Fwd: [at-l] ends jusfifying the means????

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Snodrog5@aol.com wrote:
>Hi Jim
>Considering what pro-wilderness advocates are up against, I'm for any 
>tactic short of violence. (ELF and EarthFirst! do things I do not support.)

TJ -
I wasn't gonna continue this thread - partly because it's off-topic, but 
largely because there are times when I wish I hadn't asked the question - 
and this is one of them.  But if you're not gonna let the subject go, then 
it deserves an answer.

I'm glad you're against "violence".  But you don't seem to understand that 
your attitude is a direct advocacy of (as I put it) lying, cheating and 
stealing.  And that in itself is a form of violence.


>You are aware that there are people on 'the other side' who are inside the 
>system twisting 'research' too?

Yes - I'm far more aware of it than you are because I deal with it every 
day.  I get paid to find the places where things get "twisted" - and I'm 
very, very good at it.  I'm also very aware that 90+% of the twisting comes 
from people with YOUR apparent attitude and political leaning.


>Neither side is doing Science.

Bull - the vast majority of scientists are honest, hard working and 
dedicated.  I should know - I've worked with them for over 40 years. There's 
a VERY small minority that fits your misconception.


>Science should be investigation to discover unknowns.

Exactly - so why do you claim foul when the answers don't fit your 
preconceived notions?  You're not alone though - there are people on the 
"other side" who are afraid to even have the research done (and sometimes 
fail to fund it).  But I've found that those who are on "your side" tend to 
disbelieve any research that doesn't support their own prejudices.

I'm not on either side cause they're both wrong at times - and I prefer to 
keep my options open so I can support the "side" that I believe (based on 
the best facts available) has the best solution - not just for "wilderness", 
but for the human race and for the future as well.


>What's going on today, in this context, is no more than attempts to gather 
>'evidence' to give credence to preconceived political positions.

Your generalization indicates a level of ignorance that I didn't expect of 
you.  That's ALWAYS been true of a VERY small segment of EVERY investigative 
effort whether in environmental research or quantum physics or criminal 
forensics.  It's called Myers Law - "If the facts don't fit the theory, then 
change the facts."  It happens on both sides of any issue - but it's far 
more rare than you believe on either side - and, again, it happens a whole 
lot more on "your side" than anyplace else.


>The anti-wilderness concerns have all the money, guns, and lawyers. I'm 
>rooting for the underdog.

Really?  Money - is fairly abundant in the "pro-wilderness" organizations - 
what you should be asking is what's being done with it. Guns aren't an issue 
- let's both hope it stays that way.  Lawyers?  Don't be obtuse - the 
environmental movement in general has a reputation for having first rate 
lawyers - and third rate scientists.  That's not universally true, but it's 
so often enough that the results from the "pro-wilderness" scientific 
community are very often suspect. That's not right wing anti-wilderness 
propaganda, TJ - it's 40 years of experience working with scientists of all 
persuasions.


>TJ < By *almost* any means necessary.

I asked if you advocated "lying, cheating and stealing".  Your apparent 
answer is that you do if it supports YOUR cause - and you object if it 
supports those who oppose you.  You talk about people who "twist" research - 
and then you condone it as a way to advance your own particular cause.  I've 
run into the "they're doing it, so I've gotta do it too" attitude more times 
than I care to remember.  And I don't buy it.  There's no logic, no 
integrity, no honesty, no truth, no common sense - and no honor in it.  Nor 
does it advance the cause of "science" or make life better for either humans 
or the "wilderness".  It confuses the issues - it muddies the solutions - it 
leads to "bad science" and "bad decisions".  And it damages your "cause" 
because every time the bright light of reality shines on the cockroaches, 
your "cause" loses credibility - and eventually the "cause" will become a 
fringe element because the large majority of people won't believe what 
you're saying anymore.  "Credibility", TJ - you obviously don't understand 
it.  You need to learn about it.  It's not about "right wing anti-wilderness 
loonys" - or "left wing tree-hugging loonies" - it's about truth and reality 
and "credibility".  If you lose sight of that, then your "cause" becomes 
nothing more than "extremist nut case ranting" - and it isn't worth 
believing in.

Walk softly - and believe me, I have done that here,
Jim



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.