🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2532@sigi.Colorado.EDU> pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) writes:
>Doug Gwyn writes:
>>...
>Information he gave regarding immunology and the possibility of developing
>defensive vaccines was false, and I originally wanted to correct it.

Anyone who wishes to can check that I gave NO information regarding
immunology in either of my two previous postings.  My response
addressed the general issue of military research, which I felt
was behind pell's objection to the Dugway project (as strikingly
verified by the remarks in his previous message).

>>They have spread ideas across the nation that are even more
>>harmful, however; does that count?

>Logical argument is wasted on people who think ideas are dangerous.

I of course did not say that ALL ideas are dangerous, which is
what one would gather from pell's response.  I do believe that
SOME ideas are dangerous, such as the idea that misrepresenting
an opponent's position is a valid mode of argumentation.

One has to wonder at this point whether pell's representation of
the intended purpose of the Dugway facility is equally accurate.
He has painted a picture of complete bunglers trying to develop
actual vaccines for unknown diseases.  I rather suspect that
the people involved are not nearly so stupid as they are being
made out to be by pell, or by whatever sources he got his
information from.  If they're the same as those that came up
with the examples he mentioned in his previous posting, then
they aren't very reliable sources of information.  Does anyone
know the true story of the Dugway project?  I didn't really
care about this particular project, but now I'm curious.