Re: Who posted this?

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

GACMail98@aol.com wrote:

> On rereading my post, I agree that a reader could infer that Mr.
> Busby's
> original post (see below) was in response to Mr. Ith's article.  This
> was not
> its intent, and I apologize to Mr. Busby to the extent my post creates
> this
> confusion.  I should have instead prefaced the use of the excerpt as a
> paraphrase of Mr. Busby's remarks.  In the future, I will strive to
> make the context and use clearer.
> 
> However, I stand by the intended point that the orthodoxy has one
> standard of
> discourse for those with whom they agree and another for those with
> whom they don't.
> 
> Glenn
> GACMail98@aol.com

Yet another pointless point. All groups have one standard for people that
agree with them, and another for 'those other fools'. I do. And people who
disagree with me do. So what? People who are "being objective" are just not
engaged in an issue that is important to themselves in that particular
discussion. They aren't better or different, just not dealing with something
they know about or are engaged in. But just get them started on something they
know and feel passionate about!

Perhaps you can give it a rest. The low signal to noise ratio you disparage
while some on the list are engaged in substantial relevant communications to
their practical interests and needs would be greatly improved without this
contribution in the negative range dragging it down; while you ignore the fact
that the knowledgeable people on the list have well considered Wing's
non-science article long before you deigned to grace the list with your
presence. Perhaps some time in the radsafe archives would be a better use of
your time, whether on Wing or NIRS, or even reading Wing's article with the
Hatch response if you have the background to understand the scientific issues.
A little background and education would go a long way before launching
criticism because people don't drop eveything to fully explain the background
on a day's notice.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com


> In a message dated 98-06-15 15:51:28 EDT, you write:
> 
> << Subj:         Who posted this?
>  Date:  98-06-15 15:51:28 EDT
> 
>  Hi...
> 
>  I do not follow radsafe much, only in digest mode... but here seems
> to be
>  radsafe post that contained a cut from some post/e-mail message I
> sent.
>  I save all the e-mail I send and receive, and know what this
> originally
>  said, and it was NOT about Ith's article, as is implied.  I would
> like to
>  know who is responsible for this and state that doctoring e-mail is a
> bad
>  practice. The date on the cut was 98-05-04 , a long time before the
> Ith
>  article ever was published. If someone could explain it to me, I
> would be
>  much relieved.
> 
>   - Bruce Busby
>  ___________________________________
> 
> Subj:    Re: RADSAFE digest 1851
> Date:   98-05-04 11:55:41 EDT
> From:   bab1303@hub.doh.wa.gov (Busby, Bruce)
> Sender: bab1303@hub.doh.wa.gov (Busby, Bruce)
> To:     gacmail98@aol.com
> 
> I just can't resist. --- either
> 
> >1.  -deleted- no point
> 
> >2.  "Oil money funds anti-nukes."  An amusing thought, but certainly
> only a
> >gibbering id. . .  Oops, I'm sorry, you're serious, aren't you?
> 
> I noticed you did not deny this.. or eve refute it.  Is NIRS funding
> sources public record? Do you EVEN know what NIRS funding source is...
> and how do you know it?
> 
> >3.  "The NIRS budget, while not huge, is certainly not small."  Each
> year,
> >Sandia probably equals NIRS's FY 1998 budget in wasted copy paper
> (including
> >the paycheck for a particular Sandia employee).  But, then, this
> calculus also
> >equates statistical insignificance (as in "statistically
> insignificant
> excess
> >cancers") with zero.
> 
> this was silly and pointless. What was supposed to be your point?
> 
> >4.  "To the best of my knowledge, they have (or at least had in 1984)
> no
> >technical or scientific expertise at all -- they generally tried to
> hire
> it."
> >Either Ms. Weiner is working for Sandia pro bono (a fair wage for her
> day's
> >work to be sure and a savings in paper to boot), or she was hired for
> other
> >than technical or scientific expertise (let's see -- clerical,
> janitorial -- I
> >know -- she's in Transportation Systems, so she's an auto mechanic,
> but,
> no,
> >that's technical. . .  hmmm.).  (With apologies to all clerks,
> janitors,
> and
> >auto mechanics.)
> 
> Hmmm... again, you did not deny or refute it. And I would guess that
> Dr.
> Ruth Weiner would not be in a clerical or janitorial position. Ruth
> Weiner is the former dean of environmental studies at Western
> Washington
> University, is on the faculty at the University of New Mexico
> 
> >Now, how does that fit?  Pinch anywhere?
> 
> ? point?
> 
> >Seriously, though, while the Ruth Weiners of the world are unable to
> believe
> >that NIRS has done and continues to do a lot of good work for a lot
> of
> good
> 
> what good work does the NIRS do? can you give examples of positive
> things
> that have resulted from NIRS? I can give positive things that Sandia
> has
> done.
> 
> >people, you don't have to agree with everything they do to know we
> are
> better
> >off with them than without them.  After all, if Ms. Weiner is any
> indication,
> >do we really want the Sandias of the world running things unopposed?
> 
> "running things unopposed?" Whoever said anything about that?
> 
> >Go get 'em, Michael!
> 
> go get who? who is "em" and why do they need "get"ing
> 
> Anyway, if you have facts to refute Ms Weiners post, give them. If all
> you have is this, it made you look like you did nto know what you were
> talking about. If you have facts (supported with documentation), I
> also
> would be very interested in seeing that!
> 
> >----------------------------------------------------<
> Bruce Busby   W - bab1303@hub.doh.wa.gov  H - babusby@aol.com
> Radiation Health Physicist - Washington State Department of Health
> Radiation Protection Division - Radioactive Materials Section
> 7171 Cleanwater Lane, Building 5, PO Box 47827
> Olympia, WA      98504-7827
> Phone: 360-236-3222      Fax: 360-236-2255
> >-----------------------------------------------------<