[leps-talk] Re: Monarch Extinction (substantial evidence?)

[James Taylor]

Folks:

I swore I would have nothing more to do with this subject - including reading the posts. However, I agree with Mark - Neil needs to put a sock in it. Vicious and personal attacks do little to raise his stock price. Please talk about your opinion and not about people with an opposing view.

Jim Taylor


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: The Walkers 
  To: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk ; TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com 
  Cc: leps-l at lists.yale.edu 
  Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [leps-talk] Re: Monarch Extinction (substantial evidence?)


  Harry P wrote: 

  > I have no stake in this Monarch debate other than wanting to see the facts 

  And N Jones wrote: 

  >It is very very simple Harry. Those of us who have studied what he says in
  detail know that he has a long history of FRAUDULENT CLAIMS. 

  >I'm sorry but there is no polite way to say this. When ever an independent
  source of information is found it contradicts what he is saying. <snippage> 

  First of all, after so many years of direct personal attacks against Mr.
  Cherubini, I would say that Mr. Jones has a very LARGE stake in this debate,
  and no matter how objective he wants us all to consider him, he is no longer
  capable of being objective. 

  Second of all, what Mr. Jones is accusing Paul of is precisely what Mr.
  Cherubini is claiming about the key Monarch doomsayers.  "Whenever an
  independent source of information is found it contradicts what (they) are
  saying" and "It seems (they) will say anything to (prove that the Monarch
  population is in imminent danger) and will say false things to make people
  believe false ideas." 

  And lastly, Mr. Jones says, "I can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of this because he
  made false derogatory claims about a project in which I was involved without
  knowing my involvement." 

  OK, so now it's apparent that Mr. Jones has an even greater personal stake
  in this debate.  Just how is it possible to be "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" about
  something based on information from a completely isolated incident?  Doesn't
  sound very objective, or logical, or scientific to me. 

  Mark Walker

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know" © 1999 

  Subscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com 
  Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com 
  Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
  Unsubscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com 
  For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20031117/1fc9afdc/attachment.html