Cavechat.org

Leitmotiv wrote:yeah I kind of figured that a long time ago.

Edit:

This will be my last effort in trying to educate you. Your original quote (post number 2 in this thread):

"'Yeah, well, you know, so, with humans moving pathogens around so.'- not exact context, but its all there."

You did not quote the following, as you claim:

"Dr. FRICK: Well, there's no link between the two fungi, that are the chytrid fungus that's attacking amphibians and this Geomyces destructans that's attacking the bats. But it does, you know, speak to the broader problem of wildlife disease and pathogens creating significant risks to species. And in the case of white-nose, the potential role of humans moving pathogens around."

That happened much later. Mae and I a responding to your first post. Post # 2 in this thread, where you misquoted NPR.

Go back and reread the first posts, it's all there.

The only word I didn't quote exactly is"Potential" and purposely so, because it is the same as saying that it has happened already. There is no difference to possible, probable, likely. I said as well out of context. If you want to be black and white then that is ok.

BrianC... I tried. If you can't see your own quotations on Post #2, then I failed you. I'm not trying to be black and white, I'm trying to represent the facts, which you so eagerly did away with in post # 2.

Go look what's inside your quotations, and tell me you weren't in error. I think you owe the author an apology. Until then, I'm done here. I don't need to engage in anymore conversation with a person who bends reality for his own means.

Leitmotiv wrote:BrianC... I tried. If you can't see your own quotations on Post #2, then I failed you. I'm not trying to be black and white, I'm trying to represent the facts, which you so eagerly did away with in post # 2.

Go look what's inside your quotations, and tell me you weren't in error. I think you owe the author an apology. Until then, I'm done here. I don't need to engage in anymore conversation with a person who bends reality for his own means.

You have failed at trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The wording I used Is indeed all in the radio spot. I used his prefixes etc. to humiliate the author. Not that I would do any better, but I would like to listen to proper speech from an educated speaker. I also purposely left out one word and wrote what was heard by the listener. Hey, all in all, I was just baiting whoever wanted to give support for the program. Nothing wrong with this, and actually lots to be gained.

You omit one word, and it ain't a quote.

That's why you have three people calling you on it: mae, NZCaver, and myself.

Your intent is called into question, and reveals why I said you might be biased earlier. You're not dense, just possibly a troll.

Leitmotiv wrote:You omit one word, and it ain't a quote.

That's why you have three people calling you on it: mae, NZCaver, and myself.

Your intent is called into question, and reveals why I said you might be biased earlier. You're not dense, just possibly a troll.

Perhaps Leitmotiv should become a working journalist for a week, and he would quickly understand that "quotes" have many aspects:

The first is the inherent fallibility of the reporter to catch and transcribe every word of a speaker. Even one who is speaking and knowing they are being quoted.
Most people would be appalled if they were transcribed exactly word for word, with every pause, misspoken phrase and grammatical boo-boo set out there for the world to see as a court reporter is sworn to. Even if you use a voice recorder, few people enunciate clearly enough and speak slowly enough to eliminate all doubt about a given run of speech or it's destination.

The second is that the reporter has a duty to use the speaker's words AND provide the context AND meaning for which those words were spoken. As any mix tape proves, you can take any string of words and hash them to mean nearly anything or everything or even the opposite thing from what the speaker intended. That is not what a good reporter does.

The last one is: even if you are 100% faithfully accurate to what the the speaker says, and provide no commentary, there is no interview which is not edited for space or sense. I can record every word you say on a topic, and some of them will still not be used in a story. The most egregious example is when someone is recorded for half an hour, and all that sees print or the airwaves are the "sound bites" of 3 minutes or fewer.

This does not even get into indirect quotes or summary quotes or paraphrase. The bottom line is: a story is pretty much what the reporter wants to make of it. It is hoped that accuracy and fidelity to the speaker's intent are watchwords, but sometimes, the "real story" isn't what the speaker intended at all.

Teresa, I'm aware of all that. I worked for my college paper, and work as the editor of our grotto newsletter.

It's one thing to quote somebody within the limits of space and for consideration of an individual.

It's quite another to slander an author and to put things out of context like BrianC did, by purposefully misquoting.

In his own words he was "baiting." Got what he wanted I guess.

Should I point out the possible hypocrisy of BrianC, being biased towards facts, but incapable of representing them correctly himself?

BrianC is either ignorant or a troll. Both positions I'm not envious of.

