I need help.......

Thu May 4 13:54:52 EDT 2000

In article <3.0.6.32.20000503203335.0088fe70 at mail.airmail.net>
           llrogers at airmail.net "Linda Rogers" writes:

> At 01:38 PM 5/3/2000 GMT, 
> 
> Neil Jones wrote:
> In article <390985D4.23E96982 at epix.net> butrfly at epix.net "Rick Mikula" writes:
> 
> 
> ***************************************
> Neil Jones replied:
> 
> I have no wish to start a flame war. Those who know me know that I have
> often spoken out against lawbreakers and dubious salesmen. 
> 
>         WHO ARE THE LAWBREAKERS?  WHAT DUBIOUS
>         SALESMEN?  

There is no need to shout. Using capitals is by convention seen as shouting.
It is far better to allow oneself to calm down before responding. The offence
you read into something is not always there in emails. This is something
I have learned myself. I have not and am not always perfect at expressing 
myself either.
I was speaking about my past actions. Illustrating that I regard myself as
an honest and ethical citizen who like any responsible member of society
speaks out against wrongdoing. 
Specifically I  meant the lawbreakers being a group of convicted fellons
one of whom "went postal" on the net spraying all sorts of inaccurate 
information. These people had been involved in a big case poaching from
protected areas and trading in protected species. The criminal indictment
ran to eighty five pages.
There are a number of dubious sales activities I have spoken against but the
one in my mind was a chinese dealer in "antiques" and rare butterflies was
repeatedly posting this list with messages to trade in CITES species.
He was deliberately using convoluted methods to hide and obscure his identity.
I was aware of this because of specialist knowledge I have of the internet
and I therefore warned everybody about this and about the nature of the 
species involved. 

> 
> Those who peddle untruths in an attempt to deceive the innocent. 
> 
>         ARE THEY UNTRUTHS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T YOUR 
>         VIEWS/BELIEFS??  WHAT UNTRUTHS DO YOU
>         REFER TO?

As I said above. Those who represent themselves falsely. 

> I am not doing this to pick a fight but because I know something that I
> believe that someone else should know before they make a judgement. That is
> to say that someone is trying to deceive people into believing something
> which is  not truthful. I am a conservationist and I know there are a
> number of anti-conservation activists about so I risk attracting flames.
> 
>         NO FLAMES, BUT DEFINITELY A RESPONSE.

Many people will see your responses as flaming, but I will endevour
to turn the other cheek.  

> The web site which Mr Mikula refers to is not truthful. 
> The fact is that ALL insect conservation bodies oppose what this site is
> peddling.
> 
>         BECAUSE SOMEONE'S OPINIONS ARE IN OPPOSITION
>         TO YOURS, THIS MEANS THEY ARE UNTRUE?

No what it the web site says, in the example I pointed out, is not truthful
It can be shown to  be not truthful by logic. If an organisation says things
that are not truthful it is normal from people to tend to distrust it.
My concern was that people would not realise that a statement was not 
truthful so as an honest and ethical citizen I felt that it was my duty to
point it out.

> My concerns are that while it could be argued that there are two sides to
> an argument, this "breeders" website contains information which the
> informed will know thoroughly discredits them. I consider that since I know
> this I should say so. After all it is only good citizenship to point out to
> your fellows when someone is trying to get them to buy a product or an idea
> which is peddled by marketing that is not truthful.
> 
>         IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT TO
>         PEOPLE THAT THEY NEED TO READ ALL THEY
>         CAN TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS, AND NOT JUST
>         LISTEN TO ONE PERSON'S IDEAS.  DON'T YOU
>         THINK PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF FORMING
>         INTELLIGENT OPINIONS WITHOUT YOU TELLING
>         THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK AND BELIEVE?

Please do not shout.
I cannot tell people what to think. I do however believe that it is my duty
as a responsible member of society to point out when something is being said
in a commercial context that is not truthful. Not to so so would be like
standing by while one of your friends is being conned. 

