Monsanto has in the past planted and ghostwrit articles alleging positive assertions about the cancer-causeing herbicide glyphosate.
While I can't prove it is happening in this case, it does seem serving the end of sewing skepticism, and it was published by a paper Bayer (maker of Roundup) buys ads in.
And also buys articles in.
you will thence gather I was saying no such thing.
I insinuated the author might be on the take.
I'll go ahead and state outright here The Washington Post absolutely is on the take.
Jeff Bezos (the paper's owner) is "the take", even if there hadn't been links in my post showing financial ties between the paper and the manufacturer.
It doesn't matter if the rangers are on the take or not, as they did not write the story. Neither did they propagate it.
Some people did write and publish this and they had a reason to.
I merely proffered some info one might consider as they ponder who those people are and what those reasons might be.
It's might be because RoundUp tastes like lemonade and Bezos really wants we should know.
It is absolutely to make The Washington Post profit.
It may well be to shape public opinion a certain way.
All things a reader of the article should attempt suss.
Also, try reading it.
I thank you for your concern but I assure you I did prior to commenting on it. Reading it, in fact, was how I was able to assert it, "serv[ed] the end of skewing skepticism" with such confidence.
Further, it's how I know it's odd a man who doesn't appear to be operating an industrial nor agricultural tree growing operation is singing the praises of residential-use RoundUp that won't even be obtainable legally in six months.
Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. And if you have issues with the science of conservation--and think you are more qualified than the park service folks who actually do this for a living, you can take it up with them.
I'm sorry you are so troubled with bogey men. It must make your life very difficult.
You are coming off quite adversarial. I question why that is.
Were I to guess, I'd say the article gives moral license to use a product you have unexamined doubts about and you are channeling the cognitive dissonance impugning its impartiality causes into combativeness.
If I were to guess. As I've no desire to get into this with someone I believe to be engaging in less-than-perfect faith, I won't presume to guess.
I am certain your propensity to post positively about Monsanto products is down to something as innocuous as a special interest.
The abrasive way you address others I will chalk to not sleeping well, or perhaps a personality quirk.
Regardless, I hope you have a fantastic rest of your day.
Add comment