Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?
rjparcelles at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 21 12:35:49 EDT 2002
--- Chuck Vaughn <aa6g at aa6g.org> wrote:
> > You like most people sucumb to the pigeonholing of left and
> > the simple world of yesterday's politics no longer exists. I for
> > years was an ardent conservationist and considered my self a
> > Republican and an economic conservative.
> This is a good example why I don't write very often. I guess it's
> a problem with e-mail. You lept to a grand conclusion about me
> on things I didn't write about and had never crossed my mind. I was
> simply commenting on a few things you had written, ask a few
> and give you an opportunity to explain further. Instead you drew
> conclusion I'm a person who believes everyone is sharply divided on
> the left or right. You couldn't be more wrong. I'm a libertarian,
> basically a split between the left and right, and IMO the best of
> both worlds. :-)
> I see this all the time in e-mails. People use inductive thinking
> extrapolate a few writings into conclusions about someone. More
> than not the conclusions tell more about the writer than they do
> the person being written about.
> In just two sentences you did gave me quite a bit of insight into
> Paul gets labeled the way he does. The one that sticks in my mind
> "environment hater." Despite his voluminous writings, I can't
> anything that would make him deserve such a label. I'd like to see
> someone could put together a case by using his quotes from his
> to support that label in the same way he quotes from the writings
> of the
> scientists he criticizes. You may even be out of context if you
> like. <VBG>
> Chuck Vaughn <aa6g at aa6g.org>
you are absolutely right. I did jump to conclusions and that is a
real fault of email as you and ron have said. I tend dometimes try to
"stir" the pot a little (intellectually) only to elicit flaming and
to satirize flaming only to contribute more. For this I should say I
Until about six months a go, I was closed to all of Paul's posts and
usually reacted but kept quiet until someone flamed his detractors.
Then I noticed some valid points he made. Next thing you know, he
takes something out of context which I said on in another forum. I
think we need an ombudsman surlely but the not so hidden agenda
(pesticides and their denial as being a problem, albeit sometimes
necesary).The problem is one of technique more even than substance.
Most of the time I have a little humor at his expense (satire, i
guess). However, when Pat's most worthy statements were being ignored
and derided I got a little stronger, but not with any animosity
towards Paul. I have no ill feelings towards ignorance of
environmental issues (or political). Where I see red is when I
suspect an anti-environmental agenda. I find my role to find the
truth and publish it and advocate it as commen sense not opinion.
Certainly a lofty role for sure, but in the plateau or possibly in
the twilight of my life there is no choice or compromise.
I do not portay Paul as being anti-environment, but as being overly
pragmatic and a "lobbyist" for causes and products that certainly may
be harmful and strongly contested or at least monitored by
Skepticism is a part of science. If we must er let it be on the side
of caution. If we are guilty of hyperbole, let it reflect a safe
Paul Ehrlich I forgive you. But from now on we need both Pauls to get
their facts, opions, conclusions and any predictions straight.
PS: If I thought libertrians could get elected I would be in the
Party. I really hate these libera/conservative, left/right
designations. As Joel would say, they are pure crap!
Any way I used to have a hat that said "I would slap you but S**t
Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates & Clean Millennium Movement (C2M)
rjparcelles at yahoo.com
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l