OK folks, the ad nauseum has surpassed acceptable levels. Let's dial back the personal insults please.

(Italics copied from the "It's a discussion board" thread post from Brian C.) posted here to be more on topic.

Bottom Line: Brian, IMHO your posts generally make no distinction between those who think human vectors are likely or certain, and those who think human vectors are possible. You also invariably make statements like " X is true" or " Y is false" and provide either nothing to support that statement or support it with another statement that itself has no support. Thus your posts come off as "I'm right, your wrong, and if you disagree your either stupid, lying, or part of a government plot".

wyandottecaver, Do you know where cavers would be caving right now hadn't some folks been negating the facts and credibility of anyone promoting the WNS human vector theory as fact?

Probably the same place we are now. Every access plan I know assumes at least the possibility of humans as vectors. Some place a lower probability on it than others. More importantly, "negating facts and credibility" is what we are talking about here. You CANT negate FACTS. Saying someone isn't credible because they believe something different just hurts your credibility. Certainly we should question those promoting the certainty of human transmission. We should question them using real data and real observations and not fall into the trap of saying no human transmission is a certainty either. In the NPR slot he didn't say it was a certainty. he said there was the potential.

I want you to know that I probably have the dirtiest job of all. I really hate having to make such remarks on a public board. I am a very passive person with an utmost regard for conservation, and those that spend their life being like minded. I have spent much of my life outside enjoying nature.

Thats great.

I have no intentions of humiliating myself or any caver in this community, though any person subscribing to the human vector as fact will certainly find themselves discussing the scope of reasoning behind their statement.

I hope so. If you believe something, especially if you want anyone else to believe it too, you should be able to defend it. It also goes both ways. Those saying humans CANT be a vector have to be able to discuss the scope of their reasoning too. I happen to believe that while humans might be a vector, all the data we see so far supports the probability that they either arent a vector or at least a bad one. But I have to be able to say why. Just saying anyone who believes different is wrong doesn't do much good to anyone.

The funniest reality is that I know in order to find a way to possibly cure the disease,we must know how it spreads. If I read that someone subscribes to humans as a vector, I know that they aren't using facts and therefore I do sometimes stretch their credibility.

Really? I would disagree about needing to know how it spreads being necessary to find a cure, but for the sake of discussion lets say we do need to know. So, you have decided beforehand that anyone subscribing to humans as a vector aren't using facts and thus aren't credible? reallllyyyyy. Well most of the folks I have seen saying it are using facts....they are also making assumptions from those facts that dont necessarily match what we observe. They are also interpreting those facts differently than say I do. They sometimes are ignoring other facts. But they are for the most part using at least some facts. In the case of the general public and some cavers who haven't done the research, some facts make human transmission seem reasonable. Responding with your own facts or asking them to validate theirs is fine. Saying they aren't using facts or are not credible just because they think human vectors exist is simply not true.

Certainly there are two sides to every story, and believe me, I mean no harm to any person, but I don't take organizations that represent themselves as conservation oriented , making wild assumptions, lightly.
I then feel like I have some room to be a little non exact myself.

Well, they aren't wild assumptions until you show that they are wild assumptions. You are good at telling people their assumptions are wrong. Your horrible at saying WHY. You then go on to make assumptions with no better support than theirs yourself. If by "room to be non exact" you mean room to make a statement without showing why its valid, then thats fine. Just don't expect your statement to be taken seriously. If you mean room to misquote someone, misrepresent what they said, or totally re-interpret a statement or study to fit your own world view...well thats when *I* start discounting someone's credibility.

ps: you won't find me negating of issues anywhere except WNS threads, I'm not like that.

Im not sure what that even means. I'm guessing you mean you dont make posts that are negative in nature except for those relating to WNS. In that sense I should probably try to be more like you, as I have no problem making posts critical of people or ideas regardless of the topic.

Copied from its a discussion board... remembe?r

wyandottecaver wrote:

Brian,

Since the NPR thread has been unlocked I suggest we continue the discussion there.

Thanks for the invite,

Let me start by saying I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. Your support of using the word "possible" in any and all articles concerning cavers spreading White Nose Syndrome comes into question though. Why do you think that the words" human" and "possible" must be included with every document written by any and all agencies directed at the public media? I will let you chew on that for a while.

