Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b irders ?

RENE BOUTIN rboutin at
Thu Apr 11 10:34:33 EDT 2002

Please Neil,TRY to find a friend and write to him instead
                                                              René from Canada.

Neil Jones wrote:

> On Wednesday 10 April 2002 11:40 pm, Mark Walker wrote:
> > Neil wrote:
> > > I suspect this may provoke a reaction. Yes, I am being provocative.
> >
> > You can bet this will get a response.  You are deserving of a lot of
> > adjectives, but provocative isn't the one I would have picked.
> Thanks Mark.  I knew I'd get a response!. _And_I_knew_it_would_be_you.
> It must have been the bit about the Taliban. <grin>.
> You really should learn to keep cool you know Mark. Sometimes your
> posts risk being full of sound and fury signifying nothing. ;-)
> Its been so quiet for so long. Someone will accuse me of "taking the peace".
> <grin>
> Being utterly serious just  for a moment the manner of your response actually
> illustrates my point beautifully. You have chosen to impugn my character by
> implying I am arrogant. (I would say I am not, and if you had chosen to meet
> me in person _when_I_offered a while ago ,I believe you would have a
> different opinion.)
> Actually a person's personality doesn't undermine their science. Unless of
> course they have a serious flaw like they are inherently dishonest or
> mentally disturbed.
> By choosing an ad hominem attack as a response. You have proved my point.
> You need to show that my argument is wrong by _factual_ analysis.
> > > grin on my face writing this but I can justify _every_ point. I find
> > > Mark's
> > > assertion utterly illogical. Perhaps this will actually get some people
> > > thinking about what science really is! :-)
> >
> > "utterly illogical".  You constantly write as if you've got the inside on
> > logic.  Wow - how perfectly wired your brain must be!  Spock Jones I shall
> > call you.
> Thanks for the compliment, after all Spock was the Enterprise's
> _science_officer_ . <grin>
>  "Perhaps this will actually get some people thinking...".  Yes,
> > and we'll all have YOU to thank for that.  We'd be "utterly" lost without
> > you.
> > Science is knowledge through systematic study.  Virtually every person on
> > the planet could be categorized as a scientist at some point in their
> > lives. Anyone who is studying the life cycles of insects in the field
> > (which cannot be successfully accomplished unsystematically), and then
> > studying their physical characteristics through careful preparation,
> > mounting, and admiring is certainly engaging in science - no matter how
> > illogical they or their activities may seem to the likes of you!
> Why then when I applied systematic study to the list itself did you accuse me
> of bad behaviour? Snoopping on everybody and analysing things. It seems you
> have never heard of GOOGLE!
> >
> > >  _However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a
> > > lamentable
> > > lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain collectors.
> >
> > The "evidence from this list" - please.  The keeper of the list has spoken.
> > "a lamentable lack of logical and scientific thinking...".  According to
> > whom?  Is that judgment a scientific one, or a personal one?  Honestly, I
> > don't know how you manage to climb up into that lofty saddle each day.
> >
> > > Regular observers will know that certain people on this list claim to be
> > > scientific but advance or support the most illogical, irrational and
> > > unscientific ideas.
> >
> > Even if this were true (i.e. it were coming from someone other than you),
> RIGHT THEN MARK.! You say my accusations are not true  PROVE IT! :-)
> > it would in no way justify discounting everything else that might come from
> > such people.
> >
> > > Seriously folks! It is all there in the archives!
> > > To be fair it isn't just collectors but I am constantly worried by people
> > > who
> > > fall for hoaxes. It wouldn't be fair to criticise Americans for not
> > > knowing
> > > rude British slang but other things that are said that are equally
> > > obviously
> > > hoaxes and people should know. Yet they still fall for it. BE scientific
> > > _check_ the data _first_.
> >
> > Why don't you stop worrying about everyone else and start focusing on your
> > own social graces.
> One important social grace is to be able to keep one's temper.
> >
> > Don't worry - no apology necessary.
> >
> > Mark Walker
> > One scientist prone to bursts of illogical behavior.
> No. One butterfly collector who would like to say he is scientific but who
> has fallen for anti-science. In the same way as you fell for my deliberately
> provocative post.
> (This following stuff folks is why Mark fell out with me originally. Forgive
> me for having a go at him but he had a go at me and my response is an attempt
> to logically explain the true difference between us.)
> You believe in an obvious, hoax; a phony scam that seeks to deprive the world
> of proper scientific thinking. The so called "creation science". It has been
> _proven_ beyond the slightest glimmer of doubt to to be utterly false.
> Firstly many Christians do not believe it. So I am not attacking religion.
> Just crooked scammers just as bad as the Nigerians we had recently.
> The bible _cannot_ be litterally true as you assert. It is full of things
> that are plainly incorrect. This doesn't invalidate its morality but it
> _cannot_ be litterally true.
> Insects do not have four legs nor, what is worse, do birds as Leviticus
> states!
> I also doubt that _even_ you_ believe that someone should be put to death
> for working on the Sabbath or that we should all regard flying insects as
> detestable yet those things are in there too. As is the sanction for a man to
> sell his daughter into slavery.
> They are simply a reflection of the social structure of those
> who wrote the scriptures. This doesn't mean it is all rubbish, but
> most_sensible_ people see it as guidance or allegory.
> Mark. to be utterly frank. You may like to call yourself scientific but until
> you drop your belief in this phony, crooked, tribal anti-science no proper
> scientist will regard your beliefs as founded in science.
> Having said all this I still think you're a nice guy, even if you do get all
> worked up an excited and keep shouting at me.
> Neil Jones- Neil at
> "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:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rboutin.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: Card for RENE BOUTIN
Url : 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list