Niel Jones' response to Ron Gatrelle

Neil Jones Neil at
Sat Jan 5 07:41:00 EST 2002

On 4 Jan, in article
     <6506849CAEBBE24E913A22806016E406F6222E at>
     Norbert.Kondla at "Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX"

> Yeah, me too. I was "grossed out" by Neil's personal attack but this is not
> the first time this has happened on this list. I hope the list owner is
> taking note of this unwarranted and really rude behaviour.

Norbert Kondla calls me "rude" for condemning someone who promotes (perhaps in
naive innocence) the removal of a scientific resource by promoting 
pro-extinction ideas. I'd like to reply to this and a few of the other 
accusations being made against me and then perhaps we can let this matter 
rest. It is difficult to do this without some people, who put politeness 
before logical accuracy, thinking I am being "personal". I think it is fair 
to say that Mr Kondla and I "don't get on". He has a particular political 
postition that he has promoted vociferously over the years
that I do not agree with. My interpretation of this is that he seems to give
succour and support (as of course free speech allows) to those who promote 
the anti-conservation line.

Let me give you an example of 
what I consider worse than rude. A few years ago we had a convicted wildlife 
felon posting on this newsgroup. He with two others had been convicted of a 
large list of crimes. In fact their criminal indictment ran to 85 pages. 
This was a philatelic collector of the worse kind. This was no scientist, the 
indictment was peppered with quotes containing the "Latin" names of numerous 
species marked (SIC) because they had been misspelled. He had blatently traded
in endangered species, poached in national parks etc. and over 200 specimens 
listed under CITES (The international treaty protecting endangered species) 
were confiscated from him.

Unfortunately and to the dismay of many people on this list this young man
decided, a few days after his conviction, to "go postal" on the net with a 
ludicrous conspiracy theory. His conviction he claimed was the result of a 
massive conspiracy to get him. The government agents and lawyers who brought 
him to book were all crooks. John Shuey and Paul Opler, two respected 
lepidopterists, were criminals as were most of the members of the NABA board.
Of course this plainly delusional and in no way true at all. 
Part of the eccentric argument put forward by the young man was a series of 
peculiar anti-conservation statments attacking the US Endangered Species Act.
I don't intend to name the young man. Most people here will know who he is. 
For those who do not I suggest searching the archives for the phrase 
"he who must not be named". People are reluctant to name him in case he 
returns and I also have some sympathy out of simple humanity for someone, who 
had by all accounts always been eccentric, but who had just been left alone 
in the world after the death of his father while this was going on. The 
stress of this is what may have finally deprived the poor fellow of his reason.

Why am I mentioning this? Well Dr Kondla didn't find this anti-conservation 
criminal rude (although many others did) and, it seems, was one of the few people to give
 credence to his conspiracy theory. It appears this is a political position. 
This may be seen as a personal attack but of course Dr Kondla's attacks on me
are a personal one too. Before people judge who is unreasonable they need some
background on previous disagreements and some insight into the political
differences between us.

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: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list