Neil Jones

Neil Jones Neil at
Wed Sep 29 16:03:15 EDT 1999

In message <199909282230.PAA22076 at> "Jacob Groth" writes:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> Neil,
> The reason why I refrained from posting Rogers recent e-mails to me was to
> not continue to spread that type of language over the list.  If you don't
> believe me, please e-mail me privately and I will send you the messages I
> got from Roger in complete and then you can decide for yourself what my
> motives are.
> As far as your accusations of me being an "anti-conservationist," I find
> this rather strange.  I am sorry if I have offended you our any one on this
> list, but I don't know what I have ever done to you (I don't even know you,
> nor you me) to receive that unsolicited title.

We have interacted before. That is a matter of record. I will be generous
and accept that you have forgotten.
> I believe whole heardetly in science and making solid conclusions based on
> fact and I love butterflies.  I am usually not quick to react to alarmist
> statements and therefore may come across as being one who does not espouse
> some of the common threads of conservation.  But nevertheless, I don't
> believe I have earned your quick accusations as to my character.

It is regretable that you do not understand what you have done or how 
I legitimately believe that your views are anti-conservation.
Let me first however cover the criticisms delivered by others.

First generally.
I believe in honesty. I believe in being direct and open in what I say.
I believe in free speech. I believe that people who market and promote
dishonest products or ideas in an attempt to dupe people should be exposed.

Christine Morigi

I have seen examples of Roger's emails. They are certainly not particularly
pleasant nor acceptable in polite society but they are nothing as to what has
just been said publicly by others about me. They pale in comparison with the
filth that all of us have to deal with in the way of spam which we all get.
I made it quite clear Roger is wrong to do this.

Mark Walker

I genuinely believe that you are a nice guy, please do not take my
direct honest approach for arrogance. As I have said before I am not
perfect at this. I genuinely wish my skills at it were better.
 I certainly do not believe that I am "god's gift" to
anything. I find it regretable that you still appear to bear a grudge
over the creationism debate. I do not believe that it is arrogant to 
point out that people should wait a while before they jump into the deep end
It is standard advice on the net. Lurk first.  Nor is it arrogant
to tell people who attack others to get their facts straight first.

Let me however come back to Jacob Groth.

In answer to the point of you being anti-conservation I cite the following
evidence. If I am wrong then I apologise in advance, by posting here I accept
that others will judge the issues and my own character.

 I point to your activities on dplex-l and the support that you have given to 
the attempts to bully, discredit and intimidate the respected scientist
Professor Lincoln Brower. For the most part you have chosen just to cheer on
others or to ask trivial questions about why people talk about Rush Limbaugh
when anti-wildlife rhetoric is posted.(You come over as a fan of Rush Limbaugh
yourself.) The relevance is abundantly clear to me even though I am on the
other side of the Atlantic.

There are other occasions when you have participated in 'Brower Bashing' here
is just one example. (Needless to say I don't believe that Professor Brower's
remark was unjustified.)

From: Jacob Groth <jgroth at>
To: DPlex group message <Dplex-L at UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Amazing ...

It is so amazing to see how we hold so fast to our ideology, regardless of
what the truth is.  

Michelle, Donna, and all others who agree with the statement:

"Paul, if you and others hold the second philosophy, that's your choice,
but will you please stop attacking those of us who hold the first
philosophy and are trying to be careful with the world we live in."

Would you please go back and look at the recent exchange of e-mails.  Paul
was responding to an attack by Professor Brower.  He was not on the
offensive, but the defensive.  Things were nice and quiet until Professor
Brower came out of nowhere with his "small pox" remark.  And you say to
Paul "stop attacking?"  Amazing.  Absolutely amazing.


Professor Lincoln Brower seeks to conserve the winter refuges of the monarch.
These are one of the most wonderous glories of nature. The largest gathering
of butterflies on the planet.

His laudible attempts are being undermined by people with a financial
interest in promoting anti-conservation ideas. He is being attacked as an
alarmist when in reality all he is advocating is a principle applied to human
healthcare and familiar to any first year medical student FIRST OF ALL DO NO

The reality is that your version of loving butterflies involves promoting them
as mere living confetti fit for no more than casting aside into the air for

I am a conservationist, as such I seek to persuade people of the value of
butterflies as real animals worthy of proper study and respect.
I also believe that we need to be careful about the planet on which we live.
Its well being is crucial to our survival.  I regard anyone who attacks and 
bullies those who hold this  position and promotes the idea that butterflies
are mere trivial trinkets as an anti-conservationist.

Neil Jones- Neil at
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve

More information about the Leps-l mailing list