Re: Woodlands improve health

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:42:44 +0100, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <0n81f2lldurj5dibqrul84jhklqsn5fui0@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

You really have a problem with this because you don't have an argument
against it.

The argument against it is so blindingly obvious that you don't seem to
be able to grasp it.

If they conserve ANYTHING (at all) they can justifiably be described as
conservationists.

For them to be fakes you need to prove that they do not conserve
anything.


Garbage. Not when they are contributing to what is "cooking our
planet will disrupt and devastate all life..." Their words - not
mine.

See my responses to Dr Thick.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Superb example of conservation in action
    ... Are you suggesting that it won't conserve Ospreys? ... See my responses to Dr Thick ... Why is Dr Malcolm Ogilvie known as Dr Thick? ... "All messages which Angus posts and claims are by me have to ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Superb example of conservation in action
    ... Are you suggesting that it won't conserve Ospreys? ... See my responses to Dr Thick ... Why is Dr Malcolm Ogilvie known as Dr Thick? ... "All messages which Angus posts and claims are by me have to ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)