NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/energy/7282

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
From: [e-mail] (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:43:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>It must be a relief not to have to feign. The subject of the GP press
>>release was the report.
>
>No, Victor.  The subject of the press release was the claim that there's a 1 in
>17 chance of a CANDU reactor experiencing a meltdown.  Drop your intellectually
>dishonest pose and address the fact that the commercial was intended to be seen
>by lots of people whom Greenpeace never expects to read the report, and whom
>Greenpeace can confidently assume will assume a time frame of one year of less
>for that probability.  C'mon, Victor, you know that much propaganda.   Quit
>your lying and address the issue at hand.  Or is that asking you to mar your
>otherwise pure anti-nuke ideological stand, tovarisch?
>
>>>Jeremy Whitlock described TELEVISION COMMERCIAL from GreenHype.  I pointed out
>>>the shortcomings of that commercial, as described by Jeremy.  You take me to
>>>task for not reading the "report."  Well, shit-for-brains, the subject under
>>
>>No. I take you to task for assuming that the report did not offer any
>>time frame, and then, on the basis of this completely unfounded assumption,
>>complaining about the lack of scientific rigor in the report.
>
>Victor, do you have a problem with the English language?  I'm talking about the
>goddamned TELEVISION COMMERCIAL, which GreenHype can confidently assume is ALL
>that most of the viewers will ever see.

Here's what Mr. Whitlock wrote:


|In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
|>On the news last night:  Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (from
|>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown accident
|>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds than
|>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
|>
|>To make the point, the Greenpeace spokesman shakes a pair of dice for 15
|>seconds while stating the above information (visual crutch telegraphed from
|>miles away), and then tosses the dice across the table.

Note that there's no mention of a TV commercial. GP issued a press release
to publicize their report and its findings. TV news covered the press
release. Your indignation is compounded of fabrications and bile.

>>Now we are getting snippy: "tovarisch" indeed.
>
>Da, tovarisch.  Aren't you the same Victor Yodaiken who, a month or two ago
>praised socialist governments because their avowed aims coincided with your own
>ideology, despite the fact that their actual records showed no correlation at
>all with their avowed goals?

No. Although given your comprehension skills, you could be referring to
almost anything. I did write something on second order induction a couple
of months ago, maybe that's what you have in mind. Well, this has been
delightful, but I have to go meet Natasha at the Embassy.

--


[e-mail]