Fw: wear it only if it fits
gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Sun Jan 14 00:52:22 EST 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
To: "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: wear it only if it fits
> From Ron,
> (This post is not specifically directed to Mr. Jones, it is to the
> Childish is also a term which fits some people, as well as
> reactionary, pig-headed, and humorless. The number one deficiency with
> discussion groups like this is that the vast majority of subscribers know
> nothing about the others. It is very surface. Thus, personal assessments
> are almost guaranteed to be skewed. Attack ones ramblings all you want,
> be careful about attacking the other persons soul.
> Jim Taylor is a fun guy, a conservationist, a recycler, a scientific
> moth collector, a grandpa. He and his wife are educated, cultured,
> charming, financially secure, retired, etc. Obviously, _ I _know_ Jim_.
> He is anything but a vandal.
> The only thing Jim wants to skoosh is ill-mannered, childish,
> humorless, snobbery. So if this shoe fit you, wear it. If not, don't put
> it on. A book is not known by its cover. Very few of us have been beyond
> the cover page of each other.
> PS. I left forgot about old-n-cranky.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neil Jones" <Neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK>
> To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Photos of urban monarch overwintering sites in California
> > In article <006e01c07bba$b9eb1a20$aa890a3f at computer>
> > 1_iron at email.msn.com "Jim Taylor" writes:
> > > Neil:
> > >
> > > Your posts have long since become wearisome. I think each time one of
> > > irrational vituperations hits the List - rather than reply - I
> > > simply skoosh a butterfly as punishment.
> > >
> > > Jim Taylor
> > I am sure I am not the only person who is disturbed at somebody who has
> > a nasty temper as to take out his frustration on a small animal.
> > I am not surprised at this response after all it comes from a person
> > just spoken in defence of someone who regularly makes postings that
> > ideas which facilitate extinctions.
> > I am not saying, of course, that it is morally wrong to kill an insect.
> It is
> > just the violence of the emotion behind that statement which disturbs
> > I would have no qualms about killing butterflies myself if it was
> > for research. To me, and I am sure to the majority of *responsible*
> > collectors, butterflies are things of beauty which are worthy of
> > While my posts may provoke people to think and thus cause an angry
> reponse when
> > they ring true and certain people cannot refute them, they are not
> > I find that they bring me many friends.
> > However, perhaps I was slightly wrong in refering to you as a Friend of
> > Vandals. The Oxford English Dictionary, the magnificent 20 volume work
> > attempts to document the entire language, defines a vandal as
> > "An ignorant or willfull destroyer of anything beautiful, venerable, or
> > worthy of preservation".
> > Yes I was wrong, rationally, from that definition and from your own
> > you are not a Friend of the Vandals. You simply ARE a vandal!
> > --
> > 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
> > National Nature Reserve
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l