Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?

mbpi at mbpi at
Tue Apr 9 22:01:59 EDT 2002

Oh boy, I knew if I rebutted someone would "butt" me!  This is LONG, so
if you don't have the time or inclination...PLEASE STOP NOW!!!!  I know I

What we have going here, is a classic case of "male and female
miscommunication."  Where Ron is totally misinterpreting what I've
written, Barb and I are having a completely rational and coherent
exchange off the airwaves. 

Regardless of my not really having the time OR the inclination to rebutt
the butt...I will attempt to explain myself in the hopes that the male
contigent will get a grasp on what I actually said.  Keep in mind I have
just started a new job, and have yet to do my income tax because our
government neglected to give me some necessary information to expedite my
return (!)

On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 03:12:55 -0400 Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at>
>      Actually, I think Barb has had a good bit of personal 
> interaction with
> Jeff.  Her interaction and yours have been in two different 
> situations.  So
> you are both correct.  

No she hasn't:  there's nothing really "personal" about contrived phone
conversations or email exchanges.  between two people who have never met.
Without actually meeting a person, it's very hard to determine subtle
nuances that are best observed.  Everyone attempts to "save face," but
seeing the face, as well as other subtle cues, says more than simply
words can convey...
> There are many people who have had and continue  to have very 
> pleasant
> relationships with Jeff - but there are others to whom it has only 
> been
> bad.  I can say this for two reasons.  One is that this is the way 
> it is
> with all of us.  To some we are great to others we stink.  The other 
> reason
> is that I have been told some pretty jaw dropping stories of first 
> person
> personal conflict.  Now I do not relay specifics as it is just 
> hearsay.  I
> have never had any personal dealings, conversations, or 
> correspondence with
> Jeff at all.   We might get along great --  or not.

Ah...but I have!  And yet, you discount me!!!!
> > Perhaps you should do a little more research on the "100,000" and
> > determine where exactly their interests and allegiance lie!  I 
> think
> > you'd be surprised that the "100,000" are as diverse in their 
> pursuit and
> > interest in butterflies, as the individuals that subscribe to 
> this
> > listserv.  They run the gamut:  from collectors to net-swingers; 
> from
> > watchers to habitat trouncers; from gardners to habitat restorers; 
> from
> > extremists to fringe dwellers; from professionals to amateurs.  It 
> is a
> > broad group that defies being "pigeonholed," regardless of its 
> leader's
> > beliefs.
> I know Barb is already fully aware of the above as she is one of the 
> first
> to point out the vary same things - naba is filled with very 
> different
> types - she is one of them.  Her use of 100,000 was a total 
> hypothetical.
> There is no 100,000 nabaites.   

So why make a point of it?!  Did YOU think that MOI thought so?!  All I
was doing was "continuing" the hypothetical thread...

>This was simply understood by me to 
> be a
> valid straw man to line up with the 100,000 birders mentioned by 
> Mike.
> Barb was saying _if_ there 1) ended up being this many and 2) if 
> they all
> adopted Jeff's views in several areas, then it would be a messed up 
> bunch.


> > Jeff may be a "threat" (to people like you), but he is no 
> "Svengali..."
> > no "Jim Jones..." no "Hitler..." no "Charles Manson..." no 
> "terrorist..."
>     Some who known him say he is.

I think you mean "know" as opposed to "known"....
> > indeed, he's not even "charismatic"!
>     Some who know him say he is.
> These two statments are meaningless as both beauthy and the beast 
> are in
> the eye of the beholder.
> snip.

I'm not quite sure what "statments" and "beauthy" mean, but I'm quite
sure what "charismatic" means...which has nothing to do with "looks" or
"the eye of the beholder."  Charisma is a quality that is universally
recognized by others, regardless of the person's physical attributes or
compromised character. 
> >
> > I speak from experience, not "hearsay."
> So is Barb. (Are we moving the two checkers back and forth in the 
> corner
> yet.)


> > Regardless of Jeff's pursuit to establish his eminent domain (with 
> all
> his human foibles),
> So are you here admitting that from being on the inside you can 
> attest that
> he is largely motivated by ego to build and rule his own little 
> kingdom?
> That he can not be voted out as he "owns" naba.  It is his and thus 
> he is
> naba?  This is what I hear.  I wish I knew the truth on this.

Oh for goodness sake...are you truly that "naive" or does someone have to
hit you over the head with a Schmidt box!!!!
> > he HAS definitely opened up for the mainstream public, an interest 
> in
> > butterflies and their dominion that no "collector" has ever 
> achieved, or
> > for that matter, CARED to SHARE with the "non-scientific" 
> community (!)
> First, NABA has done it -- not him.   You give no credit to the many 
> people
> (including Barb) who have worked very hard at working NABA on a 
> daily
> basis.  If he dropped out tomorrow,  NABA would not miss a beat.   
> Yes, he
> deserves all the credit for original vision, hard work, and start 
> up.   But
> like a great quarterback, without the rest of the team, he is 
> nothing.  For
> some time NABA has been and is much greater than one person.

Indeed:  In ALL of life, NOBODY is much greater than the rest of the
team!!!  Including you...
> Second, your comments are typical of those who know nothing about 
> Clench,
> Remington, and the boys who started Lep. Soc.  This just shows how 
> much you
> are a Johnny-come-lately who doesn't know what she is talking about.

Well...I do have to admit... I'm NOT as OLD as YOU (!) 
>  It
> shows you are in fact a party liner.  Your true colors come out.  

Please inform my ignorance:  What, exactly IS a "party liner?!" (Before I
"rebutt.")  And what do you mean by my "true colors?"  By questioning
mine, you've left your's open for question as well....

> Use of
> the C word for the uncaring bastards - like Klots, Clarke, Thorne, 
> Riley,
> Harris, Howe, Heitzman, the Millers, Neilson, King, the Mathers, 
> Ehrlich,
> the Emmels -- scores.

Perhaps they were "before my time?!"  Mea culpa.... not to discount them,
or my time and place of being "born."  None of them ever materialized in
my life when I was "ripe and ready."  Unfortunately for YOU, Jeff and his
"minions" DID (!)  I suspect the aforementioned were all out
> To all reading this.  MB got this in her head from someplace - she 
> really
> thinks it is true.  

Oh REALLY?!  What do YOU know about my "psyche"?  You've never even MET
ME (!)  But you are discounting what I've gleaned from this
listserv...and by so doing, you discredit YOURSELF.

But it did not come from a true knowledge of 
> the
> pioneers (the collectors) who wrote the popular guides and became 
> mentors
> for 12 year old kids in Iowa like me back in the 1940's, 50's, and 
> 60's.

So you were "12 years old" through three decades....interesting (!)

> Heads of museums who cared and wrote silly kids about butterflies 
> and
> moths - who mentored.  Without these men and women there would be no 
> Jeff
> Glassberg, no Pyles or Oplers. This rewriting of history was put in 
> her
> head - as it has been put in the heads of hundreds.   You tell a 
> tree by
> its fruit - not its official beat around the issues press releases.

So what you just said is:  I'm a "fruitcake." takes one to
know one (!)
> Sorry Mary Beth, but you are way off on this one.

And likewise, I'm SURE (!) ;-))

> Ron Gatrelle
Mary Beth Prondzinski 


Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list