Monarch article in Ft Worth Star-Telegram

[Todd Gilligan]

Dear Neil, Paul, etc.,

It seems that you have missed the point of this public listserver. According
to the homepage at Yale:

"The Lepidoptera Listserver, or LEPS-L, is a general purpose electronic
forum for those with an interest in butterflies and moths."

I fail to see how attacking each other, usually with some political or
religious slant, is beneficial to anyone on this list other than yourselves.
This list ocassionaly provides useful information to those of us interested
in Lepidoptera. Feel free to start your own listserver if you can't refrain
from this behavior. Feel free to call it "Idiots who argue about Monarchs"
or something similar. You probably don't know this, but you also have the
ability to email each other directly. That probably wouldn't be as much fun
since nobody else could read your little rants, but frankly I am sick of
this crap showing up in my email.

Thank you,

TG



On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Neil Jones <neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk>wrote:

> jim taylor wrote:
>
>> Paul:
>>
>> We all knew that would happen. Extrapolating the rate at which monarchs
>> have been lost over the years, I estimate that next year the population will
>> be -14 bugs.
>>
>> Jim Taylor
>>
> Oh boy here we go again. You can't teach an old dogma new tricks. :-)
>
> What is clear is that when ever a scientist expresses concern about
> conservation
> Paul Cherubini, our resident professional exterminator will attack them.
> He has a long history of taking things out of context, distorting things,
> repeating the postings of a convicted felon.etc etc ad nauseam.
> We get a stream of isolated pictures from the quickdraw wunderkind.
> but very little of it makes any sense in a rational scientific way.
>
> Conservationists are concerned at the decline of monarch populations.
> They are concerned, reasonably and rationally because their habitat
> ois being affected.
>
> Am I the only one who sees that portraying ourselves as a bunch
> of unscientific, ignorant, gullible, hill billies does no service in the
> eyes of the public to promoting the cause of the study of lepidtopera?
>
> I have no idea if the graph he posted our of context supports his ideas.
> It is as usual taken out of  any context that would give it proper meaning.
> I know some of the articles do not, but this is a constant theme.
> Conspiratorially seeing things where they do not exist.
>
> Ity just comes over as,
> "Them scientists don't know nuthin they is conspirin' to dupe us all"
> We get the same lack of perspicacity time and time again.
> and as predictably as ever Jim Taylor comes in with one of his
> short posts.;short on thinking, short on content. short on vision.
>
> Google Paul Cherubini's name. On forums with good scientists
> on his wild conspiracy theories get laughed at. Frankly, He gives me
> the impression that he would swear that the Pope was Jewish if
> he thought it would convince someone of his strange theories
> and there are plenty  of people who agree with me on more
> scientific forums.
>
> I have however found an apparent explanation for the poor cognition
> of some of the people here. See the abstract below
>
> Neil Jones
> neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk
> www.butterflyguy.com
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4VHS7P7-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1259120269&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1661fb8707eb2473de4c64e97c170530
>
> Conservatism and cognitive ability
>
>
>
>
> References and further reading may be available for this article. To view
> references and further reading you must purchase <
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4VHS7P7-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1259120269&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=50b6e6e778d03776ea760afe8537f991>
> this article.
>
> *
>
> Lazar Stankov^a <
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4VHS7P7-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1259120269&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1661fb8707eb2473de4c64e97c170530#implicit0>^,
> ^E-mail The Corresponding Author <mailto:lstankov at nie.edu.sg>^, ^E-mail
> The Corresponding Author <mailto:lazondi at rocketmail.com>
>
> *
>
> ^a National Institute of Education (NIE), 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore
>
> Received 17 July 2008; revised 7 December 2008; accepted 8 December 2008.
> Available online 3 February 2009.
>
>
>     Abstract
>
> Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence
> is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students
> seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of
> analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and
> Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores
> correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at
> primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and
> reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student
> Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed
> States Index and several other measures of economic and political
> development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with
> economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>  For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>  http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20100320/548efab4/attachment.html