The Urban Butterfly

[Neil Jones]

In article <000001c07c39$ffe742e0$633d0a3f at page>
           pageclan at email.msn.com "Barbara Page" writes:
 
> Dear Neil,
>
> I am not knowledgeable or familiar enough to contradict your description of
> those who promote the anti-conservation, "wise use" cause.  But I am pretty
> certain that Paul Cherubini would not claim that cigarettes are not
> addictive!  And how would one ever be able to demonstrate that Monarchs
> would do better under more natural circumstances?
 
As to your final question I would follow the postings of Stanley Gorodenski
who is pointing out most of this.
 
I really don't think that you and I can profitably discuss this. We are not
going to agree. We have very little in common, except possibly a taste for
ice-cream. :-) (You see I do my research)
 
 First of all Paul Cherubini is your political ally who you
will not be disuaded by logic to disavow, I do, however, wonder how your friends at
the evangelical church would view your association with a man who openly
flaunts his lawbreaking.
 
Your view of the world is based on blind faith . I prefer to prove a point
be logic this is why I think you cannot see the gaping holes in Mr Cherubini's
argument. My view of your position is that you still hang on to a way of
explaining the world that depends on the absolute literal interpretation of the
writings of ancient mystics. Myself I cannot accept that. I need logical
rational proof before I can believe in something. This is fundamental to
accepting scientific arguments so I don't feel I can convince you however
hard I try.
 
I didn't accuse him of saying that tobacco was not addictive. It may be
that this is "birds of a feather flock together" and you are adopting his
tactic of taking quotes out of context, but I will give you the benefit of
the doubt.
 
I used a simple example of what his colleagues in the "wise use"
anti-conservation movement use as arguments. There are many other examples
but they require more knowledge of science to see through.
You only have to look at his favourite Junk-science website with a
critical eye to see more examples. He has for example posted their
misquoting of complex scientific research on DDT.
 
I am not trying to patronise you so forgive me if this seems the case.
Science works by people sugesting ideas and then examining them logically
to see if they stand up. Mr Cherubini won't accept this process.
Time after time we see his hypotheses debated as Stanley Gorodenski is
now doing with him . The holes in his logic are exposed and it is shown
that he hasn't provided evidence that proves anything at all.
 
He then goes away for a while, but a few months later we get them again
and perhaps someone else will easily show that they are wrong and he goes
away again only to return again with the same nonsense.
 
So I don't try to debate with him it is so obviously nonsense. I just
point out to everyone that he is just using anything he can think of
to convince people FOR THE FINANCIAL GAIN of his colleages
 
--
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