SciBlogs

Archive 2011

“Trade fuels demand”: Phrases that should be banned Brendan Moyle Nov 28

4 Comments

There are many phrases that cause me to wince. The oft-used ‘missing-link‘, beloved by newspaper headline writers, creationists and 1950s B-movie writers is one.  Another that is stubbornly popular in conservation literature is the oft-repeated claim that trade will fuel demand for wildlife parts.  This is typically used as a reason why trade in wildlife (or their parts) should not be allowed.

There are of course, legitimate reasons why trade could lead to increases in sales of wildlife parts (both legal and illegal). These are issues like laundering, a conspicuous problem during the 1980s with elephants.  Now, I would really prefer to debate these sorts of real reasons trade generates risks.

Instead we end up going over the same old ground, time after time.  Wildlife apparently is different to other economic products.  The act of making these goods available is sufficient to cause people to want them. Poor McDonalds or the like, have to spend advertising dollars in an effort to get customers into their stores. All wildlife producers have to apparently, is make their stuff available. It practically sells itself.

This is rather counter to our evidence. The trade in rhino horn has been banned since the 1970s, and despite proposals from time-to-time to have a legal trade (a legal harvest could simply remove horn from time-to-time on living animals), we’ve not seen that this has curbed demand. Poaching levels have remained unsustainable, populations of rhinos have been wiped out, and the price has soared from $US500 per kg in the 1980s to $50,000 per kg now.

Now, we don’t really have the counter-factual available here (would rhinos do better with some system of trade?), and the increase in price could also be sustained by the decline in supply.  So let’s have a bit more of a formal look at another example.

The idea behind trade fueling demand could be manifested in a couple of ways.  First, if I increase the supply of wildlife products in one year, this should increase demand (and sales) in the following year.  More people will want these products as their demand has been piqued. So increases in supply should lead to further increases in sales, decreases likewise.

The second way is via prices. If we’re increasing sales, is that because we’ve increased production and the market has cleared at this higher output? Or is it because demand has increased.  Well, a key variable there would be prices.  If prices go up- even as we’re increasing production- this would also imply supply is fueling demand.

So lets have a look at the Louisiana alligator production.  It’s a classic wildlife product, and at one stage subject to unsustainable harvests. It’s also a long data set, as the production and harvest level go back to the early 1970s.  This should be long enough to pick up any trends.

So, first question- does an increase in production in say one year, lead to an increase in production in the following:

Red line- the actual data from the Louisiana alligator market
Green line- the estimated data based using the previous year’s production as the predictor
Blue line- the residuals, the graph of the difference between the actual and estimated values.  The tighter and closer this graph is to the 0-line, the better the fit.

Regression: Farmed Skin Supply

Regression: Farmed Skin Supply

The regression had no significant fit here whatsoever, neither does the previous years supply have any effect on this years.  So this quick and simple test doesn’t support trade fueling demand. The blue-residual line is extremely volatile, reflecting the insignificant fit.

Let’s then consider whether there might be a price effect from this supply.  Again, I want to know if an increase (or decrease) in supply in a previous year will fuel (or correspondingly, reduce) demand in the current year.

Regression: Production and Prices

Regression: Production and Prices

And once again, there’s absolutely no relationship. The quantity supplied in the previous year has no detectable influence on prices. We’re not able to fuel demand here by our supply-decisions.

The third point is that maybe, it’s not that legal trade fuels demand for the farmed (or ranched products), but that it fuels the demand for the wild product. This may better reflect the concern conservationists have.  It is also something we can again test.  Louisiana has wild harvests operating alongside their farmed output. So lets see if our farmed output is affecting our wild harvest levels.

alligator-wild

Again, there’s no relationship. Supply decisions in the farmed industry in a previous year, have no effect on either the price or the output of the wild skins in the current year.

In summary, there’s no good reason to give wildlife a special status.  There are certainly good reasons why a legal trade could increase conservation risks.  But the supposition that it will fuel demand is not one of them. The evidence we have from trade in wildlife products is that the usual market parameters drive demand. There’s nothing unique about wildlife that would cause a departure from this.

One also suspects that the opposition to trade in many cases is based on the charisma of the wildlife involved, rather than inherent conservation reasons.  It’s clear that there’s more opposition to say, trade in rhino parts than there is in alligator or crocodile.

How to be a successful stalker Brendan Moyle Oct 28

1 Comment

Disclaimer: the following is intended as black humour, not encouragement to be a stalker. If you have stalker tendencies you need help. Seriously. The voices aren’t your friend.

When we look at the careers of two recent prolific cyberstalkers (David Mabus and Dawn Gordon), we can see that they have managed to convert this skill into an occupation that goes on for years.  You may think being a cyberstalker is risky, but in actual fact it can be done with near impunity.

