PS I do agree with you about nuclear power. That wasn't at issue (for me at
least). But if you use unfair debating tactics like motive-questioning, you
look like you don't have any real arguments.

On 22 November 2013 09:27, LizR <> wrote:

> On 22 November 2013 07:54, John Clark <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Chris de Morsella <
>> > wrote:
>>  > No you don’t know that at all. You don’t have some crystal ball and
>>> are just quoting from studies that have been criticized as very much low
>>> balling the ultimate number of cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl.
>>> Other studies have come up with much higher numbers – ranging into the
>>> millions. For example the TORCH report commissioned by the German Green
>>> Party that included areas not covered by the WHO report
>> The WHO is much more trustworthy than the German Green Party, the WHO has
>> no ax to grind but if people don't think a environmental catastrophe is
>> imminent nobody is going to vote for the German Green Party.
> This response is an unworthy *ad hominem* attack on the German Green
> Party, and the German people who vote for them. You should be dealing in
> the facts of the matter, not saying in effect "the Greens must be
> commissioning a report for political reasons (rather than their avowed care
> about the environment) and the people who vote for them are only doing so
> because they think there is a looming catastrophe (implication - otherwise
> they wouldn't give a fig about the environment)."
> When you don't have a good argument, resort to questioning people's
> motives.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to