 |
 |
Don't get me wrong everybody. I agree that people should perhaps be confronted at times. It's the manner in which it's being done that offends me personally. Like I said, I appreciate Janet's work in following up on alot of these claims, however, I would appreciate only being supplied with the relevant information, such as the web site address in this case where the products are supposedly being sold. I prefer to rely on my own judgement rather than someone else's interpretation of the facts. Whether Janet or someone else decides to follow through on these things, I think it would be appropriate simply to voice one's concerns in a general manner, give the evidence found that supports them, and that would be enough. I really don't think it's necessary to try to publically humiliate people in this manner. If their intentions are in doubt, the very fact that the evidence was given public display should discourage them. If their intentions are more honorable, then they will hang in there, if they are not so rudely welcomed to the list. There are also ways to confront people without resorting to the sort of behavior that I've been seeing. It's one thing to dispute someone's claims, but I think it's another thing altogether to presume to know their motives and integrity and to attack them in this manner. I don't know, but to me it seems like how kids argue something, "So you SAY that this is true, well PROVE it to me," etc. Some of the questions being asked are none of our business, frankly, and some of them can't be proven as is being demanded. It also seems to me as tho' opinion was already been biased against the person before they were ever exposed. The questioning, by the way it's being presented, is being done from a tone which already presumes the person's guilt and really leaves no room open for this person to prove otherwise, no matter how they respond. It seems to me that no matter they reply, it'll be unacceptable. One can confront without prejudging the answers to be received. Besides, there's alot of crap out there, pesticides, household chemicals, drugs, junk food, etc., that we all pay alot of money for, and which is ten times more dangerous to our health, and in some ways more. Because it's so widespread and so accepted, people rarely question its use or the motives of the companies who manufacture this stuff, etc. I personally feel very strongly about the use of pesticides. They are probably more of a threat to us all who are prone to PD, that alot of other things. I don't see too many people attacking the chemical companies with this same vigor as they go for "snake-oil" salesmen. It was also said that sometimes individuals get the brunt of the attacks rather than the big companies, cuz at least we know where we can go if we have a beef with a big company and probably be compensated, whereas we probably can't with an individual. To an extent this is true, but not completely. Sometimes people won't take on industries like the pesticide industry, because it is so entrenched. Some of these industries have even tried sueing anyone who speaks out against them in order to shut them up (take Oprah and the beef industry for example, altho' there are many more relevant examples too). So, just as an investigative newspaper reporter would follow up on some disputed issue and supposedly present the facts without drawing conclusions, I feel that this is the way these issues should also be handled. All we need is the relevant info found in the investigation, and we can then all make up our own minds in an unbiased manner. Wendy Tebay