The Urban Butterfly
viceroy at gate.net
Sun Jan 14 17:17:39 EST 2001
I think you should know that someone is sending out the most appalling
guff over your signature.
You need to change your passwords.
It is not possible that you would assault someone, publicly or
privately, because their faith is different from yours, with casual
indifference to the probability that you are insulting damn near
everybody on the list, in one way or another, in one message.
Neil Jones wrote:
> 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:
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l