
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Brunet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Monarch Extinction (substantial evidence?)
I think there might be a simple reason for the photos looking different
from
the maps. A lot of ground that was 80-100% forest cover is now 30-80% forest cover. The maps are a look from overhead straight down, and your photos are a view from the side, which would (especially at a distance), hide any thinning of forest cover.
------------------ Donna Brunet Columbia, Missouri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is true (hypothetically), as are many many many other points brought up in this thread by all sides. What should be obvious to any reasonable bystander is that neither side has a "lock" on the truth in this debate. Simply said, too much is _either_ being stated, or taken, as fact. This means several things, not the least of which is that the debate on this topic is needed to keep each of the other sides from fact-by-default. Freedom of speech (esp. descent) is the greatest weapon for truth and liberty available to humanity.
BUT --- there comes a time when talking becomes the proverbial beating of a dead horse. As moderator of the TILS-Leps-Talk list serve I just notified all subscribed there that this debate is now off limits at that group till further notice (or until spring - when it always begins again). I'd therefore very much appreciate it if the folks on this list (which is unmoderated in practice) would not CC messages to leps-talk.
Ron Gatrelle
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/
http://www.tils-ttr.org
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |