Crap or Gold

[Neil Jones]

In article <002f01c03409$a2010620$9b0f1218 at gscrk1.sc.home.com>
           rgatrelle at home.com "Ron Gatrelle" writes:

Once again I find myself in the position of having to restore the balance
to the argument. Facts are in my posession that are unknown to people without
which they may form false conclusions. Here statments have been made about
this one of this lists more eccentric characters. They have been made by 
someone new to the discussion and they are demonstrably untrue. 
Of course the net is full of people of very different characters and
 when I do this there are often people who will flame me because
of their own odd beliefs. However the challenge is to show that what I am
saying is incorrect. I have made similar points before and I have yet to
see a successful refutation.

>     Which brings me to the next point. When I read Paul's reply to Dr.
> Brown, I thought, "This is nuts. It sounds like Paul doesn't give a rip
> about habitat loss -- in fact he almost seems to be saying we're better off
> without the stupid beach. This is like saying it would be a good thing if we
> humans learned to digest plastic apples." Then I got hold of my emotions and
> thought. No Paul is not saying that at all. He is being the voice of reason,
> or more accurately balance. HE IS JUST TRYING TO GET US TO THINK. TOO LOOK
> AT BOTH SIDES.
>     Paul, I for one know you hate to see the beach destroyed as much or more
> than the rest of us.

Actually the facts speak differently. I have noticed that many people take 
others at face value on the internet and seem to be unable to form adequate
judgements as to the state of mind of the poster.
I have actually met and spoken with a number of people about Mr Cherubini's
attitude. It would appear that he is seen by many in California as an
eccentric individual with two obsessions.

 One a grandiose belief in the use of pesticides as a panacea 
for all of mankind's ills. The other an obsession with academics.
It would appear, and his postings on the internet strongly support this,
that he bears a great deal of malice against those whose intellectual powers
have enabled them to obtain greater academic success and to obtain Phds.
Particular venom is reserved for those whose intellectual brilliance
has led to them becoming professors. 

Many of these professors are active in conservation. Being nature lovers
has guided and shaped their intellect in this way and may well be responsible
for their success.

He is NOT acting as a devil's advocate in order to make people think.
I am told that the same incorrect arguments are used by him IN REAL LIFE.
Just to take one example, he was putting the same nonsensical arguments
forward IN PUBLIC in order to try to discredit respected scientists
when the conservation of the Monarch was being discussed at Pacific Grove
some years ago. The sensible arguments put forward by experienced people
were it seems being attacked by whatever argument he could find that MIGHT
sound plausible.

He is vehemently and constantly ANTI-CONSERVATION. A look in the archives will
show that when someone appealed for help in conserving "the
world's rarest butterfly". He responded with vile and unfounded allegations
about the motive of the poster. (She is incidentally known to me personally
and her character is solid.) 

His attitude has led many to believe that he is actually a paid proxy of
political and business interests. His lack of honesty in debate has 
frustrated many people.

This first example shows a fellow entomologist venting his frustration 
at blatent misrepresentation for political purposes. The colourful
language is his not mine but does accurately reflect many people's 
feelings.

Date:         Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:17:23 -0600
From: Richard Fagerlund <fagerlun at UNM.EDU>
It is normally hard to trip my trigger but Cherubini managed to do it.  
I don't really give a rat's ass about his cockeyed opinions, but he 
took two of my messages totally out of context.  He appears to have a
 reading disorder. I will try to control myself in the future as I 
dislike being profane. Thanks for the note.  You may be right about
 his affiliation with the  chem cos. [Chemical Companies] and he 
probably is on the payroll. If not, they should hire him.

----
Here another person has noticed clearly what Mr. Cherubini is up to.


Date:         Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:56:27 EDT
From: John Mclaughlin <JRMCL2 at AOL.COM>
Paul has made his case - you can accept or reject it, but you will get
nowhere arguing with him or trying to present evidence to refute his claims.
He is not in this to be pursuaded or to in any way deviate from the official
company line.  I made earlier analogy to "scientists" and other of his ilk
who, for years, clouded the scientific issues surrounding the obviously
highly addictive and health-affecting habit of smoking tobacco.  Paul is cut
from their cloth and is comfortable and skilled at their tactics.
----

We have seen the recent refutation of Mr Cherubini's arguments by Professor
Lincoln Brower. Professor Brower is a powerful figure on the world stage of
Monarch biology. A man whose great intellect has led to international
recognition. It is hardly suprising that he has been the target 
of Mr Cherubini's poisonous venom. This famous professor does not
see Mr Cherubini as a "Devil's Advocate", and it would be suprising
if a man of his mental athleticism would be so deceived.
Professor Brower has been accused of fraudulently obtaining money for
his own ends. This is highly defamatory since there is a danger
that people will not correctly identify them as the demonising delusions
of a dabbling dilettante.

Mr Cherubini's respect for the wonders of nature is not great. Many people
have expressed concern about the purchasing of tags from Monarch butterflies.
It is obvious that the more money offered for tags the greater the risk that 
there is of the delicate roosts of the butterflies being plundered.
Mr Cherubini has been conducting "research" which is intended to be financially
beneficial to certain of his "business associates" and paying very
high prices to retrieve tags.
I have been asked for proof of this so here it is.

Paul Cherubini
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:56:23 +0000
If anyone is going to Mexico and planning to purchase tags, I will happily
advance you $240 US dollars to purchase up to 8 of the RED tags
(for which you must pay $30 per tag) used in the Groth and Cherubini
transfer experiment. 
----
His respect for regulations surrounding wildlife does  not appear to be
great either.
See this quote from an official of the USDA.

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:04:19 -0400
From: Wayne F Wehling <Wayne.F.Wehling at usda.gov>
7.   Paul Cherubini has been, and is currently, under investigation for 
alleged violations of the regulations surrounding butterfly releases.
-----

The last comment here I shall leave to a talented wordsmith who
is one of the giants of American lepidoptera science. The world renowned
 butterfly expert  Dr Robert M. Pyle who has worked alongside Mr. Cherubini.

Dr Pyle's work on lepidoptera will be known to many here and his work with the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature on the conservation
of butterflies has earned him great respect. He is an author of some
considerable repute. His book on North American butterflies for the
Audubon Society is a constant companion when I travel in the USA

 Here I quote him replying to Mr Cherubini's comments on his
recent and widely acclaimed book "Chasing Monarchs".

"Although I thanked you for your contribution in the acknowledgments,
you have been the one sour voice among a ringing chorus of
congratulations for my book.  Collegial criticism and argument, which I
welcome and respect, is one thing.  Scurrilous misrepresentation and
derogation is quite another. You are not a gentleman, Paul.
If you are to remain on the Monarch Program Board, I shall be obliged
to drop off.I cannot serve with a toxic rogue such as yourself.  I have
worked with butterflies and lepidopterists for forty years because of
the pleasure they bring, and I believe this applies to most
lepidopterists.  I like to give something back through conservation. I
take no enjoyment or satisfaction, however, in the company of
scoundrels."

-- 
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