<Unreasonable fear? Please let me know how you think these "activists"
should do their jobs (and find the funds) looking out for the environment,
humanitarian issues, etc. without the use of some sort of fear mongering.>

Using fear tactics that aren't based on evidence undermines the argument,
whether or not the intentions are "good" or they generate revenue in the
short term.  See classic example <boy who cried wolf>.  If you use
unfounded fear tactics you'll wind up being wrong 90% of the time
(exaggerating an effect is still wrong, if you claim hurricane and it's a
regular rainstorm).  Who is going to listen to you when you actually get it
right?

How should activists do their job?  Poke holes in poorly done research,*
educate people*, explain why it matters, apply logic, run research etc.
 Fear mongering causes actual harm.  It's the tactic used by the
"antivaccine group".  I know actual people I am unable to educate on the
importance of immunization because they are AFRAID of what might happen.
 They actually think it's better for their children to become seriously ill
than risk a vaccine.  So what do you do if you find out your wrong about
something and you used fear to demonstrate a point?  Or am I just a loon
who should realize that every single person that calls himself an
environmentalist is always correct 100% of the time?

As a teacher we learn very early on that you can't teach a student anything
if their basic needs are not met first.  Fear mongering makes your job
harder!  No one learns squat when they are afraid.  So what do you want a
small herd of bleating sheep or an informed electorate?

<end rant>

Jeremy
West Michigan
Preferring to teach people how to make informed decisions.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html