A little help on this important issue would be appreciated

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:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

My 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: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Best Wishes,

--David Theodoropoulos

Steve <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

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?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:02:00 -0500, Derald <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:


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.