Re: Angus Macmillan's stupidity

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:12:16 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <47n442huvnr2uqmoho3tiumf7379a9ream@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:54:17 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <569442973j21nvc2g655mmbiha2j79hhr7@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:49:35 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <47n242dk1j2mp5219o9nvbc4knka2ul701@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 19:35:51 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"pretty obvious" isn't evidence. I could take you to a great many city
and town parks which have a higher concentration of birds than any bird
reserve. And those birds will include a great many migrants. The BBC
have a page showing the ten most likely birds to carry avian flu. They
include Mallard and Tufted Duck which are both plentiful on town park
lakes and which regularly become tame enough to take food from the hand.
They also walk out on the paths and grass where they leave their
droppings. This is completely different from a bird reserve, where birds
and people are kept apart. In addition , birds like Canada Geese, while
resident in this country, make regular flights out of the town or city
park to the surrounding countryside where they can readily come into
contact with poultry.

The "tame" one are used to the surroundings an the people who feed
them and in general "residents".

No, Angus, that is completely wrong. See John Morgan's post about birds
being caught in St James Park, by just picking them up because they were
tame enough to take bread from the hand, and those birds being ringed
and subsequently recovered in northern Europe and Russia. That makes
them *migrants*, Angus. Of course there are resident birds on park
lakes, too, but completely intermingled with the migrants, plus the fact
that many of the residents regularly fly out to the countryside where
they could easily encounter poultry farms.


Where did he say they just picked them up? I don't recall that. Are
you making this up? Seems like another lie.

No, Angus, I leave the lying to you. This is what John wrote:

"For many years, a friend of mine ringed the ducks in St James Pk.
London, catching the birds that came to feed among the feet of
bread-throwing children."

It seems you weren't intelligent enough to realise that that meant just
picking them up. However, that is exactly how it was done. I know
probably the same person as John who used to do just this to ducks and
coots, and I have done it myself very many times catching Mute Swans in
parks in a number of different towns and cities. The birds come right up
to you to take food from your hand and you just grasp them round the
neck. I also know several people that used to catch and ring gulls in
London by grabbing them out of the air as they hovered over their hands
for food.

Do try and approach matters with an open mind, rather than just, as you
so often do, accuse someone of telling lies.


Ah, so you were lying. He didn't say they were "being caught in St
James Park, by just picking them up". I thought so.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge and even the slightest ability to
understand what John said would have realised that the birds were just
picked up. How did you think they were caught?

You've been caught out accusing people of lying when they weren't. But
then that's par for the course for you.


Of course you were lying. He didn't say they were "being caught in
St James Park, by just picking them up".





No, Angus, you're certainly not an expert.


Nor you it would seem.

Well, I am, but unlike you I don't make claims outside my areas of
expertise.


What are you an expert on; unlimited intelligence?

Sufficiently to know that in comparison with you (see above about
catching birds) everyone here is more intelligent than you.


Stop wriggling. Your claim to "unlimited intelligence" wasn't in
comparison to anyone.

It was in direct comparison with you.

No it wasn't. I was in answer to a question.

It still is,and this latest
nonsense claim of yours about the risk of catching avian flu confirms
your lack of intelligence, compared with every single other poster here.


Not at all. You are deliberately ignoring the grave risk of an
individual becoming infected with bird flu by mutation which could
happen anywhere and at any time.


You were claiming that people were at risk of getting avian flu by
visiting bird reserves.

Yes.

Based on nothing more than your silly prejudices, and certainly not on
any facts.


The reserves are on the same coastline and only a few miles from where
the infected bird was found.

It seems that you never studied geography at school and haven't looked
at a map since. Let me enlighten you, from my vastly greater
intelligence than yours, and tell you that Loch Leven isn't on any
coastline. You've even been there. Did you think the Loch was so large
that it must be part of the sea? Duh!


Montrose basin is on the coast and Loch Leven isn't that far from it
either. They're both on the east coast of Scotland.

Oh, wriggle, wriggle. You stated, and it is still there above, that "The
reserves are on the same coastline". Now, you have at last realised
that Loch Leven is not on any "coastline". So what do you do? You try
and shift the goalposts and say that it "isn't that far" from the
coastline.

It's on the east coast of Scotland.

Pathetic, Angus, and yet more evidence that every other
poster here has more intelligence than you.


Ha ha. I see "everyone" has been replaced by every other poster
:-))))




When told that this was extremely unlikely to
the point of being a vanishingly small chance, you moved the goalposts
to include the mutation of the virus to a human type and went on to say
that the mutation to a human form could occur "anywhere".

It's well known that mutation is the danger and it's a fact that it
could happen anywhere.

The first part of your claim is true, the second is not to someone
looking rationally at the likelihood.

Likelihood? As I said elsewhere, I bet everyone in the Twin Towers
thought they'd be home for tea on Sept 11.

Yes, you have, and not for the first time, introduced a complete
non-sequitur, a sure sign that you are struggling to keep up with the
arguments against you. Believe it or not, Angus, your comparison is
totally meaningless.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that the unexpected can happen
against all odds.

No, you aren't. You're trying to divert attention from your gross
ignorance and it hasn't worked.


It works very well. The unexpected can happen at any time. Staying
away from birds reserves in an area where the infection has been
identified is a prudent suggestion.




And,
unsurprisingly, when challenged, you back off and claim you didn't
actually say what you did.


Rubbish. As I pointed out I can't claim what you pose as a question
followed by your own answer. I also can't help your lack of
comprehension.

All you do is back away when asked for evidence for your claims, not
surprising really as you never have any.

I'm nto backing away. Read what I wrote.

A load of nonsense.


No. As I pointed out I can't claim what you pose as a question
followed by your own answer. I also can't help your lack of
comprehension.

Another load of nonsense.

Not at all. Your saying its nonsense doesn't make it so - quite the
reverse.

But only to be expected as you try, with
increasing desperation, to recover from your unsupportable claim that
people are at risk from catching avian flu by visiting bird reserves.
That has been exposed as no more than your anti-conservation
organisation prejudice, without a scrap of evidence to back it up.


The unexpected can happen at any time. Staying away from birds
reserves in an area where the infection has been identified is a
prudent suggestion.




Still, if the virus does mutate, I suspect that a lot of places will
close, not just bird reserves, but schools, offices, public transport,
building sites, and so on. All of which makes your prejudiced
determination to involve bird reserves increasingly silly.


Keeping people away from possible sources of infection like bird
reserves is a wise precaution.

No, it isn't.

Of course it is.

Only in your prejudiced mind. When the dead swan was found in Fife,
restrictions were placed on movements of poultry, but none on movements
of people, including none on people going to Cellardykes where the bird
was found. So, Angus, there was no risk to people anywhere.

If there's NO risk to people ANYWHERE, what's all the fuss about?

That's not what I said, Angus. You're twisting and distorting again,
which is just part of your typical dishonesty.


What you said was "there was no risk to people anywhere".

Yes, Angus, well done. I said "there was", not "there's". Thank you for
acknowledging your attempt to twist and distort my words.


There is or there was is immaterial. There was a distinct risk to
people from the infected bird and for you to say there was none is
absurd. The bird had a virus infection that if it had come into
contact with some suffering from mild flu there could have been a
mutation followed by a pandemic. And the bird was found not far from
bird reserves that have large numbers of migratory birds. Are you
saying that none of the others could be infected?



Can I quote you on this?

You can quote my statement that the risk of anyone in Britain catching
avian flu from the Cellardykes swan was nil. And try doing it accurately
instead of your deliberate distortion above.


If that's the case, what's all the fuss about?

There is no fuss.

Of course there's a fuss. Haven't you noticed the papers and TV?

There is your pathetic attempt to say that there is a
risk of catching avian flu by visiting bird reserves. I have seen no
other statement, comment or claim that says that there is any risk to
the public of catching avian flu in Scotland. Have you?

Yes! It is acknowledged that if the virus mutates then it could kill
10,000 school children. That was announced last week. If that's not
a risk I don't know what is.




The risk of a human catching bird flu even when living in
the same building as lots of poultry is tiny, less than 200 cases even
though the virus has been present in China for about 9 years and has
occurred in densely populated areas of south-east Asia where lots of
people share buildings with their hens. To suggest that there is any
kind of risk requiring a "precaution" of keeping away from bird reserves
is complete and utter nonsense and you have only raised the subject
because of your ridiculous vendetta against conservation organisations.


This is not a statistics game. The virus could mutate to become a
human to human infection anywhere in the world and for you to say
otherwise is quite wrong - but we're quite used to you being wrong on
this ng.

The virus could mutate, but it hasn't. Whether or not it does, and where
it does it, has no bearing at all on your silly vendetta against
conservation organisations which is the *sole* reason you are suggesting
that people should stay away from bird reserves. You have no other
reason, because there is no other reason. If you were genuine in your
concern, you would be clamouring for people to stay away from *all*
birds, including in public parks, not to mention private gardens where
poultry and ducks and geese are kept. But, no, when this was suggested
to you, you immediately started to wriggle and to claim that there were
no migrants in public parks, but, as usual, you were completely wrong.


You're lying again.

Please don't judge other people by your own standards of mendacity. The
above is not a lie, and you have clearly not been able to find any
arguments against it.


Nonsense. What I have said is that there is a risk in visiting
reserves where there is a large congregation of migratory birds and
that should include Montrose Basin and Loch Leven which is near to
where the infected bird was found. For you to try to compare other
areas where no infection has been found is dishonest and cavallier.

I know what you have said. But there is no risk at either Montrose Basin
or Loch Leven.

Of course there's a risk. Are you saying there's no other infected
birds?


And you can't claim there is without adding to the many
lies that you have told on this newsgroup, not to mention on your
websites.


Not at all.



Face up to it, Angus. Your suggestion about bird reserves is blatantly
about your vendetta against conservation organisations and nothing
whatsoever to do with bird flu.

And you have stated publically that "there's no risk to people
anywhere" from bird flu.

No, Angus, I haven't.

