web visitors?

[Neil Jones]

On 18 Oct, in article
     <002f01c1581e$e1709700$9b0f1218 at gscrk1.sc.home.com>
     gatrelle at tils-ttr.org "Ron Gatrelle" wrote:

 
> My comment.  (Told ya, we can tell the leps season is over in the north as
> indicated that since there are no leps to report we will now enter
> lepisodes of retort.)  Neil, how does one find such stuff? 

There are still butterflies over here. I waked out of my front door today
to be surounded in a cloud of Red Admirals. It was like being in a butterfly
house.


>  Really, I know
> nothing of computers, programming etc.  I don't even know how to find our
> own site's meta tages.  In fact I don't really know exactly what they do.
> I do know my webmaster tried to explain them to me and asked for a list of
> words that search engins would pick up on that could lead someone to our
> site.  So I gave him a list of "key words". 

Your webmaster is, I presume, your son-in-law Joe, who you have mentioned
to us around 15 times in the last year.

> Here is a search I just did for "naba.org".  MSN: naba #1, National
> Association of Buying Agents #2, 10 total sites.  Lycos: USGS site #1 (why
> not crack on them Neil?  They must be trying to say they are naba by your
> logic.), #2 sdbirds, #3 wild wood, #4 naba, #6 a pest control company
> (better check it out Neil it might be you know who).   GoTo(overture): only
> naba listed.  Altavista:  #1 naba, #2 Birds, #3 TILS (yes!!!), #4 USGS
> (again).   Northern Light: 25 all naba.  Excite: just two, #1 naba and #2
> Texas Parks.  Yahoo: 169 sites of many different types including several
> naba or naba links - none associated to TILS (I've got to get the webmaster
> to fix this!).

Yahoo ISN'T a search engine. It is a directory compiled by human beings.
If you can't find an entry it falls through to Google a real search engine.

Actually the search engines are usually quite wise to "keyword Spamming'
as it is called. Often irrelevant keywords get you penalised.
  
> Neil, you act like this is some big deal.    I don't know hardly anything
> about this stuff, but I do know it is a common and _totally acceptable
> practice_ for web sites to have all kinds of "key words" running in the
> background in order to let people know _their_ site is there.   I don't
> care what words anyone uses, and I don't really think anyone else does
> either.

You may FEEL this is the case but LOGICAL THOUGHT says differently.
Actually some people take this VERY seriously. You haven't done your research.
(as usual)
For example Playboy magazine won an award for 3 million dollars after suing
a rival for this kind of thing on a web site!

> 
> This post of yours really has nothing to do with the "topic" you posed.  I
> take it as just another one of your occasional mean spirited attacks on
> people you don't like under the guise of some noble purpose.

Not at all. It was you who started to talk about people using tricks
to decieve. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.


Let me give you
> you some real dirt on me.  I am a preacher and yet I committed adultry 25
> years ago. If you want to really slam me use that.  Unfortunately, it is no
> secret as I even rarely  mention it in my own sermons to make appropriate
> points.

What on earth relevance has this got to anything?! So what! In many
human societies (even some in America) polygamy is normal.
I am not not condoning infidelity but it doesn't tell you anything
about someone's reliability as a source of scientific information.

Do you ever hear anyone saying, "He must be a bad scientist, he is an adulterer"?

  It was one of the most difficult times and tragedies in our
> families  life.  Just like the death of Tom Kral's father was the worst
> thing in his life (but you use it as a joke).

No I did not. What I said was,"Poor Tom Kral lost his father at around the time of 
his felony conviction and was left all alone. He had, so other collectors tell
me, always been a bit eccentric in his belief of his own superiority but he 
lost it completely at this time."

Your sense of humour is radically difficult to mine. I don't find anything
to laugh about there.

This isn't a personal attack it is an statement on his ability to put across
scientific information rationally because of his personality or personal 
problems. Yes, he may deserve sympathy BUT he should not be believed as you do. 
You don't seem to think logically.

