The numbers again.

[Neil Jones]

Ron Gatrelle :- Wrote
> My comments incerted below. Ron

My apologies for anyone who thinks I am starting a flame war.
It is not my intention. My style in these things is to try to be factual.
It can come across as rather blunt but I would rather just put
the point simply.

I am afraid that  the Rev. Ron Gatrelle has a real habit of provoking
trouble. Within a week or so of joning Leps-L he was provoking things
by having a go at butterfly watchers.
Some people might well accuse me of the same  because having cherished myths
debunked often hurts. The trouble is this this is rarely accompanied with
data showing my points to be wrong.

I really do wish he would think a bit more logically about what he says.

He has made a number of attacks on me which are not rational
or sensible and until now I have  generally held  back. He has  a few
friends out
there. As I said his ideology is often supported by collectors and you
may as a result see more emotional attacks. I would rather we debated the
facts but unfortunately some of the "Butterfly Militia" types can get nasty.

> >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
> >past
> >

> 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.

For information  the "Paul" he is refering to is one Mr Paul Cherubini.
An avid supporter of the "Wise Use" movement. A movement named to confuse,
whose actual aim is to facilitate the destruction of ALL environmental
protection legislation. That is to say an it is the American
Anti-conservation movement. Naturally as a conservationist
I am opposed to it. In real life Mr Cherubini helps developers build on
wildlife sites.

 I don't like Mr Cherubini also because he is dishonest. For example
I recently caught him presenting data he knew to be inaccurate as giving an
accurate picture.
For more information on Cherubini, allegations of missbehaviour, lawbreaking
etc.see. Look at it. This is the guy Ron Gatrelle is SUPPORTING.

http://www.wildlifewebsite.com/monarch/cherubini.html

Look at it. This is the guy Ron Gatrelle is SUPPORTING.

 Ron Gatrelle claims that I am misrepresenting him over the ESA. The fact
that he is making statements supporting one of the most notorious
anti-conservation activists would tend to indicate that I am not.
Actually I think Ron is a  bit confused.

> 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.

Our perceptions of people are governed by their actions. The only actions I
have seen from you are to consistently and persisitently, (even where plain
logic dictates that what is being said is mathematically impossible),
to support,endorse and enhance propaganda coming from the
anti-conservation camp.

You do not seem to base your conclusions on data or rational thought.
Just to quote one example. In one of your frequent emotional statements
you made a false assumption about my age. You had no information to
base it upon just a feeling. You don't seem to think properly about what you
say.

> 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."

(It is not my intention to stir things up in saying the following but I have
been accused of dishonesty. I have rational reasons for saying what
I did. So I must post them to explain since I have been challenged.)

No not at all. It was a statment entirely in keeping with my perception of
you as a bigotted
person. A view I know is shared by others. Your original posting on the ESA
came over as really extreme and another contributor replied saying the
following.

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!!
Shouldn't this discussion be shifted to a more appropriate
listserver? (or even better, take it outside)."

It isn't just the ESA material that forms my view. A few months
ago you posted material that, at least from where I am sitting,
was mocking the speech patterns of African Americans.
Now there may be a cultural difference here ( and no doubt you will go on
about your daughter's boyfriend to try to negate this.) but I was quite
shocked
by this behaviour. On  this side of the Atlantic this kind of behaviour
is considered quite outragious. Having been on the recieving end of
this kind of racial mockery myself, it isn't funny!.

Then you got quite emotional at me when I was disparaging about extreme
groups like the John Birch Society and the Black Helicopter Theorists.
I thought I had picked the most extreme people I could find to illustrate
the point. I was amazed at the response.

>  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.
> RG

Firstly your argument is plainly false. If it is true then even legislation
banning mistreatment of pets is not constitutional.

Secondly you are confused. It is plainly impossible to be supportive of the
aims of conservation when you consistently defend and endorse the
ideology that vehemently opposes it.
It is rather like, to use a reverse analogy, a staunch republican who goes
around shouting"
"Vote for Ralph Nader!"

--
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