Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

[Joel Lyons]

  This is badly spelled equivocating self
  congratulating by assocation crap.

Bob Parcelles,Jr. wrote:

> Pat,
>
> I am sure my reply is expected but I will try to be serious. I find
> the comedy of my posts to Paul a healthy way to keep my blood presure
> down and refrain from insults. I personaly know Dr. Brower and
> respect him as a scientist and a man of integrity. While he is
> obviously a champion of monarch's he is not to be compared with some
> of Jeff G's advocates such as Robert Pyle, whom I am quite fond of.
> (Although I think breeders are some really fine people.)
>
> But I am talking about agrenda's. I certainly have many myself. They
> are not hidden and are very PROactive. Dr. Brower professes no agenda
> but his work and it is for the good of the butterfly and the
> environment of course. I have seen some posts from Paul which make me
> want to question some of the quantitative data of Brower et al, but
> it is  similar to when you see a movie. The areas in which you have
> previous knowledge of allow you to see blaring mistakes. For example
> lever action rifles during the War of 1812, Monarchs on Willow trees
> and Playboy on Sherlock Holmes' coffee table. But look how many
> mistakes are made that we might not be aware of because we are not
> learned in all areas. Some of us really broadly-educated people have
> no fun at all in going to a movie. :)
>
> I can say this with certainty. Not a week goes by that Paul does not
> post material out of context and he certainly tries to manipulate
> data, photos and statements. He seems to be a paid PR person. For all
> of his interest in Monarchs, he seems to be very quick to deny them
> any special treatment or status. Methinks, (love that word) he is up
> to his arm pits in pesticide. Watch out Paul. It will get you sooner
> or later.
>
> A follower of statistical methods myself, I get nervous when precise
> conclusions are drawn. But, when I have questioned various
> researchers about that; they have certainly been able to accept
> ranges and variances. But the computations are precise. Such is
> mathematics. That is why discussion,repeating and retesting and
> hypothesis redefinement is so vital a part of the scientific method.
> In my fields of ecology, ethology and population dynamics I look to
> quantify things so a base may be established for future work.
>
> When it comes to Monarchs I accept strongly the wintering studies as
> exemplified by Brower and Taylor. Mr. Cherubini has yet to convince
> me that DR. Brower has an unethical bone in his body. I have stared
> at some of Paul's pictures and seen the opposite of what he is
> referencing. I am waiting for someone to say look the "Emperor has no
> clothes". But, alas, I am not he only one to sucumb to this master of
> deception. This cool calm and collected PR specialist, this kindly,
> cherubic indiviual, this very focused (obsessively?) anti
> environemntalist; He never looses his temper, even with the vicious
> flaming he gets from others and myself. Of course he has a spokes man
> (?) from Quebec who tries to get in a few licks for him. (Sorry Rene,
> I am not trying to break the truce... The devil made me do it.)
>
> Much information has been posted to the contrary against Paul. I
> beleive in ombudsmen. But crusaders against the conservation and
> protection principles I have been involved with for 50 0f my 56 years
> reach the point of nausem very quickly. It is nice for us to be
> absorbed in our academic and professional pursuits but to pompously
> deny any position of advocacy in a world going to hell in a basket is
> just ridiculous. Paul certainly is not the only one on this list to
> which that statment applies. But he is the only one who wears it as a
> badge of courage. I think our parte's are fun and serve some purpose.
> However, there are those who take things too serious (themselves) and
> those who need to get on the train. The whistle is blowing and we are
> leaving the station. (Valerie, THAT is black humor!)
>
> However, for Paul to be soundly defeated on Eco- L (Ann Erlich among
> others) and get right back up swinging on this list is utterly
> amazing. It is also a goodcase for analysis. It indicates a good
> employer (defined as a fat paycheck).
>
> Actually Paul and Ron are the personalities of this list. Mark is
> trying very hard to rise into a positon of favor but Paul just has
> that perseverance.
>
> I think we need some autobiographical info. Paul are you married or
> single? How many divorces?...A bunch, I bet. Your curriculum vitae
> would be a really nifty post. But we really want to know what makes
> you tick? Who rings your bell? Who yanks your chain? What curls your
