>>In the end we all depend on mutual co-operation, so please stop
>>dividing mankind by these artificial criteria.
>
>I agree with this. It seems to me the relevant distinction is between
>people concerned with preserving plants, animals, etc., and unscrupulous
>persons interested in making money.
Am I the only one that sees this as amusing??? The first thought is agreed
upon concerning the stoping of classification by artificial criteria, and
then it is immediately followed by a division of mankind by artificial
criteria......
Ponder that for a few.
And as I said a few minutes ago, there are exceptions to every rule. I am
interested in "preserving plants" and I grow them for reintroduction into
the wild. So I am a conservationist. However, I also grow CP for fun, and
I have never had any advanced training. I guess this makes me an amature
hobyist. Ok, BUT Iam also interested in paying my electric bill, so I sell
a few plants. Does this make me an unscrupulous person only interested in
making money?
>Scientists, like any other group, fall into both chategories. I think,
however, that >the distinction between scientists and non-scientists
orginally came up in the >context of access to precise locality information.
Ok, so I know where a lot of plant locations are, so does this make me an
amature scientist now, instead of just unscrupulous? I guess scientists
are allowed, by the above definition, to do it all, so I now declare myself
a scientist!
See how simple it is to classify people?
I guess I will step down for now......
Scientifically yours,
Thomas K. Hayes