Neil Jones et al. - conservationists

RENE BOUTIN rboutin at
Sun Jan 6 01:07:20 EST 2002

Oh,but I've seen Neil fight to get someone else of another list and titilate over
the fact  when it happened.At that time Mr Cherubini was about the only person who
would defend the commercial breaders(and so I am) approach on the Monarch Watch
list .
       I say Mister Jones should stay on the list so we can all watch him good and
on the other hand....
                                                                René Boutin
Qc,Canada,North America

"Chris J. Durden" wrote:

> We have had some ugly comments from Neil Jones, again, taking issue with
> views contradictory to his own or just plain misunderstood. He implies that
> he has "the word" on what is and is not conservation and that those of us
> who do not agree with him are in league with the uncontrolled exploiters of
> natural resources.
>     From what I have read on and off his website and in his e-mails, he
> appears to me to have a mighty peculiar interpretation of what conservation
> theory and practice is all about. One can just press the delete button. I
> do not because I find it interesting to see what comments of others set off
> his tirades. I would not like to see him banned from lists on which he
> appears as his diatribes are sometimes quite entertaining. I would prefer
> that he share with us some of his Natural History observations instead.
> Being somewhat of a bog expert myself, I would be curious to know what now
> lives at Crymlyn Bog.
> ................Chris Durden
> At 0534 PM 1/4/2002 +0000, you wrote
> The Reverend Ron Gatrelle wrote
>  > Finally an admission from the environmental left that the whole endangered
>  > species thing is a scam, a sham, a ploy.  Since all the butterfly
>  > "endangereds" are subspecies this admission tells us that since they have
>  > no "scientific significance" they are but artificial constructs of the
>  > environmental left fallaciously put upon the American people as
>  > "scientific" so they can be used as a "tool"  (manipulation) to further
>  > their environmental whacko agenda to construct laws against people and jobs
>  > in favor of flies and roaches.  Then there is the subliminal slip that the
>  > whole movement is really only based on "funding" (money) in the  pockets of
>  > the environmental elite.
> Down boy! There's a good dogma!
> This is pure "wise use" anti-conservation rubbish. Preservation of a good
> healthy environment for people to live in is a prerequisite
> to a happy life. You know, some people actually like to go out into a good
> environment to study wildlife. It makes them happy. -)
> It seems that you have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing opinion
> from fact. As a result you are allowing your emotions to run away with you.
> What on earth are you doing describing subspecies if you think they are
> worthless? Wow are you confused! I wouldn't agree with everything Professor
> Ehrlich says either but I would try to base my opinion not on what I get from
> cheap radio and tv shows shows but on proper scientific examination of the
> facts. I am not an animal rights activist but a _conservationist_ the two
> things are _very_ different.
> To me a lepidopterist promoting this kind of thing that will ultimately
> prevent lepidopterists from studying leidoptera is rather like a turkey
> clamouring for an early thanksgiving.
>  > Now someone tell me why what I just said should not be expected to be aired
>  > on Rush or put forth in the case of Big Industry vs. Endangered Bug after
>  > they read Ehrlich's statements?
> I think it is a little too intellectual for Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps you could
> try Hustler Magazine? -)
> Ever since the Reverend Gatrelle has joined this list we have had an increase
> in the bad feeling. We have had attacks on butterfly watchers, African
> Americans used as a sterotype for ignorance, silly definitions of "taxonomic
> correctness" ,defence of nutty criminal behaviour, and  militia style
> political statments against government and conservation of habitats. It seems
> that we have on our hands a silly old troll who just likes to pick fights.
> As someone else once said "Praise the lord and pass the ammunition".
> Ron, You may feel the need to attract attention to yourself. However
> placing yourself on the political landscape on the far right with
> Gengis Khan and Attilla the Hun off to the left as minute dots on
> the horizon is not particularly endearing.
> It is worth pointing out that the position you pose yourself is in reality a
> left wing revolutionary one having moved around the political circle to the
> point where it is indistinguishable from that of the British  Revolutionary
> Communist Party. (Limbaugh Marxism)
> I do wonder what the leaders of your church would think if they knew
> that they had as one of their pastors a guy who would pose as a "butterfly
> bircher" in order to start the internet equivalent of bar fights.  Perhaps
> they would not care, but I can certainly see why you left the Quakers!
> Starting fights is hardly compatible with the commandment to "love one
> another". Your postion isn't very christian. Christ drove the money changers
> out of the temple, but you would inscribe their title deed on the alter cloth!
> Perhaps it is as I said that you are in reality an animal rights "whacco" who
> is here just to portray butterfly collectors in the worst possible light, for
> that is what you are doing. You sound like the honorary chaplin of the sahara
> club! (An organisation that believes in the use of violent tactics against
> nature lovers.)
> Come on Ron _wise_up_ a little. Think a bit more before you start using your
> computer as a pulpit to preach this stuff.  If you did we all might get on a
> little better.
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at http//
> "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//
> At 1232 PM 1/5/2002 +0000, you wrote
> On 4 Jan, in article <a3.218c5eac.29679e61 at>
>       HpAzures at 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 http//
> "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//
> At 1241 PM 1/5/2002 +0000, you wrote
> On 4 Jan, in article
>       <6506849CAEBBE24E913A22806016E406F6222E at>
>       Norbert.Kondla at "Kondla, Norbert FOREX"
>       wrote
>  > 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 http//
> "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//
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rboutin.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: Card for RENE BOUTIN
Url : 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list