye. Look in exactly the same place for the causes of the current food crisis, eg. Anyway, re this little fracas, it's sad stuff like I said, but the bit about the Ford Pinto in the following message is a gem, amazing display of protected ignorance. I really couldn't figure out whether it made my day or ruined it, LOL! All over now. Best Keith >Chris > >-----Original Message----- >From: Craig Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 1:40 pm >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military >Worse Than Nuclear Weapons > >> If you say so. :-) > >ROFL :-) > >> I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference >>between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and >>cynical (criminal?) delaying tactics. > >And how does one know which is which? There are occasions when it's more >justifiable to jump to the conclusion without any actual proof, but it's >certainly not always appropriate. A company that has a history of going out >and destroying with no regard for anything but profit, sure, but ExxonMobil >is hardly the only company that asked for proof and for a long time there >was huge debate about whether there really was sufficient evidence. Besides >which, one example is hardly justification for throwing out the notion of >wanting proof. > >> I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the >>sunset in your Ford Pinto. > >I've never had a Ford of any sort. > >> You STILL didn't check the list archives, did you? > >If the other links you've considered to be good are anything to go by, why >should I expect to find anything useful there? Besides which, that's merely >continuing to avoid answering what I actually originally wrote. > >The original article made sweeping accusations without providing any >arguments to support its conclusions. It had only one reference that was in >any way linked to the headline and that contained info that not only was >just as vague and of seemingly questionable origin, but didn't match up with >the article's own statements. I've already said why I don't consider >anything in the article to be an argument, so I won't bother to go into it. >There may be evidence out there, but the article itself made no reference to >any, it merely presented a lot of sleight of hand, which was my original >complaint about it (though that's a different way of expressing it). > >And before you try to bring this up, no, I don't expect an article like that >to have every possible link to every possible piece of information that is >pertinent to the content of the article. But, as I said before, I do expect >it to make an argument and support it. > >Cheers >Craig > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Keith Addison >Sent: 22 May 2008 08:10 PM >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse >Than Nuclear Weapons > >Hello Craig > >If you say so. :-) > ><snip> > >>ExxonMobil has every right to ask for the proof. If not, where does one >>draw the line? If you were running a business and I told you you had to >>spend a whole lot of money to change the way you do business based on a >>claim I had about damage you were causing, are you telling me you'd just >>make the expensive changes, possibly lose revenue, etc., simply on my say >>so? I know I wouldn't, I'd want the claim verified. There do at least >>appear to be fewer naysayers in the scientific community about global >>warming these days and while there are still those who're claiming it's not >>real, or at least that we're not causing it, are finding it harder and >>harder to support their stance. > >I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference >between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and >cynical (criminal?) delaying tactics. > >I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the >sunset in your Ford Pinto. > >>By the way, in case it's not clear, I'm enjoying this. I know that I have >a >>tendency to get carried away and commit exactly the crimes I'm accusing >>others of doing. Having it pointed out to me is most welcome. > >Of course you're welcome to enjoy it, but I'm afraid you'll have to >do so all by yourself. "Most people simply don't have that kind of >time on their hands," and that includes me. > >You STILL didn't check the list archives, did you? > >Best > >Keith _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
