thats silliness...are you just one dimensional?
thats silliness...are you just one dimensional?
Um, are you really this confused?
There's nothing at all "one dimensional" or "silly" about a) wanting to see what she actually says before drawing a conclusion, and b) stating that if she turns out to have really screwed up this part of her book and naively passed on a lot of anti-science propaganda, it's proper grounds for not wanting to support her future efforts, and it's justifiable reason to not trust her other material either without careful vetting, if she can bungle this one so badly due to laziness/sloppiness/conservative-PCness/whatever. Thus, it would be reasonable to drop her from one's "trustworthy sources" list and not be able to confidently quote her in the future, at least not without a lot of cross-checking.
I agree with Virginia-American on this -- if Ann has actually bungled this as badly as first indications make it appear, I've lost an enormous amount of confidence in her. She would have become the conservative equivalent of Michael Moore. I hope that's not the case, but I'm going to have to look into it.