First the Coho, now Apache and Gila

"William Claspy" wrote in message
...
On 5/26/05 1:10 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

Contextually, it certainly would have been not only nice, but helpful to
have such, but this is the Federal Register, and I take it from your
comment above you are familiar with it. Of course, if you are, I must
wonder why you would even suggest such a thing - i.e., "_nice_ to
have"...

Well, here on Book Island (bwaha...cough), I was looking for new ways to
find snoozers on pickle fermentation and so I just happened to have the FR
open. And as everyone knows, librarians are, as a subspecies, nice.

"...give a man one snoozer about Gila trout and he can be bored for one
day, but show a man how to find all sorts of snoozers about Gila trout,
and he can be bored for a lifetime..."

The siren song of my profession.

Led down the dark path, ne'er to return,
Bill


Cruel. Just plain cruel.

I admire that.

Wolfgang

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:06:46 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:24:30 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Only what you wrote in your previous post. (And it's *Dale* Hall.)

So, you assume it's true (or at least accurately informative) because
it's the NYT? (And I corrected the name error, but thanks.)

Let's just say I don't immediately assume something is *not* true
just because it doesn't fit my own personal biases as you seem to.

Well, see, THERE'S your problem...

I have a simple system, and it always works: if I read or hear it from
"news sources" and I didn't write or say it, I question it...

But this certainly makes me want to find out more about the man.

I'd suggest doing not only that, but on the situation itself, before
forming any opinions of the NYT article.

Perhaps you'll deign to share with me exactly what you know to be
false about the article?

Oh, look, I'm not going down that road again - debating comparative
negatives about and from idiots who like to call themselves
"journalists" and other uninteresting time-wasters. It was, from an
objective standpoint, at least misdirecting, if not downright
misleading. If you wish to think otherwise, that's why there's
chocolate and vanilla, and if you just don't what to think, there's lots
of folks around here that will tell you what you should think...

TC,
R

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

on face value, to me, the numbers don't make much "common sense".

Quantum mechanics doesn't make much "common sense" to me.

Exactly -- which is why I'm open to having my "common sense"
overturned by more information. Regardless of what you may
think, I didn't provide "the answer I wanted" but only "my
speculation" which explains why I'm undecided for now.

BTW, this site:

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

quotes an article that at least admits that there is
some disagreemtent:

" Among the dissenters, some argue that there is not yet enough
data to support the view that a mass extinction is occurring. Many
of the estimates of species loss are extrapolations based on the
global destruction of rain forests and other rich habitats."

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genesis.html

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html

http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...603warming.htm

Wolfgang

wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:06:46 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Let's just say I don't immediately assume something is *not* true
just because it doesn't fit my own personal biases as you seem to.

Well, see, THERE'S your problem...

I have a simple system, and it always works: if I read or hear it from
"news sources" and I didn't write or say it, I question it...

And I thought I was a cynic.

So do you apply this "principle" across the board? Or is it only
applied to the "evul libral mainstream media"?

Perhaps you'll deign to share with me exactly what you know to be
false about the article?

Oh, look, I'm not going down that road again - debating comparative
negatives about and from idiots who like to call themselves
"journalists" and other uninteresting time-wasters.

Oh .. OK.

It was, from an
objective standpoint, at least misdirecting, if not downright
misleading.

Do tell.

If you wish to think otherwise, that's why there's
chocolate and vanilla, and if you just don't what to think, there's lots
of folks around here that will tell you what you should think...

Indeed. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what you are attempting to
do.


Chuck Vance

On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:11:37 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:06:46 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Let's just say I don't immediately assume something is *not* true
just because it doesn't fit my own personal biases as you seem to.

Well, see, THERE'S your problem...

I have a simple system, and it always works: if I read or hear it from
"news sources" and I didn't write or say it, I question it...

And I thought I was a cynic.

It has nothing to do with being a cynic, it has to do with knowledge of
how the "news media" works, especially the "mainstream" media, whatever
political lean, personal or otherwise, anyone or everyone with a
particular outlet might have. For example, in this case, I found it at
least superficially odd that a reporter that had been, basically, a
gossip pager, and then a media reporter, whose husband is/was(?) on the
editorial board, and who was more a NYC "we've the _important_ press"
social circles type (or at least a wannabe) had this story. Turns out
she was recently moved to an environmental beat (itself odd to me).

My best guess is that she didn't know Gila trout from Gila monsters
before this, but was "pitched" this "story" by someone with an agenda.
Many do not seem to realize that while "business interests" (or land
rapists, if you must) wish to openly exploit _natural_ resources,
there are an equal number of "conservationists" out there who wish to
exploit monetary resources aimed at "conservation" (not all do, nor are
most or the remaining folks "crooks," it's just that they have built
what amounts to bureaucrat-type careers dependant on "conservation" -
they are in the "conservation business") or have other personal agendas
(status in their chosen or desired circles, cause de jour types, limo
liberals, etc.) that have nothing to do with true conservation.

So do you apply this "principle" across the board? Or is it only
applied to the "evul libral mainstream media"?

So do you actually read?

Perhaps you'll deign to share with me exactly what you know to be
false about the article?

Oh, look, I'm not going down that road again - debating comparative
negatives about and from idiots who like to call themselves
"journalists" and other uninteresting time-wasters.

Oh .. OK.

