Not sure a conversation with someone else without any supporting documents, numbers would be considered facts. I could make up anything and then state someone of importance told me but it don't make it credible.
Concur. At least the Gold Prospector article which the OP disparaged quoted former employees of the EPA by name. Those quotes can be checked for veracity.
"Those quotes can be checked for veracity" -- huh? I'm sure those two gold prospectors said what the article said they said, but just because their statements are printed accurately doesn't make them true. (I've gotta admit, though, that the picture of the happy salmon spawning away in the dredge hole almost had me convinced until I looked at the top of my screen again and read "Gold Prospectors Association of America.") And those two gold prospectors crap so much on the EPA, the media, enviro organizations, Al Gore, and the Sierra Club (and I've left a few of their targets out) in their "scientific" article that it makes me wonder why I should credit anything they say simply because they are former EPA employees. To me, they sound like nuts spouting junk science. They just want the freedom to find their big gold nugget at the bottom of a steelhead stream without "Big Government" telling them what they can do.
Previous Topic
Index
