From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Rainforests and McDonalds
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:36:18 GMT

>>Rich Young replies:
>>>	It points out the fact that there are flaws in Rifkin's arguments,
>>>	and it re-affirms the fact that, for the U.S. at least, it is a
>>>	tiny, and [especially] diminishing, concern.
>>
Ted Altar retorts:
>>Yes, and what's the flaw?

>	This is one of the more inane responses I've seen here.  It has
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	gone beyond informational to desperately defensive and therefore
>	more annoying than useful.  The question has been asked and answered.

I ask a simply question and Rich Young resorts to insults.   You are making
my point that the common response of our omnivorous kibitzers on
this vegetarian conference when faced with discursive arguments and
verified empirical facts that would challenge their preconceptions is
to simply resort to RUDE remarks and INSULTS.

You know, this would be a very congenial conference if SOME of our
omnivorous friends were no so very needy to defend or justify their
current dietary practice by resorting to insults directed at the
the gentle vegetarians, especially when those vegetarians make a good
point.

>[...]
>>>	The source of the review is documented, talk to THEM if you think
>>>	that the review is "glib".  The editorial address is:
>>
>>What's the matter, can't you do your own homework.

>	__I__ have no need to talk to the reviewers, since I have no problem
>	with the review.  Since you seem to, I have suggested that you
>	contact the publication personally.  After all, you wouldn't
>	volunteer to contact John Robbins because I have a problem with
>	his presentation of data regarding iron in foods, now would you?
>	Same thing.

At least John Robbins and Rifkin provide primary sources for their
claims, sources easily located in academic journals in your
local university library.  There is here NO need to call Robbins
or Rifkin directly since they at least provide a well-argued case, one 
that stands on its own and is responsibly documented.  

Now, you are the one who posted the glib review and therefore it
is your intellectual responsibility to properly defend it or politely
and graciously concede that I made a good point, a point that you
or your newletter review simply cannot refute or dismiss.
Yes, the review was glib in not properly documenting its claims
and in engaging in a bit of number magic, as if 1% being a small
proportion THEREFORE entails that no significant impact on the
Latin American rainforests would accue from 1% of American beef
consumption being dependent upon Latin American production.
This is logically a non-sequitur and is empirically unsupported.
I at least provided a source for you to read for yourself, a
source whose references and data can be easily verified. 


>	This "discussion", or at least my part in it, is ended.

How convenient and evasive.  No need to do some homework, no need to
read that which you would so hastily dismiss, and finally no need
to admit that you might here be wrong. 

                                     ted

.