Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "We will bury you." -Khruschev
Message-ID: <1748@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 17:17:29 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1748
Posted: Wed Dec 11 17:17:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 22:16:50 EST
References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> <362@whuts.UUCP> <837@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 18
Summary: 


>Scientific American is not an unbiased source.  Its articles with foreign
>policy implications show a distinct "liberal" bias.  (I put the word the
>word liberal in quotes, because I regard myself as a liberal, but do not
>agree with the pacifistic kind of policies thus supported.)  They do this
>not by publishing unscientific articles, but by being selective about what
>articles they print.  Note that none of the work supporting the chemical
>warfare theory ever appeared there.
>
You mean the analyses from the one laboratory (out of six, wasn't it?)
that seemed to show mycotoxins, but couldn't be replicated?  That's the
"work" that Scientific American should publish to show themselves as
unbiased?
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt