Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
Originally Posted by L. Brown
There's always common ground. I doubt we have any anti-hunters here. That's a good point from which to start. Some may have decided that they're not going to shoot lead at all anymore. Others--and I'm one of the others--don't see any problem using lead other than where the law says we have to use nontox. I think we should always question the REQUIREMENT to use nontox when there isn't solid biological evidence. But I'm not going to harass people who CHOOSE to use nontox as long as they don't step over the line and support a total ban on lead.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. That has always been my policy.
I know, Larry, that your comment is reasonable, and likely none of us have gotten through life without being reasonable, or having some degree of decorum. None of what you, me or prof says matters, as our "discussions" are not binding policy.

There's no doubt in my mind, that there are various tiers of science. How many of us would let a heart or brain surgeon, operate on a loved one, if they said, I can remove a complicated tumor, because this graph says, in ten or fifteen years, I predict I'll get it right. I support true science, always, but definitely not profs, whose content of character reveals their political bias. My life does not revolve around the 2nd, but includes every, not some, policy that's imposed or selectively enforced.