Perhaps two bits of information will serve to put Don's comments in
context:

1st -- the information on the issue was posted to Tweeters fairly recently
and appears to be very good science AND to be intuitively obvious (which
was the point of much of waht Don wrote)

2d -- the term "junk science" is highly inflammatory: it is a favorite
claim of right wing wackos that environmentalists offer junk science --
take a look at the example of Peter Huber in _Gallileo's Revenge_ which is
the grand-daddy of such garbage. To see the term junk science thrown out
by some one whose address identifies them as responsible for business
development does lead to some conclusions in the context of flame
throwing.

dale goble
a not-right-wing wacko


On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Wes Jansen wrote:

> Don, in your zeal to dismiss anyone who wants to see FACTS that Starbucks
> is the bad guy before punishing it, you make them sound like environmental
> enemies. What hurts the environmental cause are unsubstantiated
> accusations. Do YOU KNOW that Starbucks is one of the companies your
> research friends documented? I don't know--but that doesn't make me a
> blithering idiot for asking. Before I join any crusade I want to be damn
> certain of the facts.
>
> wjansen
>