>I didn't think the post about Starbucks was intended to dispute the
>claim that shade-grown coffe is better for birds than sun-grown.

Certainly Wes's original post did not - and I did not respond to his
post.

Stiles' post, though, spoke of "politically-correct junk science". I
can only presume he's speaking of the whole shade-grown vs. plantation
grown coffee issue at large. It makes no sense to speak of a discussion
about Starbucks alone as having anything to do with science whatever,
unless he's speaking of the junk science of marketing :)

And, this is a catch phrase of reactionaries which particularly pisses
me off. I've seen it used twice this past month regarding the
environmental effects of DDT - people still claim that DDT doesn't
cause eggshell thinning and that supposed research supporting the
claim that it does is nothing but "junk science".

Etc ad nauseum.

>Me, I'm one of the few Seattlites still drinking Folgers.

You're probably OK. Folgers is so stale that most of it was probably
harvested before steamers replaced three-masters. :)

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at (NEW) http://donb.photo.net