🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <JAsAd.1710820$SM5.136762@news.easynews.com>,
> Sam Stone  <sirian@mental.org> wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Packman wrote:
> 
> 
> ......
> 
>>>Creating an imagined group, here "eco-weenies",
> 
> 
>>"Imagined"???
> 
> 
>>Is there no Greenpeace?
> 
> 
>>No Sierra Club?
> 
> 
>>No anti-ANWR drilling?
> 
> 
> A single pejorative term isn't useful to characterize people
> involved in these two groups and those against drilling in ANWR.
> It is akin to the general statements of those "liberals" are
> anti-American or some such meaningless generality.

Oh I think when it comes to the Greenpeace bunch just about *any* single 
pejorative is applicable..

The Sierra Club has had a few redeeming qualities at times, the 
Caribiou-huggers are just that.

Sorry, your defense of groups who wield suspect scientific credentials 
in an effort to advance an ideological agenda is shockingly transparent.

>>>and ascribing
>>>negative qualities to them doesn't advance your point. 
>>>h
>>
>>My pejorative is their willingness to employ scientific "experts" of 
>>choice to "plausibly" advance their ludite agenda - no more, no less.
> 
> 
> Your pejorative is a broad brush.

And thus you endorse their specious "scientific" claims and agendas?

>>As I have stated, and as you have passed off, they seek to combine the 
>>moral (theirs) with the analytical (yours) - and that is a marriage you 
>>refuse to comment on, which  tells me more than I really expected you'd 
>>reveal, even under my ham-fisted lens of exploratory interrogation.
> 
> 
> You haven't mentioned specifics in this area, so let me respond
> with the same generality:
> 
> "They" shouldn't do that.

Well now, that's a start...

> Whoever they are and whatever specific biased experts and contrived moral
> high ground they stand on. "They" should be most roundly castigated.


Bravo.