Re: David, Mark, and Dr. Bill

[Patricia Dines <73652.1202@CompuServe.COM>]

Kathy - 

I've tried very hard to be patient with your posts, to hear your point of view.
But you're very predictable - not listening, just looking for any framing to
invalidate the concerns we have about these toxins.  It consistently gives the
impression that your skills at listening and critical thinking could use some
serious improvement, at least in the way you participate in this conversation.
For instance:

I said: "I think Mark's recent response to Dr. Bill was clear and cogent,
nothing near the indecent that David feels it was."

And you said, "Why, oh why, are people who work for environmental groups
considered 'above board', with no axe to grind ... but people who work for
'industry' are evil?"

Is this what you consider an example of quality critical thinking, the type that
makes you so superior to Mark etc.? I never said industry people were all evil
or all those who work for environmental groups "above board" or anything of the
sort - just like Mark in previous emails didn't say industry people were Nazis.
I made very specific assessments and gave the grounding for those assessments.
In this case, as David gaves his impression of Mark's comments, I gave mine.  Or
is only industry allowed to do this????

I'm reminded of the technique used by Clarence Thomas, where - out of nowhere, I
was watching the hearings - he said that the hearings were a high-tech lynching.
I saw nothing of the sort, but I'm sure that he knew that would be quoted in
headlines, and it was.  In the same way, I see you taking any excuse for popping
into an extreme negative position, whether or not it's actually warranted by the
conversation you purport to be responding to.  Why do you do that? Who's the
audience you're mugging for?  Or is it just to validate your position?  

Personally, I don't feel that your responses on this list are worthy of the
scientist you seem to be claiming you are - and as a trained scientist, I think
I have some grounds to assess that.  

I think it would be more fruitful - if you actually want to participate in
meaningful conversation, rather than just being the town villifier - if you
would actually consider that the human being making the comment might actually
have some validity and be open to their points, and then comment on what is
*actually said*, rather than grouping all people of "our sort" together and
making generalizations to invalidate us.  To me, the former behavior is most
consistent with a genuine search for scientific fact.

I wouldn't mind if you really considered our points and made cogent fact-based
comments, in a conversation where both sides are open to learning.  But I don't
find your knee-jerk anti-environmentalist pro-chemical a constructive addition
to the conversation *this* list is about, and wonder if your only intent here is
to invalidate us and show how superior you are.  If so, I sincerely hope that
the scientist in you can broaden your focus to a more constructive role.

As to your assertion that dioxin/chlorine are not to be worried about - have you
read Our Stolen Future or any of the other evidence?  Have you read it with a
more open mind than I see in your postings to this list?  I feel there are some
disturbing facts that warrant serious consideration, and that a genuine
scientist on a genuine search for scientific fact who actually considered these
facts wouldn't make the broad assertions about the safety of dioxin/chlorine
that you've made.

If only we could separate those people who think it's safe from those who don't
want to be exposed to it, and only the former would be exposed, we might have
something getting closer to fair, for at least then the exposure would be
voluntary. Alas, this is not how the global environment works....

But I guess the most important reason I wrote this email was because I sincerely
wondered why you're on this list.  You seem so quick to only invalidate, which
to me is inconsistent with being in a constructive conversation. Do you have any
intention of understanding us and our concerns at all?  Or is your mind already
too fixed that none of them have any validity at all...?

I hope you consider my comments here with an open mind.  I have solid scientific
training and have made independent assessments of the harm these toxins can do.
I would love it if your background could really be of service to the goals of
this list, or at least not contrary to them.  At the very least, it'd be great
if you weren't just treating us all like we have no validity and you're a
superior species.  The reality of things might be different than you think...  

Sincerely, 

P. Dines

P. S. We still don't know who David works for - he's being a little shy about
that.  Would we be right if we guessed a chemical company or related
industry...?