[ RadSafe ] Re: depleted uranium cherry & battle

[Mercado, Don]

I got this type of cop out/red herring argument from him off line. When
pinned down he indignantly claims that I have no knowledge or experience
(even though he admitted he'd never heard of me, so OBVIOUSLY he's well
qualified to judge my knowledge and experience (VBG) )and terminates the
discussion. His agenda can't stand up to the light of logic and scrutiny
and survive, so he takes his toys and runs home crying and shouting all
the way... 

As I said,:

HEY DOUG, SHOUTING DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT, JUST LOUDER!

Don't feed the troll.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of John Jacobus
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:40 PM
To: Dlind49 at aol.com
Cc: radsafe
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: depleted uranium cherry & battle


Since uranium is a common element, I guess I really
cannot get excited about the issue of DU waste. 
Professionally and personnally, I do not have an
agenda and have not seen anything that will change my
thinking.  If DU has a place in our military arsenal,
then I think it should be used.  Of course, I you do
not care about our troops, then say so?  

What report are you referring to?  If it is the one
you wrote, yes, it is B.S.

--- Dlind49 at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/31/06 4:16:22 PM Central
> Standard Time,
> crispy_bird at yahoo.com writes:
> certainly have
> not convinced me there is a problem. 
> I guess our conversations are ended.  But one last
> question......
> 
> Do you professionally and pesonnally endorse the use
> of uranium weapons that
> spread radioactive toxic waste all over another
> nation and in many locations 
> within our own? 
> 
> Yes? or No?
> 
> AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND DU AT
> ALL FROM YOUR COMMENT THAT
> THE REPORT IS B.S. 
>