🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <59098@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>I must have not made my point clearly. A Greenpeace press release, from
>Austria I believe, calls for reduction of, maybe even elimination of,
>industrial uses of chlorine. The self proclaimed defenders of science and

I've been ignoring you, but what the heck...

The press release called for the elimination of industrial uses of 
chlorine *and its compounds*.

>technlogy on the net: without reading the report itself, attack Greenpeace

Whatever for?  It's from the same source as the press release.
Life's too short.

>on the grounds that table salt contains chlorine. This attack must rest on

Do you deny that table salt contains chlorine?

>one of two premises: both of which are idiotic. The first premise is that
>table salt is made by combining chlorine and sodium in an industrial
>process.

This is a prime example of what Peter Neumann, RISKS moderator,
referred to as "Shooting a straw herring in the mouth."  The press
release called for the elimination of industrial uses of chlorine
*and its compounds*.  Do you continue to deny that table salt
contains chlorine?

>The second is that when GP critiqued the chlorine industry, they
>were calling for the elimination of all chlorine compounds from the
>planet, both industrial and natural.

Wrong again. (But what's new?)

I attacked GreenPest for presuming to dictate and lecture to the
chemical industry on what compounds they may be permitted to use,
while they are so ignorant as to be unaware that table salt is a
chlorine compound.  Those who presume to dictate policy really
ought to have some conception of what they're blithering about.

I'll now go back to ignoring you.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.