Well at least we got some good reaction - wow that was great! Now we =
know there is some thinking going on, sometimes I wonder.
1. Let's see, according to you anyone that questions the scientific =
community is: a"knee-jerk, anti-environmental" ist.=20
2. And, people like me all believe in various environmentalists =
conspiracies such as: "The whole thing's a politically-correct plot to =
hurt Starbucks."
3. and as we know, no one without proper wildlife-biologists credentials =
are allowed to comment on issues such as these, excuse me, how stupid =
can I be? =20
4. and scientists could never be affected by bias! I'm sure that all =
scientists enter research without trying to prove something, they would =
never try to defend their turf or hold to a sacred position in spite of =
contrary evidence. "After all, we know that wildlife biologists are =
biased, their results never match reality, and that they routinely =
invent results simply to hurt loggers, ranchers, and coffee growers."
5. and of course, people like me are automatically anti-conservation, =
because we have the audacity to question a scientists and their study =
methods or results. I am so ashamed of myself. "not simply an opinion =
based on your anti-conservation biases - that coffee plantations support =
a wide variety of bird life."
6. anyone that does not agree with you is an idiot. "If you're going to =
fill my mailbox with idiocy..."

Well now that the world order has been properly restored by Mr. Baccus I =
guess we can continue on.=20

By the way, what does "If you're going to fill my mailbox with idiocy, =
at least make an effort to it short." mean?

________________________________
Dave Stiles
New Business Development
206-635-0709
ASIX, Inc.=20
visit our web site at www.asix.com

----------
From: Don Baccus[SMTP:donb at rational.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 1997 1:17 PM
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Subject: RE: Starbucks/shade coffee

Dave Stiles:

>Good question, sounds like more politically correct junk science =
without =3D
>much real scientific or investigative evidence to back it up. People =
are =3D
>so quick to jump on half-cocked environmental witch-hunts without =3D
>thinking things through.

Please tell this to my friends who were employed as field biologists
as part of an ongoing research project which is investigating the
comparative diversity of bird life in plantation vs. shade-grown
plots of coffee.

I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that you, who I imagine have never
visited either type of coffee farm, find it easy to dismiss their
project - which is simply one of many - as "politically correct
junk science." I'm sure your knee-jerk, anti-environmental reaction
is much more valid than on-the-ground research. After all, we=20
know that wildlife biologists are biased, their results never match
reality, and that they routinely invent results simply to hurt
loggers, ranchers, and coffee growers.

After all, loggers, ranchers, and coffee growers insist this is true.
We all know that THEY, like you, are unbiased. The proper, unbiased
view is that human development can never impact wildlife.

I mean, the fact that my friends actually identified and counted bird
species, and helped gather documentation that traditional shade-grown
plots support a much wider variety of bird species than monoculture
coffee plantations is totally unintuitive. I mean, imagine that
forest-dependent species don't thrive when the forest is removed,
as is done on the large plantation species! They must be lying.
The whole thing's a politically-correct plot to hurt Starbucks.

After all, if spotted owls can not only nest, but thrive, in K-Mart
signs there's no reason why forest species can't thrive in a
coffee-shrub monoculture, is there?

Damn those pesky, politically-correct, anti-industry, lying, biased,
unskilled wildlife biologist friends of mine. I mean, HOW DARE
THEY actually work on a study that leads to a conclusion you
dislike?


>Before we ignite the flame thrower have we thought about =3D
>who might get burned?

Easy: you. Hey, dude, I'm rude 'n crude and I'm not even warmed
up yet. Come on and piss me off - I'm ready.

Oh, while Tom Love is a professional anthropologist, not ornithologist,
he has worked extensively with indigenous people in New World =
rainforests.

I find it not at all difficult to believe that he knows a hell of a lot
more about these rainforests and the effects upon them of various kinds
of agri- and silviculture than you. After all, I know he has extensive
personal and professional experience, while I all know about you is
that you find it easy to dismiss news you dislike as "junk science".

Please - just what are your credentials? Fill is in on your extensive
experience with the area which allows you to dismiss research results
as being nothing but

"politically correct junk science"=20

and efforts to increase consumption of shade-grown coffee as being
nothing but a

"half-cocked environmental witch hunt".

Please provide us solid evidence - not simply an opinion based
on your anti-conservation biases - that coffee plantations support
a wide variety of bird life.

>Dave Stiles

Talk about half-cocked...

Oh, learn to snip posts properly, too.

Yes, this is a politically-correct, junk science request to encourage
you to learn to use your tools properly. If you're going to fill
my mailbox with idiocy, at least make an effort to it short.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at (NEW) http://donb.photo.net