🚀 go-pugleaf

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> Mark Friesel <mfriesel@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> [edited]
> 
> >> This makes the fourth offer.  SUre, go ahead.
> 
> >Here's a repost of one of my earlier reposts.  This is also going to
> >your private email.  Let me know if this doesn't get through 8^).
> 
> >> Mark Friesel <mfriesel@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Excellent idea.  I don't blame you at all.  This is the right decision
> >> >> for you, else you may have to examine your beliefs.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards, Harold
> >> >
> >> >Are you going to accept Elliott Oti's wager?  If not, why not?
> >>
> >> What wager?
> >>
> >
> >
> >This one ,dated Friday, Jan. 17, 1997:
> >
> >(quote)
> >
> >Let me repeat the wager:
> >
> >You insist the postulation of the existence of undiscovered species is
> >not only
> >unjustified,
> 
> I would be interested in where I said this.  I looked over the recent
> exchange (mostly with Braun & Jim), and I believe this statement is a
> misrepresentation.
> 
> >but has such a high probability of being wrong, that NO
> >ATTENTION whatsoever must be paid to their preservation.
> 
> More misrepresentation, in my opinion.
> 
> >(and anyone who
> >thinks otherwise should sell his wife & kids to slavers and go hug trees
> >or some similar rational advice).
> 
> Again, I would be interested in what might have said from which this
> is a reasonable inference.
> 
> >OK then.
> >Wager that less than 10 new species will be discovered the next 6
> >months.
> 
> Ah, you think I am stupid enough to believe that this is a fair
> representation of what I said.  No wonder some "environmentalists"
> will not quote give cites.  If the misrepresent the citations as
> grossly as they misrepresent what I post, I am sure they do not want
> anyone to look it up!  Tell you what, if you wish to bet the sun won't
> rise tomorrow, I will take that.  The bet is a stupid bet, based on a
> misrepresentation of my statements.
> 
> >(By your reasoning 0 new species will be discovered, but I'm giving you
> >some leeway - yes, I'm that magnanimous. Even Brashears deserves a
> >chance).
> 
> Again, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.  I have now read
> the thread in my archives.  It was called "Limits to Growth", and the
> subject of disagreement concerned the hypothesis of species, followed
> by a hypothesis of their loss, and the demand that the world needs to
> do something to correct that immediately.
> 
> Due to my own inability to articulate, I was unable to communicate
> that these individuals were very anxious for some Brazilian peasant to
> cease making a living because of a hypothesized species loss based on
> hypothesized species!
> 
> I must apologize for my inability to communicate properly.  I wish I
> could have seen the post earlier, since I hate to allow such willful
> misrepresentation of my statements from being spread.  Thank you for
> bringing this to my attention Mark.
> 
> Regards, Harold

I don't want to fire up this thread again, but in one part Harold
Brashears says:
> >You insist the postulation of the existence of undiscovered species is
> >not only
> >unjustified,
> 
> I would be interested in where I said this.  I looked over the recent
> exchange (mostly with Braun & Jim), and I believe this statement is a
> misrepresentation.

But in another he says:
> that these individuals were very anxious for some Brazilian peasant to
> cease making a living because of a hypothesized species loss based on
> hypothesized species!

Do you or do you not accept the existence of undiscovered species? Once
you concede their existence, you must assign them an importance equal to
that of known species in your decision-making, because the term
"unknown" does not describe any inherent properties of the species, only
our ignorance of it. Also, once you make this postulate, you cannot go
back and discredit the entire argument as being hypothetically based.
Furthermore, it is a postulate with a 100% chance of correctness, and we
would be irresponsible to not make this assumption. Either we make the
assumption or we don't. You can't have it both ways.