A book review by Steve N. G. Howell in the latest Western Birds (2006, Vol. 37, No.2, p. 118) contains the following paragraph:
"Of course, if the world were perfect we humans wouldn't be here. So what if this book, like all the NGS field guides, was pushed out under unreasonable deadlines? It's all about marketing. After all, if thousands of people can be shown a few seconds of blurry video of a Pileated Woodpecker and be convinced that it's an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, then the sky's the limit. Image rules over content......"
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Steve N. G. Howell on the Luneau video
An emailer writes (the bold font is mine):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Whoa! Those are pretty strong words coming from this respected birder and ornithologist. In one sentence he pretty well sums up my disgust with the glut of field guides being published today, with some being revised seemingly annually. Shame on the NGS. It's all about the money!
Watch out! Steve N. G..... You have just officially added your name to Cornell et al.'s BLACK LIST. Prepare for character assasination, impuning of your credentials, etc.
Another top field birder to add to Tom's list of public skeptics.
So do we have any good field people who will say that they think the Luneau bird is an Ivory-billed? At this point, can you even come up with a list of good people who will at least call it definitely unidentifiable?
Face it, True Believers. The Luneau video is dead. Good riddance.
The Luneau video probably did more harm than good for Cornell's argument. It provided a focus for dispute whereas before it would have been more he said, she said. btw, Wanda seems to be another one of those who probably saw a pileated, why do you give her so much credit when she's trying to drum up business and bring attention to herself?
"Watch out! Steve N. G..... You have just officially added your name to Cornell et al.'s BLACK LIST. Prepare for character assasination, impuning of your credentials, etc. "
How does one submit one's name to this BLACKLIST? I wasn't aware that such a list was available. Just to make certain I am not mistaken for someone in Cornell's
camp, I would like to apply for inclusion.
Anonymous wrote: "Watch out! Steve N. G..... You have just officially added your name to Cornell et al.'s BLACK LIST. Prepare for character assasination [sic], impuning [sic] of your credentials, etc."
Am I missing something? Is there a website where Cornell et al. has been assassinating the characters of, impugning the credentials of and poking fun at the skeptics and their spouses?
Methinks it was wrong of Cornell et al. and other believers to claim proof when none exists, and methinks Tom and others here deserve credit for pointing out flaws in the interpretation of evidence--which have certainly caused me and others to become skeptical of the claims by believers. But can this blog truly claim the moral high ground when mud is flung EVERY DAY at the believers and occasionally at their spouses under the cloak of anonymity (or, in one case, probable pseudonymy)?
METHINKS II
"...or, in one case, probable pseudonymy"
Whaaaaa? Probable pseudonymy? You mean TB? That's his real name?
Or do you mean the Alien? Kneep...kneep....
You couldn't mean the Carpenterio Real, could you?
Probable pseudonymy? Did you really mean to say, Pseudobable Pronymy?
But can this blog truly claim the moral high ground when
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>Watch out! Steve N. G..... You have just officially added your name to Cornell et al.'s BLACK LIST. Prepare for character assasination, impuning of your credentials, etc.
>
Speaking as one who knows Steve, I think he doesn't really care what Cornell thinks of him. Steve is not one to mince words. If you read previous book reviews he's written (not to mention his Mexican books), you'll see that he happily skewers any and all with whom he disagrees.
More power to you, Steve. Write on...
My Two Cents
"But can this blog truly claim the moral high ground when mud is flung EVERY DAY at the believers and occasionally at their spouses under the cloak of anonymity (or, in one case, probable pseudonymy)?"
____________________________
Ms. Dickinson was not insulted, we merely pointed out the incestuous relationship between CLO and Audubon. Another tangled strand in the web of media, fame, money, book writing and "glory."
Ms. D then chose to throw a few snide remarks at us. And we realize that Mary Scott is not the lunatic fringe, maybe she just lacks a PHD.
________________________________
Who the heck is taking the moral high ground, The Daily Kos?
"Hey don't insult me, I'm a PHD."
Is this country dominated by Academics who claim moral superiority, attack Republicans for being Karl Rovatics and then do exactly the same thing.
"BSB" and "My $0.02"
If you want to be on the black list, then just go public. Do you really believe that Cornell et al. don't consider Tom's list of public skeptics as "the enemy (=blacklist)?" Look what they've said or implied about Jackson, Sibley, and anyone else who tangles with them. They (Cornell et al.) are maniacal fanatics- don't underestimate them.
And, I don't doubt that Howell doesn't give a crap about what Cornell thinks. Otherwise, why would he write what he did? If only more of us could come forward and expose the IBWO fanatics- it's the only way to erode their base of support.
Relationship between CLO and Audubon? While many Audubon and CLO employees work together, not sure what this refers to. There are many people in both organizations who don't buy the Arkansas story.
An Anon said: There are many people in both organizations (CLO and Audubon) who don't buy the Arkansas story.
What an absurd statement. Can you name one? Can you point to a place where the CLO and Audubon ever mentioned in all of the hoopla that while some people at their institutions believe an IBWO was seen or recorded there are "many people" that don't? Can you point out how these "many people” have voiced their views (either externally or internally)?
And as to the "relationship between CLO and Audubon" a Google search on “Cornell Audubon” returns half a million hits. If you think that the IBWO sighting is the first time that the two organizations have worked together to scam a naive public (and ignored real conservation issues in the process) then you haven't been following avian conservation for the past 20 years.
Looks like you people hadnt anticipated the Rhein Imperial film. That was never a Pileated in the Luneau video
Post a Comment