Fw: wear it only if it fits

[Anne Kilmer]

In defense of Neil (not that he won't hasten to defend himself)
 
The English language, as spoken by Americans, has nuances that may not
be grasped by our friends from across the sea.
The verb to skoosh is used (always) as a joke. "Skoosh a spider, you
gets rain," says the spider warningly in the Pogo comic strip of happy
memory.
So most of us knew that Jim was kidding. But some of us did not.
Neil is not, in fact, old and cranky. He is (from my vantage point at
least) quite young, well-educated in his field, an active worker in
conservation, and sings in a Welsh chorus that happened to go touring
through South Florida, which gave me a chance to meet him.
Our habit of cheerfully teasing each other, however, does not suit his
style. I suppose you could define that as "humorless".
I agree that it would be nice (sorry, Neil) if he would stop ranting
about Paul as if he were the Anti-Christ. Most of us have enough
scientific smarts to recognize Paul's "science" and "observation" and to
employ the necessary grain of salt.
Paul is not going to change his point of view ... his pay check depends
on it.
Neil's immortal soul is involved in his ecological position.
And if they would just go out behind the barn and duke it out when they
feel called by the Lord to do battle, the rest of us could get on with
our lives.
Both are (forgive me) utterly inflexible, probably (at least apparently)
incapable of change. Neither sees a need to change, as far as I can
tell. I happen to think that (mostly) Neil is right and Paul is wrong,
but, I, like Jim, am tired of the automatic knee-jerk reaction, the
ranting, the "I'm right and therefore you're wrong" aspect of the
interminable pointless argument.
It spoils discussions to have a couple of the participants *always*
throwing sand. Let alone hitting each other and passers-by with their
little buckets.
If we could return to discussing the issues, citing facts, observations,
describing theories, and bragging about our nice bugs, and lay off the
vilification and character assassination, it might be better for the
bugs in the long run.
"A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still."
On the other hand, perhaps we could just take the position that some of
us are cute when they're mad, and we could just giggle when they turn
red. If it was Jim's hope to cause Neil to fly round and round the room
violently like a balloon you've blown up and released, well done, Jim.
He is of an apoplectic type, and perhaps next time ...
But I'd really prefer that we not hurt each other on purpose. We are,
after all, grown up, and left the sand box long ago. Most of us.
Anne Kilmer
South Florida
 
 
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
>
 
> ----- 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
> generic
> > you.)
> >
> >     Childish is also a term which fits some people, as well as
> intolerant,
> > 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,
> but
> > 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
> > your
> > > > irrational vituperations hits the List -  rather than reply  - I
> shall
> > > > simply skoosh a butterfly as punishment.
> > > >
> > > > Jim Taylor
> > >
> > > I am sure I am not the only person who is disturbed at somebody who has
> > such
> > > 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
> who
> > has
> > > just spoken in defence of someone who regularly makes postings that
> > promote
> > > 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
> me.
> > > I would have no qualms about killing butterflies myself if it was
> > *necessary*
> > > for research.  To me, and I am sure to the majority of *responsible*
> > > collectors, butterflies are things of beauty which are worthy of
> > preservation.
> > >
> > > 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
> > irrational.
> > > I find that they bring me many friends.
> > >
> > > However, perhaps I was slightly wrong in refering to you as a Friend of
> > the
> > > Vandals. The Oxford English Dictionary, the magnificent 20 volume work
> > that
> > > 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
> > admission
> > > 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
> Bog
> > > 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:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl