Barry sez: "You realize, do you not, that this is exactly what your stalkers are trying to do with you on this forum."
Um, no, it isn't. You've got Share right, but not her critics (or your critics, for that matter). In fact, in this post you are doing precisely what you accuse your and Share's critics of doing: trying to persuade others to write off anything your critics say as something they should "look askance" on (I think you meant to write "at"). Michael, the AMA also says that GMO labeling is not necessary. Thus I will look askance at anything they publish, no matter how scientific and objective it appears to be. In other words, you reserve the right to disregard anything said by an individual or group of individuals if they say something you disagree with, because this disagreement indicates that they are not trustworthy, "no matter how scientific and objective it seems to be." Did I get that right? You realize, do you not, that this is exactly what your stalkers are trying to do with you on this forum. They go out of their way to portray you as stupid and clueless, in the hope that other people will start to write off anything you say as something they should "look askance" on. Especially liking one of the people they dislike. With other people, they try to portray them as liars, with the same intent. Is this really the approach you wish to embrace? It seems to me that a more intelligent approach would be to judge each post or piece of data that appears before you on its own merits, regardless of who said it. The alternative seems to indicate a willingness to revere cult apologetic tactics and adopt them as your own.
