"nasty and dismissive" is your interpretation of my simple question though your "definitely neither" suggests you are happy not to have either of those employers. Do you have a personal bias regarding this news or regarding Monsanto? If so, opinions from the community would also become biased by the same. For example, as my reply has already run through bias, via your eyes.
"a community I respect" - well, there's a problem worth talking about too.
Now I'm gonna venture guesses that you're an artist, have a social science degree (at best), and vote Democrat. Which is topical since anyone's opinion is best given depth by the origins of their personal background. I guessed artist because of a projected distaste for "mainstream media" and Democrat because of the implication of a source of antagonism after a simple & logical question, and social science because both of these also imply lack of training in critical thinking skills. 'k, cool. At least the Turing test passes.
My immediate thoughts after reading the news report (first saw it in bbc online), was:
- geez why'd this take so long... oh. biologists. well, and human time lines, but.. mostly, biologists.
- where's the reference, how come the journalist didn't link the reference?!
- oh, probably because the study is statistics bunk anyway
- especially compared to the arsenic overdose I'm getting from my U.S. grown rice
- which doesn't matter because Monsanto will continue doing what they're doing (until public opinion causes a change)
- and no one REALLY cares about human longevity anyway
- especially because veganism is the only current antidote to cancer and look how the article didn't mention that
"a community I respect" - well, there's a problem worth talking about too.
Now I'm gonna venture guesses that you're an artist, have a social science degree (at best), and vote Democrat. Which is topical since anyone's opinion is best given depth by the origins of their personal background. I guessed artist because of a projected distaste for "mainstream media" and Democrat because of the implication of a source of antagonism after a simple & logical question, and social science because both of these also imply lack of training in critical thinking skills. 'k, cool. At least the Turing test passes.
My immediate thoughts after reading the news report (first saw it in bbc online), was:
- geez why'd this take so long... oh. biologists. well, and human time lines, but.. mostly, biologists.
- where's the reference, how come the journalist didn't link the reference?!
- oh, probably because the study is statistics bunk anyway
- especially compared to the arsenic overdose I'm getting from my U.S. grown rice
- which doesn't matter because Monsanto will continue doing what they're doing (until public opinion causes a change)
- and no one REALLY cares about human longevity anyway
- especially because veganism is the only current antidote to cancer and look how the article didn't mention that
## Jonathan Cline ## jcline@ieee.org ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223 ########################On 3/23/15 7:50 PM, Heather Dewey-Hagborg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Jonathan Cline <jncline@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 4:56:42 PM UTC-7, Heather wrote:What do you think about this? Big news today. Curious about impressions from the community.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-
Where do you work: for Monsanto, or for a news agency?
wow. because I'm interested in what the reaction is from a community I respect? because I want to hear opinions outside the mainstream media? seems like an unnecessarily nasty and dismissive response. I'm definitely neither of those things.
0 comments:
Post a Comment