From Caroline Bourbon Young, 20 Jan 97, 10:52 CST.

Hello to all of you on the CSG net. I want to apologize for posting my recent
message about responsibility here. I meant to post it to the RESPTHINK net, an
ongoing dialogue involving people using Ed Ford's RTP program. Sorry about the
mix-up, I am not always as computer literate as I would like to think I am!


<[Bill Leach 950105.20:35 EST(EDT)]

In the reply to Avery's message at the end where I said "I do have" that
should have been "I do not have"...


[From Bruce Abbott (2017.02.12.1430 EST)]

In Bruce Abbott (2017.02.12.I335 EST) I discovered after posting that I had unintentionally performed a “cut” rather than “copy” when copying a paragraph from Rick Marken, thus deleting it. I’ve now resent that post with the deleted paragraph restored; please simply delete the previous version.


From [Marc Abrams (2003.03.04.0627)]

In thanking people yesterday I omitted David Goldstein. Please forgive David.


[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0304.0647)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.04.0627)

In thanking people yesterday I omitted David Goldstein. Please forgive

O.K. I forgive David.


Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.


from [Marc Abrams (2003.03.03.0751)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0304.0647)]

O.K. I forgive David.

You too? LOL

<[Bill Leach 940821.12:08 EST(EDT)]


In my response message to Bill early this morning, I misattributed some

I said something to the effect that O'Reilly admitted that the ban on DDT
was political and not supported by the scientific evidence. That is an
error of course, and it was Rucklehouse (sp?) who made the admission
(more significant in my opinion since of course it was Rucklehouse that
actually issued the final rulings).

Director O'Reilly is the one that used the incident/mortality rates for a
skin cancer that has a negative correllation to sun exposure but is often
fatal and applied those rates to the predicted incident rate for the
rarely fatal skin cancer that does show a correllation to sun exposure.
As far as I know, no one can prove that he "knowingly" committed this
error. However, it is my opinion that such people are far less concerned
with the objective truth of such matters and are a lot more concerned
about the "shock" value of yet another "we are ALL about to die because"
scenerio. In my opinion, such people are "controlling for power" and can
rationalize almost anything to get power.

Even Schnieder (sp? again), admitted that he believed that the "global
warming crisis" justified his denial that there were any doubts
concerning either the reliablitity of the predictions or the projected
effects upon the eco-sphere. I don't question the 'right' for him to
have his beliefs but I do question the sanity of an entire social system
that has essentially said "don't bother me with the facts unless they
support the current party line.

Of all the people that I have ever encounted, it is precisely the people
working in the PCT arena that I would expect to be among the first to
doubt the claims of such absolutests as lead the green movement.
Billions of dollars and immense amounts of power are changing hands based
upon evidence far more "flimsy" than exists in the conventional field of

Again, you people of all people know that correllation does not prove
causality and that this is particularly true for complex system analysis
where even the number of influencing factors are not known much less
their nature.