From: Rich Gauszka 

Mark wrote:
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:45e7901e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> FWIW - I don't disagree with what you've stated below. Where we differ is
>> in how we define what is  'unproven science'.
>
> Thanks Rich. I don't mean to come across as stridently as I sometimes do,
> but I guess I get carried away from time to time because I worry about the
> consequences of doing too much, too soon, based on what I believe to be less
> than solid science. We'll likely never come to agreement on that point in
> the present  forthcoming thus allowing all of us to come together on a prudent course of
> action, if one is even necessary/possible>
>
>
>

The problem with online discussions is that one's words can appear harsher
than intended ( pleading guilty ).

I also share your disdain of Gore's hypocricy

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5