Tres interesting, she said thoughtfully, that the unsigned, um,
contribution by TJHOOG of Monsanto came over the same day Steve
Verhey of Washington State asked for reasoned discussion of the
/Science/ article about rBST and Monsanto's role in controlling the
flow of research findings and their interpretation.
Ya know, out on the UseNet there's a tactic called "flame-baiting."
It consists of posting a message so deliberately full of diatribe,
the ad hominem, and poor reasoning that anyone who's had too much
coffee or too little sleep (i.e., most of us) might be tempted to
reply. It's often used by members of certain political alliances to
distract people from focusing on more important issues. It is
similar to public relations tactics that some institutions and
organizations use to disrupt discussion and set people at each
other's throats. In short, an often-successful diversionary tactic.
But it would be churlish at best of me to assume that TJHOOG's reply
was motivated by flackery. So let me offer a more constructive
Perhaps TJHOOG would do us all the favor of initiating a reasoned
discussion of the facts by replying to Steve Verhey's questions about
how knowledge is constructed out of research findings. TJHOOG seems
to have the same concern where "environmental" organizations are
concerned, and he could no doubt speak for his experience at
(communications generalist and agricultural cyberpunk)