Photos of urban monarch overwintering sites in California

[Martha Rosett Lutz]

Oh dear.  It's January, Iowa got hit with record-breaking amounts of snow,
and the only insect 'sighting' I have had in months (other than our dear
little box elder bugs that overwinter indoors) was a frozen pentatomid in a
bag of green peas (brand name on request if you want to try to find one of
your own).  But in spite of that, most things were going along cheerfully.
 
Until the 'Monarch photos' thread got rolling.
 
The thread itself has all sorts of interesting aspects that merit
discussion.  Someone raised the point that there is a vital difference
between species that are transient and dormant, versus those that make
their living in the habitat under discussion.  I learn a lot from this sort
of interchange of ideas.
 
I sometimes find myself persuaded to adopt new viewpoints, think in new
ways, and search for new evidence to learn more about an idea that develops
from things I learn via discussions on the list.
 
Now . . . I wish I could find a way to explain to Mr. Neil Jones that,
generally, the use of sarcasm, invective, or contumely will more often be
counterproductive than persuasive.
 
For example, I try to always be open-minded, listed to evidence, and draw
logical conclusions, and I try to be wary of partial data sets that seem to
point one way when the entire data set would actually point the other way.
HOWEVER, remarks such as:
 
"Perhaps you could all form a nice little club together.
I can even suggest a title. How about "Friends of the Vandals"."
 
give me the same feeling I get when I start to peel an orange and suddenly
my fingers sink into a mushy area.  (Yuck--I don't want to have anything
more to do with this one.)
 
I would like to be able to open notes posted by all members of the list,
and to evaluate their comments for myself based on their evidence and my
own experience.  When I find that aggressive invective is the predominant
component of a particular person's notes, I find myself more and more often
deleting that person's notes without even peeking to see if they had
something interesting or informative to say.
 
Please, Mr. Jones, if you want to retain credibility with people like
myself (some of us only know you through the list), try to restrain
contumely; please use documentation, evidence, logic, and the other tools
of science.  Your use of comments such as the above has a high probability
of reducing your effective audience to those who already agree with you and
those who feel that they are being attacked (and therefore want to know
what you are saying about them).
 
Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that you would like to persuade people to
consider your viewpoints and adopt your ideas.  If I am wrong, then I
apologize for this comment on your methodology.  If I am right, however, I
beg you to consider the real effect your choice of language may
produce--i.e. to alienate some of the people who ought to be part of your
target audience.
 
This is not written specifically in defense of Mr. Cherubini, but rather in
defense of courtesy as a valuable means of creating attentive audiences for
important messages.  I hope it is perceived as such by most members of the
leps list!!!
 
Thanks for your time.
 
In Stride,
Martha Rosett Lutz
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl