Niel Jones' response to Ron Gatrelle

[Neil Jones]

On 4 Jan, in article <a3.218c5eac.29679e61 at aol.com>
     HpAzures at aol.com wrote:

> Regarding Neil Jones' response to Ron Gatrelle.  I think Neil missed Ron's 
> point in a very big way.  Ron said he was being sarcastic and "ready to be 
> misunderstood". 

Ron's responses have been on the same theme for over a year. He has been 
parotting Rush Limbaugh's anti-conservation propaganda for some time.
Perhaps you haven't been monitoring the net as I do but it is true.
My point about Limbaugh Marxism is absolutely true.

 OK, Neil jumped on this one and went overboard.  I usually 
> try to stay out of personal cross-exchanges, but Neil's post took the cake.  
> I thought this was a discussion group to share information, not get uncivil.  
> Sounds to me like someone else on this list is trying to attract attention to 
> themselves.  
> 
> Is it too much to ask people to make it a habit to "reply to sender" rather 
> than to the whole list, when getting personal?  
> 
> In case anyone misunderstands me, this is not a personal attack.  I'm just 
> asking for a little civility on the group.
> 
> By the way (excerpts from Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary):
> 
> "civil - polite, urbane"
> "civility - politeness, consideration, courtesy"
> 
> Thank you,
> Harry Pavulaan
> 
I understand your loyalty to your friend and colleague, but I would appeal
to you to stop him from encouraging the cessation of studies on lepidoptera.

To put the big picture this is what he is doing.
There is a double standard here. He is impolite and belligerant about his
his version of lepidoptera study being banned yet misses the point that he
is actually encouraging the destruction of habitat. This means ultimately
that nothing interesting will be left to study. He is not condemned but I am.
perhaps it is because people are missing the big picture.

Ron is a professional preacher he of all people should know the effect his words
can have in affecting social change. Yet he continually defends and
propagandises for the movement for habitat destruction.
It is probably stubborn naievity rather than maliciousness but he is still
doing it.

I live in a country where there are few butterfly species. Even so people used
to be able to study butterflies easily. Now we are in the position where they
are becoming increasingly difficult to find. At least this is true for the
habitat specialists.

Most keen lepidopterists have to go abroad to mainland Europe now
to get a decent butterflying vacation these days and even there it is becoming
more difficult.

I find it difficult to be polite when the study of lepidoptera is being threatened.
The same movement is threatening the health and prosperty of both myself
and those I love. They are dishonest and disreputable people.
I refuse to be polite about this!

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"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