From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 19:01:49 MDT
On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 07:13 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 10:30 am, Charles Hixson wrote:
>>> The problem is... butterflies were picked as the species to worry
>>> about
>>> because they were photogenic, not because they were the one most
>>> endangered.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence to support this conspiracy theory?
>>
> Why is anything you don't want to believe a conspiracy theory?
*Sigh*
It is things like this that make me consider quitting the List almost
daily. Do you really not understand what a conspiracy is or see how
Charles is suggesting a conspiracy? Do you really think I merely call
anything I don't like a conspiracy? It seems that we aren't even having
basic communications on this list anymore.
Charles is clearly saying that the Monarch butterfly isn't really in any
danger. He thinks someone chose it because it photographs well and
would make a good poster-child for an environmental movement. He
obviously believes that the whole Monarch butterfly thing is a political
plot purpetrated in cooperation with the liberal media and not really
based on any scientific data. If that's not a conspiracy theory, I
don't know what is.
Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence"?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:32 MST