So, what exactly sort of qualifications do you need?

The traditional standby of having a mental illness still applies. If you’re going to spend hours per day on the internet, tracking and following your victims, then clearly, an attachment to the real world will be a hindrance.

The neat thing now, is that getting on the web is so much easier. In the early 1990s, the internet was the preserve of people who worked in academic and research institutions, supplemented by some relatively wealthy technology-enamored individuals. Now you can stroll into libraries or cafes or even use a cellphone.  You can be poor and crazy and cyberstalk. In fact, being poor is probably a consequence of being a mentally-ill cyberstalker in the first instance.

Now people might think that being a stalker is wrong, and that your victims have rights. You will be stopped. This is of course just a myth. Of course your victims don’t have rights. There are all kinds of institutions that will enable and support you in your stalking behaviour.  You have the right to make other people’s lives hell. Don’t worry, nobody is going to try to stop you. They’ll just make the issue the victim’s problem.

So for example, you can send hundreds of pages of emails a day to a victim. If your victim tries to complain, they’ll be told to block your email. Because as far everyone knows, people are only allowed one email account on the internet- ever- in their entire lives. IT security is based on the premise you can’t set up a new email account. Brilliant stuff huh? And you’re not at fault for sending the emails. It’s really your victims fault. If they didn’t want to be stalked, they should have blocked all your email accounts. Especially all the ones from the accounts they don’t know about.

If you don’t want to use email, there are other ways to get to your victims. You can use social media- facebook, twitter,  or the like. You can set up dedicated blogs with the sole purpose of harassing people. People will let you do this. So it must be all right.

If your victim complains, then hey, the service you’re using will probably back you. The victim will be given advice on how to block the blog. Of course, that doesn’t stop anyone else from reading your toxic diatribes.  See, a lot of people who monitor abuse think that stalking is done by sane people. People who have a mild infatuation. Something that will ebb after a month or two. So the victim has next to no chance to be taken seriously. You can keep doing this for years. The victim will just keep getting the same spiel- block-and-ignore, she’ll go away eventually. The fact that various institutions won’t ban you for stalking (even with anti-stalking policies), proves you’re not doing anything wrong.  This is what makes being a successful stalker so easy. Nobody believes the victim that you’re bat-shit-crazy. Do whatever the voices tell you to, it’s all fine. Nobody is going to stop you.

Or will they? David Mabus was eventually caught because he threatened a member of the Canadian law enforcement system.  So the trick here is not to threaten your victim. Let’s look at a sample of posts made to me:

’…get ready to have your life destroyed’

’…I am going to ruin your life.’

’…I am going to make your life hell

I will make sure you regret it to your living breathing days…You watch. You are going to be suffering by the end of this. Screaming to yourself

’by the time I am done with you..you will be a crying suffering fool

’I will fuck you like you have never been fucked in your life’

Can you tell, which of these are not threats?

The answer is of course, all of them are not threats. These are all acceptable ways to communicate with your victim. They’re absolutely fine, they’re all up there with ‘come around for tea and crumpets‘. It’s an easy mistake to make if you’re not reading the remarks in the proper way.

The neat thing too about your victim being told to ignore and block you as much as possible, means they won’t be collating incriminating evidence against you. This is just one more service offered by IT security on your behalf. Complaints against you will be hindered by this advice given to the victim.

And the neat thing too, is one of reasons no-one will stop you is because nobody takes your threats seriously. After-all, people who hear voices telling them to do things, are such model citizens. And crazy-people, it’s a well-known fact that unlike the rest of the world, crazy people aren’t aware of things like air-travel. So the victim has nothing to worry about. Whoever heard of a stalker traveling to meet a victim and killing them?*

-
* Sarcasm alert if you didn’t pick it up the first time

Then there’s the email Brendan Moyle Sep 28

2 Comments

This is what 48 hours of emails looks like.

Click for larger versionClick for larger version

This is not an exchange. This is not me responding. This is one way-traffic. You don’t read this crap. You weigh it, or measure its height against a ruler.

Some of these emails were also sent by Dawn to the Australia & NZ Mental Health Association, the NZ National Centre of Mental Health and the Mental Health Foundation (but I’m not going to disclose the nature & content of her complaints).

And from overnight, more stuff from the pretend lawyer.

It never stops Brendan Moyle Sep 26

15 Comments

Here’s a snapshot into a fairly typical 24 hours of blogging by Dawn. Just remember people, this woman is also responsible for the care of a pre-school child.

She starts by listing a set of traits she attributes to me. Most are patent fictions.

Dawn-26-9-p1

I think she’s discovered a childrens’ book (or set thereof) that she’s convinced I’m partly responsible for. It’s a sign from GOD after all.

