🚀 go-pugleaf

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
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic 
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and 
being honest."
     - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.   
	"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47