For information. Thomas Kral is a very notorious character. A crooked butterfly
dealer who was prosecuted for violating a whole load of laws. He is the worst
kind of collector. 
His obsessive philatelic collecting led to his felony conviction. The legal
indictment ran to EIGHTY FIVE pages. It is apparent that there is very little
attention to science in what he did. The indictment is peppered with quotes
containing errors in the "latin" names of the species all marked "(sic)".

You can find out more at http://www.wildlifewebsite.com/faq/
There is a picture of him there for those who are curious. (I do try to do my
 research.)

>  Or the personal emotional
> trauma at a time in Paul Cherubini's life that some how you know about (and
> use to make us think he is of unabomber mentality).

What is all of this rubbish about the unabomber. Where did you get that 
from? 

He has been thrown off another butterfly list for posting outragously 
offensive conspiracy  theories.
The fact is that is that an account has been published in a book on
a butterfly species where he is quoted as admitting that a psychiatrist called
him paranoid for advancing similar ideas!. I quoted him from the book.

 These are relevant facts in judging
the quality or the accuracy of someone's scientific statements.
These aren't personal attacks they are informing people that you cannot
trust someone's argument because of a wierd aspect of their personality.
It was he himself who was stupid enough to tell a journalist about the 
psychiatrist. Hardly a sign of intelligence.


  You have lots of good
> facts and points in 90% of your posts. You don't need to stoop to
> personally digging against people who hold different views then you.

I don't dig at people personally. I post logical evidence to show that
their ideas are badly constructed. It may be that their science is completely
wrong or with some of the odd balls here that they have a proven history of
 scientific fraud or even that they are off their rocker. 

The trouble is that you have a difficulty in separating logical facts from 
your personal feelings towards them. Just because the persons
dishonesty or irrationality is caused by some kind of trauma doesn't
make what they say any more accurate. Scientifically minded people are 
characterised by their dependance on logic.

If you can prove me wrong by logic do so, but saying somthing like
 "Aw shucks folks these sure are real nice guys ya know" doesn't negate my 
logical contention that you cannot trust people who are not honest or rational.

> For the record, the _only_ thing I have a meaningful gripe about with NABA
> is the between the lines anti-collectors attitude.   That's it.  Any other
> differences are just my personal preferences.

A brief examination of the record shows you have had something negative to
say about them around 50 times in the last year. Your comments are
hardly moderate.  "Spies" and "unamerican" are two words I recall vividly. 
In fact your attacks on butterfly watching got you thrown off one list.

<snip>
> One good thing.  I am sure with your knowledge of computers, if this "key
> words" smoke screen is all you could find we must be a pretty up and up
> deal.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the other trademark infringement?
Perhaps not serious but then it isn't up to me to decide.

> 
> Ron G.

You know, there are times when I have wondered if you are some kind of
"plant" from some kind of wierd animal rights group put in here to help
get butterfly collecting banned. (Something I most sincerely DO NOT
want.)

Your postings continually give the opponents of collecting ammunition.
One of the best ways to get something banned is to paint the those involved
as people who think that bad behaviour is OK.
You turn this into an art form by choosing to defend and support Kral.

He is one of the zaniest obsessive crooks of the butterfly world.
A look in the archive will see him  making all sorts of wierd and deluded 
statements. The agents and lawyers behind his prosecution are crooks, the 
board of NABA is full of criminals and poachers and Paul Opler in particular
is accused of lies and deceptions. None of this is true in anyway at all.

I could quote all sorts of people telling him to shut up, grow up,
or go away. I think one of the best illustrations of Kral's foul ranting
comes from John Shuey.  He says that
he hopes that his (John Shuey's) mother doesn't read what is going to be said 
about him.

A look in the archive will show that people have been afraid to mention
his name for fear he returns!

This is the guy you support!. You really know how to give collecting 
bad PR. Support the crooks support collecting! 
 It really doesn't seem logical to me.

-- 
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