Re: How about it, Malcolm?

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:01:26 +0000, malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

In message <1Drry6YMJOvFFwRW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

In article <m2lpr2tefjd04uu3rhpbpkh2qno1c0er8s@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:08:43 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <d6gpr2hh74pg38o25hut1vfj348ljoqo10@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:41:27 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <e79pr2lgr466dn4b2i13ofdqiil22i0805@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:57:59 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <5l2pr2lk71n8l42n2to175qusl5v6pt6l7@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <s4ror2d02jtk2a0lp181o2elnabhercbt6@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
You have deliberately been avoiding answering the following question
for days on end.

Yet, in a letter to the press, you stated that I "couldn't" answer it.
I'm pleased to see that you have acknowledged that that was a lie.


Of course you couldn't for fear of contradicting your contemporaries.

I've already told you that if I told you, you would refuse to accept it,
so there's no point in telling you.

That's your excuse, Malcolm.

If it was irrefutable I would have to accept it.

How could you possibly tell is it was irrefutable?

Very easily. All I'm asking for is the criterion.

No you couldn't. You don't have the expertise required. After all, you
refused to accept the irrefutable evidence that the red squirrel is a
native species. Instead, you disappeared up your arse in search of
*fossil* evidence. LOL!!!

Not at all. It seems you don't know what the fossil record is :-)

Don't be sillier than you have to be, Angus. Unlike you, who only
discovered the phrase a few weeks ago, I have done work on fossils in
the past.





So, how about answering it now?

Why should I?

Presumably for the same reason you couldn't before :-))

You're such a transparent fake .

More obsessive nonsense. You really are in thrall to your obsession,
aren't you?


No Malcolm, you are a transparent fake or you could answer the
question.

Oh dear, your obsession is getting worse :-((


When you get backed into a corner and can't answer a question all you
do is prattle on about obsession :-))

I think it only right to point out to the afflicted one, i.e. you, that
it is dominating your posts.


I think it is only right to point out to the afflicted one, i.e. you,
that avoiding questions is dominating your posts.

I'm not avoiding answering any questions. I am answering those I chose
to and not answering those I chose to.

Your own record of answering questions is one of continual avoidance.






Here it is:

What is the criterion for determining "native" birds in Scotland?


When I asked you before you referred to my question to SNH and the
Forestry Commission which referred specifically to the capercaillie
and wouldn't answer the question until I told you what they had said.

Which you have refused to do, which suggests that you don't like their
answer.


But why should that impact on you no matter what they say?

Because, silly man, if you don't like what they say, you're not going to
like what I say, either, are you? So there's no point in telling you,
is there?

Every point if you can justify what you say.

Seems you're not that confident :-)

I haven't seen a single reason why I should tell you.


You must be the only one :-))

Another wild assumption of yours.


No Malcolm. You're a transparent fake.

No such thing, Angus, no such thing, that's just your obsession talking.







So either you don't know or you can't bring yourself to answer it in
case it doesn't fit with the answers of your contemporaries.

Which is not the same as your lie that I "couldn't" answer, is it? Nice
to see you've changed your tune, even if too late for you to withdraw
your lying letters. Of course I know.

So if you still can't cope with answering the question, let's take it
one step at a time.

Is the capercaillie a native species of Scotland?

That would do for starters.

A simple yes or no would do.

I believe you've asked SNH and FC this question. What did they say?

That's not an answer. I'm asking you the question here.

Yes, Angus, I had noticed.


Good. So how about you answering it?

See above.



So you still can't answer the question.

You have been given every opportunity.

So what? I can''t answer the question

You can give me lots more opportunities if you wish, but what can
I do if I can't answer the question





You're a so-called "bird expert". Why won't you answer a simple
question?

See above.

I've seen above and all that's there is the avoidance tactics of a
fake :-(

More obsessive nonsense :-((


Just fact, Malcolm.

So it is.


Glad you agree.

The "so it is" is a forgery. Where did it come from? I didn't write
that. I have the entire thread here including my last message which you
have copied correctly until we get to here.


Pity you can't say whether the capercaillie is a native species or not
without knowing what your contemporaries say :--))

I can say, but I choose not to.

Says it all, Malcolm.

What says more is your reluctance to tell us what SNH and FC told you.
Can it be that you don't agree with it?

Everything will be in Professor Acorn's website in due course - after
he's checked it over, naturally.

I hope you are going to include all the details of the fossil record of
the red squirrel in Britain. I'm looking forward to reading everything
about it. Is Professor Acorn a fossil or a fake?

Is that what you're afraid of :-))

I'm afraid of conflicting with my comtempories

And I didn't write that, as the spelling error makes obvious.

Quite right too Malcolm. You're all fake together.

I hope you enjoyed the changes here.

So you are admitting to forging my posts, are you, Angus?

That's a very serious thing to do and it is not something that I will
tolerate, as you will find out.

I suggest you apologise, and quickly. I hadn't realised that you had
got so desperate in your attempts to combat my arguments that you had
sunk to forging my replies :-(((

I haven't been keeping records but there have been times recently when I
have felt that what has been in the post hasn't been exactly what was
there before. This appears to confirm it.

You're not worth forging. It would make you seem intelligent.


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)
.