General Discussion

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)

13. I cited the piece you cited, just that I cited the bits you did not want to cite.

Thu Jul 21, 2016, 09:08 AM

Jul 2016

What are your specific criticisms of what I posted? The characterization thing is not 'science' it's just characterization.

The bulk of what I posted is material from the article you asked us to read, which I read and offered my thoughts. My thoughts are that you are not presenting the author's intentions and I agree with the author but not with you. If you can't manage to have your own source quoted to you that is clearly problematic.

The author of the piece you cite does not endorse the product, has distinct criticisms of Monsanto policy urges more study, waiting for the science (very good idea) and calls for caution in the use of this substance. Your framing of his work suggests that he offers a full endorsement of product and manufacturer but that is simply not the case. I'm taking issue with your editorializing not with the piece you linked to, although his writing is sloppy in places. That's about writing. I don't really expect him to excel at the use of language.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Glyphosate, Neurological Diseases – And The Scientific Method: How Not To Do Science. [View all] HuckleB Jul 2016 OP

Did Samsel and Seneff Show That "Glyphosate Is Poisoning Everyone?" (No.) HuckleB Jul 2016 #1

K and R Ohio Dem Jul 2016 #2

Thank you! HuckleB Jul 2016 #3

I hate anti-science drivel, whether from the right or the left. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #4

Absolutely. It's astounding that so many here get taken in by such fictions. HuckleB Jul 2016 #22

Oh pish posh. progressoid Jul 2016 #5

Samsel and Seneff paper shows ignorance at an astounding level. HuckleB Jul 2016 #6

I took the liberty of checking out Dr. Samsel's publication record. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #7

LOL! Publishing nonsense in crap journals on topics of which she knows nothing... HuckleB Jul 2016 #9

By That Logic. . . ProfessorGAC Jul 2016 #10

No, not really. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #15

I'm not even sure what angle that post is attempting to take. HuckleB Jul 2016 #19

The Reply Made It Obvious ProfessorGAC Jul 2016 #23

I figured that, but I don't know if it's typical of that poster. HuckleB Jul 2016 #24

This is unfortunately going to fall on deaf ears (eyes?) alarimer Jul 2016 #8

And even when it doesn't, the response is Straw Man silliness. HuckleB Jul 2016 #18

I find gaps in his data and his declaration that organic gardens are 'impossible' is just silly. Bluenorthwest Jul 2016 #11

And the classic straw man strikes. HuckleB Jul 2016 #12

I cited the piece you cited, just that I cited the bits you did not want to cite. Bluenorthwest Jul 2016 #13

And you offer up the same straw man, again, and yet another to boot. HuckleB Jul 2016 #14

Lots of sound and fury signifiying nothing. Bluenorthwest Jul 2016 #16

No, I did not call the article a straw man. HuckleB Jul 2016 #17

Kick for all the ignorant anti-science woo freaks on DU. GaYellowDawg Jul 2016 #20

Thank you. HuckleB Jul 2016 #21

This is a great article! ananda Apr 2020 #25