> toes? It can't just be monarchs. Who is your favorite writer? I know
> it is not Paul Erlich or my friend Ed Wilson. Do sad movies make you
> cry?
>
> Pat you can never win an argument with him. So I would just not
> encourage him. It can make one dizzy as it has me the past two days.
> I really learned alot at the same time on ron's list while we have
> been refighting the browewr wars.
>
> Many of you treat Paul as an eccentric. That seems very reasionable.
> but I am sensing something much more sinister. Just look at the
> anti-science being promoted by the establishment as well as even some
> knee-jerk pablum puking granola-bar junkies. Paul is contributing to
> that type of hysteria much more than even Jeff Glassberg is.
>
> The really neat thing about the people on this list is how the
> various interests compliment the pursuit of knowledge. We have DNA
> experts that still do field work. We have ancedotal naturalists with
> great writng skils that make you feel that you are right there up
> close and personal with the bugs.
>
> Paul you need to chill it down. We have millions of people dying Paul
> Ehrlich work was exagerated but millions of babies do starve in
> Africa. We export DDT all over the world. we have millions with
> cancer? why? Someone is goiung to pay the piper sooner or later. Read
> your American history. We are different. People are racing to de
> intensify us. Anti-science and skepticism are achieving their goal.
> Sooner or later people will have enough of liars and the people who
> have created and encouraged them. Dr. Lincoln Brower is neither.
> I have worked for a consultant for govt and privsate industry for
> many years. I se h9ow people (and governmnet have tried to influence
> results). Until recently, academia was safe from these pressures. Now
> it is affecting the funding of all research.
>
> Paul, the difference is some of just say no!
>
> Bob Parcelles, Jr.
> Pinellas Park, FL
>
> --- Patrick Foley <patfoley at csus.edu> wrote:
> > Dear Lepsters,
> >
> > Am I the only one who has noticed that
> >
> > 1) Paul Cherubini has accused me of embracing dishonest science
> > although I am
> > clearly on record against scientific error while recognizing that
> > error is part of
> > the business of science. Somehow Paul thinks that when Paul Ehrlich
> > predicts the
> > future, all environmentalists should feel responsible if he is
> > wrong. There is a
> > difference between scientific research and speculative prophecy.
> > Most of us
> > understand this. Paul pretends not to.
>
> [[[[Good point Pat. Paul, well-intentioned he may be, tends to do the
> same things he accuses others of. His enthusiasm is that of either a
> zealot or a paid agent. Can't be both. Maybe paul will disclose his
> income statemnets and put this to rest once and for all. Maybe a
> little call to IRS  can help. Obviously this is getting very serious!
> ]]]***
> >
> > 2) Paul Cherubini has not answered my question concerning his
> > financial interests in the Monarch business.
>
>
> [[[I beleive that has been displayed in the past, or at least
> accusations and circumstantial evidence. Of course many an execution
> has taken place with less evidence. While in VN and Spec War we
> terminated many for much less.Hmmm! What could be worse or more
> deserving of extreme sanction then a politician,
> scientistor(anti-scientist) betraying the public trust?]]]
>
> 3) Paul Cherubini has yet to answer the claims that he takes on
> > false email identities for lobbying purposes.
>
> [[[I wonder too! What do you think Neil?]]]
> >
> > I want to make it clear that while I disagree with many things Paul
> > says, he
> > certainly knows a lot about Monarchs. But I cannot trust anything
> > he says until he answers these questions. Can you? ***
>
> [[[[No,ne,nein,nada,non!!]]]
>
> [[[[I have to be really concerned about his credibility. I am sure of
> his motives. See above]]]
> >
> > Patrick Foley
> > patfoley at csus.edu
>
> ***Bob's Footnote:
>
>  As usual when I start on Paul I cannot but become silly. He is a
> likeable kind of guy and he is ...OUR Paul. I just am getting bored
> with monarchs. They do not even taste good.
> #####################################################################
>
> =====
> Bob Parcelles, Jr
> Pinellas Park, FL
> RJP Associates & Clean Millennium Movement (C2M)
> rjparcelles at yahoo.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturepotpourri
> "Change your thoughts and you change your world."
> - Norman Vincent Peale
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
> http://games.yahoo.com/
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl




 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl