Re: Fake conservationists' killing again.

In message <10ta02hgmvfflbebd3unl8tcv52mv9q0d7@xxxxxxx>, amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:29:16 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <8qc90210j0tesdda1dptsi8cj9icljf1bs@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

The BBC report was reported by many others,who wouldn't have done so
if they shared your opinion.

Angus you said reports the mention and quotes of the BBC are merely one
report.

So what you are really saying is your sttatement6 of massive is based on
a single report and only the headline at that.

I wasn't quite aware up to now just how little you used when making your
wild statements. This has been very interesting to show the firm
foundation in depth of your statements. (In case you can't guess firm
foundation in depth is said tongue in cheek )

I think the BBC is a credible organisation. Are you saying they were
misrepresenting the truth?

NO Angus I am saying that you are so desperate over having made
statements that you can't back up that you are now either wilfully
ignoring journalistic practice or are genuinely so intellectually
challenged that you can't understand journalistic practice.

By the way in spite of your protests your desperation shows very
clearly.


I see, so you don't htink the BBC misrepresented the story.

Angus you poor confused soul I have neither said the BBC has represented well or misrepresented the story. ( I know you have difficulty with comprehension at times but if you can't cope get help).


What's the fuss about? You're agreeing with me.

Never in a million years.




Reds are still nation wide admittedly with rather large gaps between
remnant populations so a cull in "exclusion zones" would be nation wide
wouldn't it.

What is your reference for the numerous organisation?

Those involved in so-called forestry conservation for a start.


Which organisations? Also how many do you count as numerous going on
your present idea that will probably be ONE.

Which one are you suggesting?


I am not suggesting any Angus you made the statements.


You suggested it was one. Which one?

Now snipped from this thread by someone you said numerous organisations. You responded when questioned with the line above about those involved in forestry conservation. I followed up by requiring the organisations and suddenly you start pretending you meant one. OK so name that one or admit it is merely more twisting and turning because you can't backup what you say.


I see this will be another statement you can't support.

Go on supply me with the search keywords and I will do the searches
again.

However if you had a shred of evidence you would post it before you are
proved wrong yet again.

Not at all. Greys are being demonised and slaughtered all over the
country for a variety of forestry and so-called conservation reasons.
That's common knowledge. And for you to try to argue otherwise is
just plain daft.

If it is common knowledge you will have no problem or reason for not mentioning the organisations and/or giving me some reference which shows this to be fact. I will even do a search if you give me the keywords but on your past showing that will not prove what you say.
--
Malcolm Kane
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Gates Jr.
    ... Dano, I thought we were having a reasonable, if not spirited debate ... basis of your contention that it is I who has not read the report as ... though I am the one who is misrepresenting it. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: Open with . . . in SL Finder
    ... codes, that doesn't mean they're no longer supported in general. ... after I called in to report that my files no longer opened in the apps I ... I think whoever you talked to at Apple Support is misrepresenting things in that case! ... Over-simplifying, anyway. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)