Monarch Extinction press releases.

Charles Bordelon legitintellexit at
Thu Nov 13 15:12:57 EST 2003

Stan, I don't know what it is about me, that you don't like; but I'll take a
stand on this issue about extinction...  We better start worrying about our
own asses...  cb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stan_gorodenski at>
Cc: <leps-l at>; <TILS-leps-talk at>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Monarch Extinction press releases.

> Paul Cherubini wrote:
> >"They seem to gang up on you at the drop of a hat, don't they?
> >
> >
> Paul, this statement in itself is misleading and wrong. Here are the
> facts (assuming I haven't missed anyone):
> 1. You made the initial post.
> 2. The first responses to your post came from Mark Walker, Alex
> Grkovich, and James Taylor. All these were in agreement with what you
> 3. The next post was mine that was in disagreement with you.
> 4. Mexico Doug posted in disagreement with you.
> 5. Wanda Demeron made a post but she did not make any statements, for or
> against. She merely posted an article for information.
> 6. Charles Bordelon posted but it seems he was not making a statement
> one way or the other
> Thus, there were three definitely in  favor of what you said. There were
> only two, myself and Mexico Doug who questioned what you said. That
> makes it 3 to 2 of those supporting your post vs. those critical of what
> you said. If you want to put Wanda on the critical side, then you
> probably should put Charles on the support side. This makes it 4 to 3.
> Therefore, the supporters outnumber the criticals and so how can someone
> say the criticals are ganging up, especially when the first three posts
> came from the supporter? If you want to exclude Charles, then you should
> also exclude Wanda but even if you don't exclude Wanda it then is 3 to
> 3, an even tie. If you include yourself (Paul), the supporter side
> outnumbers the critical side, no matter how you rearrange the numbers.
> I'm not including Patrick because his post is a recent one that is part
> of this recent thread and obviously appeared after the anonymous message
> you are quoting. I am also excluding Chip's message because it is also
> very recent and after the anonymous observation, and its only purpose
> was to offer the pdf of the Oberhauser's et al  paper.
> I find it interesting that I am viewed as one of the 'gang up' gang
> because I already said I have no position on the danger to the Monarch.
> Stan
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list