Dawn 26-9 p2

Now it’s on to her pretend-campaign as a lawyer.  She decided long ago that Greg Moyle (local Auckland politician) is related to me.  This has led to emails also directed at the NZ Financial Planners.

Dawn 26-9 p3

Susanne is one of her original stalking targets. Gosh, it has been about 14 months since Dawn began harassing me.

Dawn 26-9 p4

The threats never stop

Dawn 26-9 p5

Another invention is that I have been married to a Michelle (since divorced).  This led to a Michelle in NZ being deluged with a stream of emails advising her. These emails were forwarded to me.

It is a matter of public record in NZ that I haven’t been married to either a Susanne or a Michelle, and that I’m not divorced.

Dawn 26-9 p6

Lucidity is diminishing…

Dawn 26-9 p7

More odious fiction

Dawn 26-9 p8

Sigh. Reality has been left a long way in the distance.

Dawn 26-9 p9

Sigh…

Dawn 26-9 p10

Dawn 26-9 p11

Dawn 26-9 p12

Dawn 26-9 p13

Dawn 26-9 p14

Dawn 26-9 p15

Tonight’s sallies from cuckoo-land Brendan Moyle Sep 22

No Comments

Some more missives from Dawn’s tumblr blog.  Many of the key-phrases she uses are commonly applied to me. It’s  likely she’s found some other poor sod on tumblr she thinks is a front of mine. Some attempts at suasion going on to abandon my “covert, cryptic life” sic.  Which is that I’m not really a married, very busy conservationist and academic (& atheist). That I’m really a divorced, unemployed Christian who pretends to be an atheist.

dawn-22-sep-3dawn-22-sep-1

This shows up more of the odious elements of her fantasy. My marriage, my fidelity; it’s all asserted to be a fiction. That I’m really beset by various vices. And it concludes with another common ploy. That others find her attractive. This comes up regularly, nearly always aimed at me.

Plus here’s a different take on tonight’s posts from Renee Hendricks blog at some of the hypocrisy.

Another 24 hours, and more threats Brendan Moyle Sep 22

No Comments

This time (from her tumblr blog), God has told her to inform on me to Massey and the “Education Department of New Zealand”

In this version of events, she got God to fire me from Massey but I’ve been allowed to use my email account even so. Which by circulating her emails to me, to others caught in her fantasy, is something that God doesn’t approve of.

By mixing me up with several other people on the internet, well, that’s why my current photos can’t be of me.  But it’s getting hard keeping track of all the inventions and explanations she uses to escape reality though.

Got to say though, I find the hate- and revenge- part of the attention cycle less creepy than the love- part of the cycle.

You can’t keep the crazy down Brendan Moyle Sep 19

2 Comments

Readers with long attention-spans will know that I acquired a female stalker (Dawn Gordon) last year. The depth and strength of her attachment has been sustained. Unlike the notorious David Mabus (who demonstrated that in Canada, you apparently have a license to threaten scientists and skeptics with death for years; but not if you issue that same threat against a member of Canada’s fine law enforcement agencies) who had a scatter-approach to stalking, Dawn is very focused on a very small group of people on the net.

Dawn is also from Canada by the way.

The overall problem is that she thinks these other people are either me, or someone close to me. For months, a 30 yr old woman in Indonesia (who has a penchant for love poetry) has been bombarded with messages on her blog. All of these are under the delusion that Dawn is talking to me, and the poems had secret messages to her.

She churns through Tumblr blogs, where at one stage I think she believed that 60 different bloggers on Tumblr were me.  The abuse she rains down on such people tend to have her accounts terminated. She was for almost a year, banned from Twitter.

A couple of weeks ago, she was bombarding NZ mental-health websites with messages about the problems I was supposed to be having.  I’m guessing they deduced the ‘crazy’ fairly quickly, because well, her complaints weren’t actioned.

Click for larger version

Click for larger version

The cycle of contact seems to have two basic phases. The hate-cycle where she promises she’ll destroy my life, and threatens me with punishment from God. She already believes this has worked, as I’m alleged to have lost my employment many months ago at Massey.  My status as a member of staff on the Massey website is wished away as a fabrication.

The other phase is all about desire.  She messaged the Indonesian blogger that she was still in love, thinking of leaving her husband, and still masturbating about me.

Illustrative of this is this blog-post she made in November last year.

It would seem that one of the problems with the just block-and-ignore approach, is that in the internet-era, is it’s more difficult to break contact. Dawn’s stalking has been sustained by the belief that lots of people are in fact me. Or someone very close to me. This is symptomatic of her deteriorating mental health.

Her delusions have led her to target many other people on the web, and there’s now a very good webpage cataloguing her posts: followingfawnhordon

A petition has also been started to get her  assistance from health-authorities in Canada.