Chuck,
No Problem nor disrespect, as I do understand your misinterpretation...
I imagine that the names of environmental villains are part of your
regular field of knowledge and vocabulary like perhaps many other people
on this list.
However, I personally don't follow "who's who" as much. TMI-- As
somewhat of an innovator and problem solver, I have a tendency to follow
'trends' instead of names, as names tend to come and go. Yet, to be
honest, I think Pombo's bill would be better recycled into frass... but
I still dread and am curious what the consequences of this bill -- if
passed by the Senate-- would be aside from what's floating around the
rumor mill...
----
In regards to off-topic, once again, considering that many of the places
we record in as 'nature recordists' are potentially in peril from such
legislation being passed, such subjects should be a concern. I believe
this string/ topic was originally initiated out of that kind of concern...
The trend of squelching political discussions/ arguments that question
'authority' is in my opinion a bullying 'conservative' trend that often
has nothing to do with logic... just like the imposed negative
connotations of the term 'liberals' or 'environmentalists' or
'tree-huggers'. Such terms all fall subject to the common fallacies in
logic and critical thinking...
I believe 'sharing technical knowledge' is only one of the goals of the
'nature recordists' group/ community/ society. However, the future of
our public and privately owned wildlands and resources/ biodiversity
represented -- and any chance of preserving them for 'perpetuity' will
be very much shaped by the language/ semantics we as 'users' of the
National Parks use in our arguments and discussions. Unfortunately, the
old language of the environmental movement doesn't really appear to work
any more and could use a facelift, but perhaps now I am for sure getting
'off-topic'.
Best regards,
Jeff Daub
------------------------------
Charles Bragg wrote (9-30-05; 6:30pm):
As I said, for one who actually lives so close to Mr Pombo to want to
"verify some specifics" on a Pombo bill before making a personal
judgement - well it's very hard to believe. Mr Pombo is so well known as
an environmental villain that giving him any leeway puts you in danger
of being tarred with the same brush. My apologies for the
misinterpretation - I hope you can see how I made it.
Feel free to quote me back to the group if you wish. I sent this
off line because I still think it's off-topic for the group and I
promised myself to post only once.
-- Chuck
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA
Membership, Newsletter, Web manager
Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society
www.smbas.org <http://www.smbas.org>
Jeff Daub wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> My point of mentioning this to the group was NOT at all to advocate this
>> potential change in policy... in contrary -- as those like Bernie and
>> Martyn-- that know me better would (and did) encourage by the way -- it
>> was out of pure concern and horror to imagine this legislation may
>> actually get pushed through... I usually try to keep my information
>> offered to the group somewhat neutral as to not offend those individuals
>> in this group that may be more conservative in their views. No offense,
>> but it is unfortunate you decided to read behind the lines and
>> misinterpreted my intent...
>
>
>=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|