>         THEY CAN READ YOUR IDEAS AND OPINIONS
>         AND THOSE IDEAS AND OPINIONS ON THE 
>         WWW.BUTTERFLYBREEDERS.ORG WEBSITE, AND
>         FORM A PERSONAL OPINION ALL THEIR OWN
>         WITHOUT YOU TELLING THEM IT IS ALL WRONG.
> 
> The website quotes a scientist as saying that the kind of releases that it
> supports are OK when in fact he is saying the opposite. That releases
> should only be performed as part of a scientifically controlled process,
> NOT at the wedding of "Bimbo and Rambo" :-)
> 
>         IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE SOMETHING,
>         AT LEAST DO IT ACCURATELY:
> 
>         From The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the 
>         Butterfly World by Paul Smart--
>         last page of the introduction,
>         last sentence:
> 
>   "... A positive contribution may be made by aiding 
>         conservation projects and by helping to
>         breed and release healthy butterflies in
>         suitable habitats, though this should always 
>         be done as part of a documented and 
>         properly organized project."
> 
>         NOT "SCIENTIFICALLY CONTROLLED PROCESS" AS
>         YOU WROTE.  DON'T TWIST THINGS AROUND.

There is a social context here.  Paul Smart is speaking as someone based
in the UK. I recognise his statment as a standard kind of expression that has
been said in similar ways by many people. I know of several of the kind of
project he means and I believe that my description is accurate.

I do not believe that any reasonable person could truthfully believe that
he is talking about releasing Monarchs at weddings. Yet he has been
represented as doing such this is not truthful

>         BIMBO AND RAMBO??  WHAT A WITTY ONE YOU ARE.

Well my attempts at humour are not appreciated by everyone. I suppose being
in the UK my sense of humour is different to yours. However I don't believe
that anyone with a good knowledge of conservation practice would buy your ideas.
Therefore I tried to find an image which would represent someone without
a lot of sense. It seems from the vehemence of your response that I have to
 some extend succeded.

> 
> Now there are two possible reasons why they say this :-
> 
> 1. They are deliberately deceiving people.
> 2. They do not know the subject well enough to comment.
> 
> Either way they are discredited. By all means visit the site but remember
> the information is wrong.  
> 
>         WE DO KNOW THE SUBJECT AND HAVE SCIENTISTS

It is regrettable that I have not succeded in persuading you that you are 
wrong. I do not pretend to have the answers to everything amd there is
much that I still have to learn about butterflies but the fact is
that you are giving the clear impression that you do not know the subject
well.
 The scientist you are quoting is not saying something which 
refers to releasing monarchs at weddings he is talking about conservation
projects. You are not being truthful in describing him this way.
If as you say you are not doing this deliberately  then I am prepared
to accept this, however this clearly means that you so not understand what
he really means. The fact is if the IBBA is to have any credibilty it should
come over as truthful and honest. To me it does not do this and the way
you and your colleagues have tried to besmirch me does not impress me
and I am sure it will have the same effect on the many friends I have.

>         WITH ACCREDITATION EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING YOURS
>         THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU.  SINCE WE BELIEVE
>         WE "KNOW" THE SUBJECT, THEN WE ARE NOT
>         DELIBERATELY DECEIVING PEOPLE.  WE SIMPLY
>         HAVE OUR BELIEFS, AS YOU DO.

Well you are entitled to believe what you like. You can believe that the
earth is flat and sits on a turtle supported by four elephants if you like.
However there is a big difference between blind faith and science. You can
believe as strongly as you like that Paul Smart is by some miraculous
means endorsing the releasing of Monarchs at weddings. The fact is the statement
he has made does not support your contention and to describe it as such is not 
truthful.

In fact I think that if statements were made to advertise your product in this
way in the UK, they would certainly fall foul of the regulations. These
regulations are designed to protect the consumer.
I believe that it is the duty of any honest and upright citizen to point
out when people are being sold a product by means that are not truthful.

-- 
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