Dr. FRICK: "Yeah, so what we did was" 3rd. response from Dr. Frick

Dr. FRICK: "Well, that's a good" 2nd. response from Dr. Frick

Dr. FRICK: "That's correct. You know", Ist. response from Dr. Frick

Dr. FRICK: "Yes, so" 3rd response from Dr. Frick

"And in the case of white-nose, the potential role of humans moving pathogens around." I did interject "with" for "the potential role of" This is what I ,and most John Q Public hear.

The word "potential" is explained by the dictionary as meaning, "expected”, and "likely". This word has the meaning that evidence supports the transmission theory

The synonym for potential says it all,” capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed: implied" Webster’s.


Soooooo, Do I need to apologize? Ok, I do apologize for not being black and white, but I will expect the same black and white from any expressed media that implies that cavers are spreading WNS.

When the words humans spreading are used, it should say cavers spreading, because humans are not going in and out of caves, cavers are. Does this show how terrible you are for being a caver?


A couple years ago, I expressed that the USFWS must revise its cave closure policy. I asked for this because It would have stopped all this BS, and the bats would still be where they are now. The spread of WNS would be the same, funding would be much larger, and support from the caving community would have been incredible.

It is the way it is! This has myself and you,and many others bickering, and not spending the time needed to find the solution for the bats, there may never be a solution.

In any event, folks can support that cavers can spread WNS, and stay the heck away from caves or anywhere near them, or be a hypocrite. Or folks can demand that doing the right thing and removing any and all bans on caving ( except large critical maternity, and hibernacula). We can all work together then.

You say that I don't show my proof that cavers don't spread WNS! Where the heck have you been? One day soon I will depart fact from fiction in an easy to read linear format, and this too will PROBABLY be ignored, because so many are blinded by those that should( and probably do) know better.


BrianC

BrianC wrote:The word "potential" is explained by the dictionary as meaning, "expected”, and "likely". This word has the meaning that evidence supports the transmission theory

The synonym for potential says it all,” capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed: implied" Webster’s.

It would seem that much of the underlying disagreement here is largely semantic. You seem to take exception to any and all statements which accept the humans as a potential vector of WNS, and, given the definition you are quoting above as, that makes sense. However, I don't think that "potential" includes the connotation of "expected" or "likely" for most people. I strongly suspect that most people interpret "potential" as "not impossible".

Per dictionary.com:

po·ten·tial
   
–adjective
1. possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2. capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.
3. Grammar . expressing possibility: the potential subjunctive in Latin; the potential use of can in I can go.
4. Archaic . potent1.
–noun
5. possibility; potentiality: an investment that has little growth potential.
6. a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.
7. Grammar .
a. a potential aspect, mood, construction, case, etc.
b. a form in the potential.
8. Electricity . electric potential ( def. 1 ).
9. Mathematics, Physics . a type of function from which the intensity of a field may be derived, usually by differentiation.
10. someone or something that is considered a worthwhile possibility: 'The list of job applications has been narrowed to half a dozen potentials'.

or, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

1 existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits>
2 expressing possibility; specifically : of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility, liberty, or power by the use of an auxiliary with the infinitive of the verb (as in “it may rain”)

Neither source seems to include the connotation of something likely. Consequently, when we attempt to deny the potential for human-vectored transmission of WNS, we have put ourselves into the position of having to prove a negative - not impossible, but extraordinarily difficult.

I suspect that all discussions of WNS and related cave management issues would benefit significantly it we can avoid making absolute, unprovable statements like 'humans cannot spread WNS', and rather argue that it is statistically improbable that there has been any non-negligible human transmission of WNS, and that management plans which are based on an assumption that human transmission is a predominant vector are likely to be ineffectual or even detrimental.

Regards,
Stuart

I hope this is just semantics!

Here's another definition of "potential" that does not mention anything about "likely" or "expected"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potential

I see that it too uses the word "possible" when defining it.

I see wyandottecaver has made quite a few really good points, one of which leaves the emperor with no clothes.

It is possible that you will wreck your car on the way home from the grotto meeting, so we must take away your keys? Gosh! now I see.

LOL actually thats a very good example of how many agencies are approaching it. Except: you would have to add that no wrecks are known to have ever occured while driving home from a grotto meeting, though members of the grotto do drive cars.

I wasted a deer in my Tahoe last year coming home from a grotto meeting, then 5 days after I got it out of the shop I splattered another on M road east of my house in sinkhole country. It probably landed in one of them..............