It was, from an
objective standpoint, at least misdirecting, if not downright
misleading.

Do tell.

Do read.

If you wish to think otherwise, that's why there's
chocolate and vanilla, and if you just don't what to think, there's lots
of folks around here that will tell you what you should think...

Indeed. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what you are attempting to
do.

Nope. I don't care what, or even if, you think. In fact, try to find
something from me in this thread where I've even told anyone how they
should interpret the info I provided.

HTH,
R

wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:11:37 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

[snippety]

So do you apply this "principle" across the board? Or is it only
applied to the "evul libral mainstream media"?

So do you actually read?

Quite well, thanks. You might even say that I've made a career of
it. And I've read enough of your "stuff" to have a very good idea of
what your own personal agenda is.

Indeed. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what you are attempting to
do.

Nope. I don't care what, or even if, you think. In fact, try to find
something from me in this thread where I've even told anyone how they
should interpret the info I provided.

Well you sure have spent a lot of time and effort for someone who
doesn't care.


Chuck Vance

On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:34:39 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:11:37 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

[snippety]

So do you apply this "principle" across the board? Or is it only
applied to the "evul libral mainstream media"?

So do you actually read?

Quite well, thanks. You might even say that I've made a career of
it.

Well, I suppose, given the vast universe of possible things I _might_
say, that I _might_ say that, but I'm certain that I'll refrain from
doing so. But to be fair, lemmee check....yep, I'm certain. All that
your above statement might prove is that you convinced some HR person or
hiring committee that you could do a job - it says nothing whatsoever
about your intelligence or ability to read, comprehend, or anything
else, including your success in that career, given only that small bit
of information.

And I've read enough of your "stuff" to have a very good idea of
what your own personal agenda is.

You apparently don't have the slightest clue what any of my "agendas"
are...so I'll help you out somewhat although it seems odd to have to so
for someone who claims such amazing comprehension since I've indicated
the exact same thing many times befo with regards to silliness like
this, it is to simply **** with people are just begging for it..

Indeed. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what you are attempting to
do.

Nope. I don't care what, or even if, you think. In fact, try to find
something from me in this thread where I've even told anyone how they
should interpret the info I provided.

Well you sure have spent a lot of time and effort for someone who
doesn't care.

And apparently, you are not a very good judge of estimating another's
time and effort...

H _T_ H,
R

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...I am...a no-nothing kook...

Actually, it's "know nothing."

Wolfgang
the hyphen, not surprisingly, is controversial.

wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:34:39 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Quite well, thanks. You might even say that I've made a career of
it.

Well, I suppose, given the vast universe of possible things I _might_
say, that I _might_ say that, but I'm certain that I'll refrain from
doing so. But to be fair, lemmee check....yep, I'm certain. All that
your above statement might prove is that you convinced some HR person or
hiring committee that you could do a job - it says nothing whatsoever
about your intelligence or ability to read, comprehend, or anything
else, including your success in that career, given only that small bit
of information.

You really do use a lot of words to say nothing, Richard. :-)

And I've read enough of your "stuff" to have a very good idea of
what your own personal agenda is.

You apparently don't have the slightest clue what any of my "agendas"
are...so I'll help you out somewhat although it seems odd to have to so
for someone who claims such amazing comprehension since I've indicated
the exact same thing many times befo with regards to silliness like
this, it is to simply **** with people are just begging for it..

As do I. (Assuming what you meant to say above was "**** with
people *who* are just beggin for it".) And you certainly offer a good
target.

Well you sure have spent a lot of time and effort for someone who
doesn't care.

And apparently, you are not a very good judge of estimating another's
time and effort...

Yet you keep coming back.


Chuck Vance

On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:55:23 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:34:39 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Quite well, thanks. You might even say that I've made a career of
it.

Well, I suppose, given the vast universe of possible things I _might_
say, that I _might_ say that, but I'm certain that I'll refrain from
doing so. But to be fair, lemmee check....yep, I'm certain. All that
your above statement might prove is that you convinced some HR person or
hiring committee that you could do a job - it says nothing whatsoever
about your intelligence or ability to read, comprehend, or anything
else, including your success in that career, given only that small bit
of information.

You really do use a lot of words to say nothing, Richard. :-)

The more chum, the better the fishing...

And I've read enough of your "stuff" to have a very good idea of
what your own personal agenda is.

You apparently don't have the slightest clue what any of my "agendas"
are...so I'll help you out somewhat although it seems odd to have to so
for someone who claims such amazing comprehension since I've indicated
the exact same thing many times befo with regards to silliness like
this, it is to simply **** with people are just begging for it..

As do I. (Assuming what you meant to say above was "**** with
people *who* are just beggin for it".) And you certainly offer a good
target.

Um, you might want to make sure the target doesn't have a spotting
scope...

Well you sure have spent a lot of time and effort for someone who
doesn't care.

And apparently, you are not a very good judge of estimating another's
time and effort...

Yet you keep coming back.

Ah, yes, Wolfgang's "Theory of 'I'm not the mark in this game'": If a
party of the first part claims the party of the second part is "coming
back for more," it makes the party of the first part think that they are
somehow superior and aren't the one being played.

Trust me, if you aren't _sure_ who the mark is, you're it. And I'm
sure...you're it. You may have the last word...or not, your
choice...and now, either way you choose, I win.

H _T_ H (but based on the previous events...),
R