Thanks Steven (Bissel),
actually PR companies pose a big issue, i believe, as well as for example
any other kind of advertisment. In general terms, many advertisments try
to cheat prospective customers to believe that the product is efficient
and good for a purpose. Perhaps we could discuss this at its crosspoints
with environmental issues. 
I think that the more you find out about them, the less boring they
become. They become even more interesting when they spread their influence
on more sectors than just advertisment (for example education, formal and
informal). I have recently followed some threads i don't remember where
from (link from this list), and i came across a very distinctive case of
this sort of thing, and i am really tempted to post some extracts of a
really hillarious conversation that i had with a person that fits the
bill (anonymously of course), as a point for discussion. 

This person is supposed to be Excecutive board member and Excecutive
director of some organization that is supposed to evaluate material for
environmental education. He was complaining that there are books (notably
of Morris) that are only politics and no science, and yet are so popular
in schools. He was very bitter about it, and signed as above. He also
mentioned that Morrises' academic credentials were murky, as they were not
mentioned on the book as they should have.
However, by the way this person signed his OWN article against Morris, his
own situation was left vauge too. 
So  I asked him to clarify what this 'excecutive and
'fellow' titles of his meant in terms of academic credentials. Although we
corresponded 2-3 times, and i repeated my question, he failed to answer
it: in the beginning he said that he was not a scientist, but, well, he
was a concerned citizen and parent. Then he said that he had a PhD. I
asked him in what, but i never got any answer. 
Meanwhile i did some research for Morris and found out that he is an
outstanding scientist, still in research, beyond his authoring activities
in environmental education. And actually i have seen i think his book even
in the UK at a prominent position in our university bookshop.

However, because i am not reacist against credential non-holders, i tested
this gentleman (Excecutive and Fellow) further:
I put forward my acid test for credibility of the corporate sector. 
It goes as follows, (he failed to answer too, and shat the door loudly  
calling me a Marxist):

Credibility test for scientificness: 
(THIS IS BY THE WAY AN OPEN QUESTION TO ALL).

The use of mice and hampsters in experimentation:

- As well discussed in the list, there is a lot of experimentation on
animals, despite rights advocates' activities. This means that
manufacturers TRUST animals for tests and SEE a relationship between human
and animal reaction to treatments and
substnces.  So, a drug or cosmetic will be normally launched, after being
thoroughly tested on animals. This is because the product will be SOLD.

- When it comes to pesticide suspected harm to humans (suspicions for
cancer, hormonal disruption etc etc), then things change: Suddenly mice
are deemed as TOTALLY UNSUITABLE as indicators of what happens to humans. 
(See Bruce Ames, "Fearing Food"). Mind you, Ames is a very good scientist,
and difficult to refute. Really strong mind. And we all wish he is right. 
Where is the catch? Of course that he does not commend about the first
case, where animals are still considered as suitable.  Not a single
word...

BY the way, the above book has clear connections with institutes- think
tanks that have a similar job to PR companies.



Maria-Stella


On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Steven Bissell wrote:

> Only The Shadow Knows the "real" steve. However, Steven Bissell thinks that
> 10 to 20 emails back and forth on whether or not some PR company is good,
> bad, or indifferent is boring by definition.
> sb
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Maria Stella
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 2:37 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: who is who
> 
> 
> Can i have a clarification:
> 
> Is Steven Bissel the same person as the other 'yahoo' steve (e.g. does
> Steve right from home and from office), or is there another steve
> involved?
> And who is the repercursor (or something) and who the 'satan'?
> I am totally confused.
> 
> And also, i don't accept boring people saying that i am the boring one
> when i am accused for stupid things.
> 
> MS
> 
> 



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%