🚀 go-pugleaf

Please do not continue this debate in a thread with my name on it.

thanks in advance, Greig Ebeling.



Mark Friesel <mfriesel@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>MF:

>The following are Elliott Ito's statements, so I can't answer for him.  
>I am glad to know that you think at least ten species will be discovered 
>in the next six months, or don't you believe this is the case?


>> >
>> >(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.
>> 

>MF:

>Certainly, Harold.  I wish you had seen it earlier as well.  No one 
>wants to dig a pit for someone else, stumble into it themselves, then 
>have to go through a struggle to extricate themselves by blaming the 
>intended victim for their misfortune.  I like to think I'm doing my part 
>to prevent this occurrance.

>Mark Friesel