I need help.......

[Neil Jones]

In article <3.0.6.32.20000504094106.0088bbd0 at mail.airmail.net>
           llrogers at airmail.net "Linda Rogers" writes:

> At 08:34 PM 5/3/2000 -0700, Patrick Foley wrote:
> Linda and other leppers,
> 
> Don't jump on Neil Jones; just argue out the science. 
> 
>         That is NOT what Mr. Jones was doing!  He
>         invites stinging replies with his abrasive
>         and offensive manner.  He says he doesn't
>         want to start a flame war, then proceeds
>         to insult and offend.

My experience suggests that on Usenet the offence taken and the
vehemence of the reponse are directly proportional to the accuracy
of the original remark.

> 
>         In his reply regarding releases he did not
>         ARGUE THE SCIENCE.  He called names:
>         lawbreakers, dubious salesmen, untruth
>         peddlers,

Logically this statement shows one of two things.

1. Linda Rogers is deliberately misrepresenting what I said.
2. Linda Rogers misunderstood what I said.

Just to clarify the point. The lawbreakers were convicted felons nothing 
to do with the IBBA. The dubious salesmen were people like a chinese "dealer"
obscuring his identitiy and trading in endangered species again nothing
to do with the IBBA. I was explaining why I respond to this kind of thing
on grounds of personal ethics.

          and accused people of
>         deliberate deceit and not knowing subject.

No I accused people of EITHER deliberate deceit OR not knowing the subject.

The fact is that there is an article on your website that is NOT truthful.
You are marketing a product and an idea by using statements that are 
NOT TRUTHFUL. It is my duty as an honest and ethical citizen to point this
out to those who may not realise it. 

It is abundantly and obviously clear that the statment you use to justify
yourself does not refer to the subject to which you claim.
YOu have misquoted a scientist to say something which he does not say.
This is NOT truthful.


>         He discredits in a petty fashion to convince
>         the reader to take his opinion.  Or, he's
>         "protecting" them from lying carpetbaggers
>         (since the reader's not intelligent enough to
>         read for themselves and form their own
>         opinion). 

Intelligence has little to do with it, accurate truthful information does.
I believe quite strongly that not to respond when ideas are peddled
which are not truthful would be unethical.


>         The "Bimbo and Rambo" comment,
>         was that ARGUING SCIENCE??  This sort of

I obviously got through with this one didn't I :-)
I was arguing that people get mislead if they are presented with information
that is NOT TRUTHFUL. I picked two names that suggested cluelessness.

>         attack and negative behavior does not open
>         the door to learning nor to any thoughtful
>         dialog between groups.  

Well It was not I who started being negative.  The IBBA membership
has constantly attacked and attempted to undermine the North American
Butterfly Association because they want proper laws protecting butterflies
and their habitats. The social changes needed for this are against the
COMMERCIAL interests of the IBBA. 


>         Linda Rogers, Member
>         International Butterfly Breeder's Association
>         www.butterflybreeders.org



-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"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