Big John averred:
>
>Initial Premiss:
>
>Bu.     is a mathematician.
>
>Bu ..   is not a psychologist nor historian.
>
>So..   why is Bu attempting to compare environmentalists to Hitler?
>
>Thus. Bu does not have any authority (in fact lacks sensitivity regarding
>the victims of the holocaust) as a historian, nor as a psychologist. He is
>entitled to his opinion, that is all.
>
>Budiansky does not tell us why 'environmentalists' are bad. He just says
>they are bad.

John,
I hate to admit it, but this just makes me kinda angry.  (I know, I know. .
. I shouldn't let mr. scooby du's deep eco doo doo get to me).  I've just
gone through all this effort to keep Buttinskys like you from meddling with
other people's reading what I consider to be an extremely *fair* book,
albeit still a "biased" one in the *good* sense, i.e. in the sense that the
man has an important point to make.  Many important points in fact, and
ones which Chris Perley is attempting to support by giving real-world
examples from his own experience of dealing with hyper-preservationists in
New Zealand.  Now, you may simply just not be listening again John, either
to Chris or to me or to anyone else for that matter, and that's okay,
because a) that's your perogative, and because b) that's your
constitutionally protected god-given right, and because c) well, because I
still love you.  (!)  But let me ask you one simple question:

Have you in fact read Stephen Budiansky's book *Nature's Keepers: The New
Science of Nature Management*?

In other words, do you have any, ANY basis (any whatsoever) for making the
claims you make above?  e.g. "Budiansky does not tell us why
'environmentalists' are bad." and "He just says they are bad."

IMHO you *obviously* haven't read the book.  On the absolute remotest of
remote and "nonzero probability" chances that you HAVE actually read that
book, I'd wager you dollars to donuts (er, uh, dollars to potatoes?) that
you haven't understood a *single* word of what Budiansky is saying.  And
that's in "my humble opinion."  :-)

To Maria-Stella (and/or anyone else who's interested in reading the book):
keep your eyes on the prize.  Read the book, then come back here and tell
us all honestly what you think about it.  That would yield for us all some
productive conversation, and not just some ill-informed speculations from
my postmodern friend to the northwest who apparently thinks that
*everything* ever written has been an argument from intimidation.  (And
don't get me started on THAT fallacy.  <grin>)

<MILDLY IRONIC TEASING MODE ON>:

As for you, mr. soft fluffy cloud <grin>: come down off your cloud and read
Budiansky's book *first*, before going off and offering gems like:
"Budiansky doesn't have any authority . . . as a historian," etc., and "He
is entitled to his opinion, that is all.."  If you in fact actually did
*know* what some of Budiansky's actual opinions ARE, then your own opinion
on this matter would be worth a whole lot more than the five cents worth of
catfish stinkbait you seem to be trolling out these days.

:-)))))

(There, John.  Would *that* constitute argument by intimidation?  discuss
among yourself.)

<<MILDLY IRONIC TEASING MODE OFF>.

>Just like Jim says that there are people who are bad and some
>of them appear to be environmentalists, so environmentalists are bad.

WHAT????????????  What are you talking about? or as Steve V. occasionally
puts it,  WTFAYTA? (where "F" stands for a mathematical "function," of
course.)    :-)

respectfully (and I do LOVE you john, I hope you know that),

Jim T.


>
>There is no ad hominem argument here because the first two points are true.
>He may as well be speaking about economists; after all it may be that the
>Great Economic Depression made it possible to get unemployed people to
>believe anything...even kill.
>
>And finally it was not Hitler that  formulated the 'Blud and Soil'
>philosophy it was Lena Rufeinstal and the Nazi Minister of Culture that
>created the soil and blood propaganda that was already entrenched in German
>culture for hundreds of years. The NS simply exploited the average person's
>belief in the 'soil' and in nationalism and there is nothing 'intrinsically'
>'bad' about that. So Budiansky makes the biggest mistake of all, because he
>is trying to 'sell the emperor some new cloths' which is to argue from
>authority, and through intimidation, and no one dares to laugh at the
>emperor and his new cloths.
>
>chao,
>
>john foster