Keith, state of mind assumptions and attributing motives is what I think makes too much of this thread distasteful and counter-productive to understanding. You assert that "it appears (I'm) attempting to mischacterise the nature of his post". Here's what you quoted from Rob in support:
"And I’ll try to keep it brief by simply saying that those that still doubt there is agenda-driven ‘science’ being promulgated at the state and federal levels are naďve at best." Rob immediately followed the part you quote with this: "A fair amount of that ‘shaky science’ has been aired here re: the lead/upland bird issue."
He said not another word about lead. None of this (or what followed) is inconsistent with how I summarized my understanding of his post:
"Rob told us from an insider's viewpoint that "agenda-driven ‘science’" happens, but he conspicuously made only a general statement about studies of lead, and his reference to "shaky science" applies to criticisms of those kinds of studies made by both sides of this debate. He took no one's side here, but simply said we need to look at purported evidence with a critical eye."
You may understand his opinion to be something more than what he wrote yesterday. Maybe it is, but that's no basis for saying I attempted to mis-characterize what he wrote yesterday.
I'm gonna follow his lead and say I also am "outta here. I won’t be responding to any replies that would further turn this into a pissing contest."
Jay
Last edited by Gunflint Charlie; 01/29/16 07:15 PM.