Of course you did! What you said was "there was no risk to people
anywhere".

Yes, Angus. I was commenting on the people who were being allowed to
visit Cellardykes and on the fact that there were no restrictions on
people moving around Fife. Clearly, in the minds of the Scottish
Executive and their expert advisors, which don't include you, there was
no risk.


No restriction doesn't mean no risk.



Read what I wrote and get it right, for a change.

I have and I did.

No, you may have done but you didn't. And you didn't, because it didn't
agree with your warped and lying agenda.


It is acknowledged that if the virus mutates then it could kill 10,000
school children. That was announced last week. If that's not a risk
I don't know what is.


Your deliberate distortion is as blatant as your insistence that there
is more risk to people at bird reserves than in town parks and gardens.


See above.

See above.


You're a head case, Malcolm and your support for fake conservationists
shows you up to be a fake yourself.

Thank you for your surrender, Angus, announced by your descent into
childish abuse and silly name-calling.


I'm merely making an observation.

No, you're not. You are indulging in childish abuse and name-calling, a
certain sign that you have lost the argument and the plot and have
therefore surrendered. Thank you very much.

I'm merely making an observation which is obviously not to your
liking.

You're out of date. Local tourist boards have been abolished.


Well, whoever deals with it now.

There is obviously a greater risk in places where a large number of
migrant birds congregate and if I was the parent of a small child I
would err on the side of caution and keep well away from bird
reserves.

There is no measurable risk of humans catching avian flu by visiting
bird reserves

Exactly, that is the problem. They are the spearhead of birds likely
to have the infection and in this regard should be avoided.

More complete and utter nonsense. There is no contact between birds on
bird reserves and people. But then you've never visited one, have you?
There is, however, close contact between birds in town parks and people
and, even though you have tried to claim otherwise, there are wild
migrant wildfowl on town park lakes.


I have already addressed this issue and you're repeating yourself like
a parrot.

The fact remains there is a risk but you are unwilling to accept it
because it would cost your fake friends money.

The fact remains that the risk is not measurable.

There are many risks that are not measurable. But they are risks
nevertheless.

So when are you going to provide the risk assessment that Malcolm Kane
has asked for?


No one can assess the risk. It's not measurable. But it's there.



Under 200 people in
the whole world have caught avian flu from birds, and those were people
living in close proximity to poultry, not viewing wild birds from a
distance when in a bird reserve hide. Your insistence otherwise just
confirms that you are not interested in the risk of people catching
avian flu, only in your silly vendetta against conservation
organisations.


The two reserves I have mentioned are in an area of known infection
and almost certainly from migrant birds.

But the two reserves you have mentioned do not allow birds and people to
get into close proximity with each other, unlike town parks where people
feed the birds by hand, including in Dundee which is a lot closer to
Cellardykes than either Loch Leven or Montrose Basin. Why aren't you
calling for people not to visit those parks?

You're repeating yourself and I've already answered that question. I
asked you for evidence that incoming birds were of the same
concentration but you have failed to provide it.




Angus, and for you to continue to plug this ridiculous
notion, based on nothing more than your silly vendetta against
conservation organisations, is making you look ever more foolish.

Don't worry about me. Nothing is more foolish than your claim to
unlimited intelligence and your native moon men :-))

Compared with you, everyone has unlimited intelligence and certainly
enough to know when your suggestion to stop visiting bird reserves is
based on prejudice and not on any facts, so a typical Angus suggestion,
really.

You're wriggling again, Malcolm. You claimed to have "unlimited
intelligence". It's all documented.

What a fool!

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. Everyone will note that
when you have clearly lost the argument, not to mention the plot, you
simply resort to childish abuse and silly name-calling.

Not at all. I notice you don't deny it :-))

There is nothing to deny. In comparison with you, everyone on this
newsgroup has greater intelligence that you, as evidenced by this
thread.

Your comparison wasn't made to anyone. You claimed "unlimited
intelligence" and only a nut case would do that :-))


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NO NEED TO FEAR BIRD FLU
    ... but wild birds carry the infection and it's entirely possible ... It is a random risk and they know it. ... prudent to avoid bird reserves until the risk recedes. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: NO NEED TO FEAR BIRD FLU
    ... but wild birds carry the infection and it's entirely possible ... It is a random risk and they know it. ... prudent to avoid bird reserves until the risk recedes. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: How is the bird flu effecting the small chicken producer
    ... but there is no risk until then and then the risk is human to human not ... > reportage. ... Most of the cases are handling birds or handling patients who have got it ... The Asian strain is a different beast altogether. ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)
  • Re: How is the bird flu effecting the small chicken producer
    ... >but there is no risk until then and then the risk is human to human not ... there were going to be restrictions on shipping birds. ... >> reportage. ... >countries as prepacked meals, or portions, so they say there is no risk. ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)
  • Re: Would you risk your childs life?
    ... Some recoveries of these birds came from N.Europe and Russia. ... in parks, where duck faeces get liberally spread around childrens' feet. ... It's on the east coast of Scotland. ... The comparison is between bird reserves, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)