From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 10:44:45 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> ...
> 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.
A) I am not saying that the Monarch butterfly isn't in any danger. I'm
saying that it isn't the only thing in danger. And that of those in
danger, it was selected because it was photogenic.
B) Political plot? Sort of. PR campaign would be a better description.
C) The scientific data that I've seen was both 1) equivocal and 2)
focused entirely on the Monarch butterfly, ignoring the other insects,
e.g. honey bees, wasps, earthworms, etc. So we have no idea whether
they are endangered or not.
D) You;re right. You don't know what a conspiracy theory is. May I
suggest that you read "Illuminatus!" by Robert Anton Wilson for a
humorous and fictional description of what a conspiracy is. He tries to
be sufficiently unreasonable so that you will recognize his conspiracies
as fictional creations.
>
> Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence"?
I don't see that I made a single extraordinary claim, though I agree
that your interpretation of what I said appears to be a bit extraordinary.
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
>
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:33 MST