Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

[Neil Jones]

On Saturday 20 April 2002 08:40 pm, you wrote:
> First I think Paul is against Lincoln,since Lincoln pin pointed to the
> press the exact location of the monarchs roosting sites in 76 or 77 after
> publication of the National Geographic issue of august 76,where Urquart
> made a point of not giving to many clues.
>               Paul used to tag for Urquart.

Rene, I am trying to put this to you as kindly as possible,I know you won't 
understand half of this. It isn't your fault that English isn't the native 
tongue where you live. (It isn't here where I am sitting either.) But I feel 
frustrated that even when I write in _your_ own language you don't follow.
So, sadly I dont see that  there is any point in my attempting to write this 
bilingually yet again. It is a waste of my time.  Last week you completely 
misunderstood one of my posts and started flaming for no reason.

> Secondly,Paul Cherubini was jerked off of Monarch Watch in the middle of
> conversations,that is enough to prompt anyone to use a pseudonym.

I really don't think you are very clever at this. Your friend and ally has 
just tried to persuade people by evasion that he doesn't use pseudonyms.
Then you go and tacitly admit that you know he does. Of course he has been 
caught using pseudonyms on Dplex-L. _Everybody_ knows this.

>               Third,I would surely use his competence and gladly pay for it
> to defend our rights as breeders against what I see as the scientifique and
> mediatique bourgeoisie.

This is over the top. The _whole_ point that you have missed is that Paul 
Cherubini _isn't_ competant.  Whilst you are cheering him for supporting your 
business interests you have missed the real truth. He has been caught 
out posting distorted information so many times that he is treated by most 
disinterested bystanders as a "Spin doctor".

He was thrown off Dplex-Lfor atrocious behaviour when he attacked a very 
young scientist in an appalling way. 
You also have had a backlash where all the _breeders_ are now tarred with the 
 same brush. Hundreds of people have received those little yellow cards.
It may not have correctly identified the pseudonyms being used but still 
_all_ your reputations have been sullied.

I don't like what he says but _I_would_hate_to_have_such_a_person_arguing_ 
for_me.


>                But being a breeder and not such a good businessman,I can
> barely clothe my...

Honesty at last!

>                                                  René Boutin alias Monsieur
> Papillon
>
> Ps:This is my uneducated point of view,correct me where I'm wrong?

That is the point Patrick Foley is a very well known and respected scientist 
in his field. I, someone, living thousands of miles away, knew of his work 
_before_ I encountered him on the net. He is a very good scientist. 
Scientists by their very nature are people who search after the truth.
They hate scammers and deceivers.
 It has been shown time and time again that what ever  direct pecuniary 
advantage  Mr. Cherubini is obtaining that he is acting as a spinning 
lobbyist for a cause.  He is notorious for doing this.
I was speaking to one British member of this list yesterday who was laughing 
at the ridiculousness of his claims.


--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"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