RE The numbers

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at
Wed May 30 03:07:52 EDT 2001

My comments incerted below. Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Jones" <carstore at>
To: <carolinaleps at>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: RE The numbers


>I am a conservationist and watcher who does not wish to see
> collecting banned but who doesn't agree with much of the ideology that
collectors adopt. For
> example, I would disagree with Ron Gatrelle when he states that the
>Endangered Species Act violates the US constitution as he has done in the

I definitely think the ESA is unconstitutional. In the one post I mentioned
this I also told why. BUT, what jerked my chain here in what Neil said, is
the fact that he left out the other half of my statement. WHICH WAS- that I
said that I liked what the ESA did - provide protection.

Neil likes to try to make Paul look bad by taking things Paul says out of
context - or accusing Paul of taking everything out of context.  In debate,
taking the other guys remarks out of context is a "classis" maneuver.  I
now see that this is a regular part of Neil's MO.  What one does is just
quote part of what someone says (accurately) but in such a way that the
hearer (reader) will naturally jump to a false conclusion. This is what
Neil was doing here. He hoped that the (gullible) reader would think (via
half-information) that I was against protecting butterflies. Which of
course is patentedly false not only by my other words but by my real life
actions. Further, in saying "as he has done in the past" Neil is hoping the
reader will take this to mean "often" and in some primary fashion.  (My one
mention of this was an aside to another issue.)
The great thing about this tactic in debate is it affords the perpetrator
complete deniability.  "I (Neil) didn't say that." or "I wasn't trying to
do that."

So - for the record.  Both Neil and I like what the ESA does - affords
protection for wildlife including leps.  However, I think it is
unconstitutional as it affords "rights" to wildlife they (by the
Constitution) do not have, while Neil thinks it is constitutional.



   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list