A little help on this important issue would be appreciated

[Steve]

This from the J. L. Hudson, Seedsman updates email list. I reproduce this, without permission from David, but I'm sure that he would approve. I'll take my chances with the DMCA. Please take a moment to read this.

It is getting quite close to the October 21st deadline for commenting on the APHIS proposal to create a new category "Not Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Analysis (NAPPRA)"

I hope everyone here who values importing seeds or plants will take a moment to send a quick comment opposing NAPPRA. Once again, the USDA is presenting to the public vague and deceptive information in an attempt to ram through this latest version of "risk assessment".

On the surface the NAPPRA proposal seems benign compared with the former "Option 1" (white-list or clean-list), but you will find that a close, critical reading of the proposal alarming.

The NAPPRA proposal is so incoherent that it alarms me that the USDA harbors such incompetence. We really need to get proactive and insist on a thorough housecleaning at the USDA. We need to demand personal accountability for this sort of governmental corruption.

Because of the Department's past deceptive practices, it is essential that we oppose NAPPRA. Several industry front-groups have been encouraging their members to flood the Department with support. Let's counter this.

Please take a few moments to submit an opposing comment.

To submit comments:

own analysis and comment follows. It is a bit lengthy, but I hope you will find it worthwhile. And I hope the formatting doesn't come through garbled - if so it will be available for reading on the comment site. I'll also try to make it available on my own site:

Best Wishes,

--David Theodoropoulos

[Derald]

Seems to me a scientist would have said something akin to, "Please take a few moments to review the changes and submit a comment" while just about any ordinary dime-a-dozen True Believer would be urging us to submit an opposing comment. Are you from the Ralph Nader school of thought and discourse?

[Steve]

Gosh, I don't know where to begin. This is my first attempt to respond to a trifecta of logical fallacy. Contrary to your premise, it is entirely reasonable for a scientist to review evidence and form a conclusion. David, in this case, has formed the conclusion that NAPPRA is not in our best interest based upon the evidence. As your premise that scientists are unable to reach a conclusion and remain scientists is flawed, your leap of faith to categorize those that do as True Believers is unsubstantiated. Finally, conjoining two unrelated fallacies to reach a conclusion is, well, I'm sure you get the point.

David has an opinion, and is urging those that share that opinion to speak up. If you have another opinion, I urge you to speak up.