Re: Angus is ignored

On May 26, 9:42 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 26 May 2007 11:27:42 -0700, "John M."



<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 25, 8:24 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 25 May 2007 02:06:27 -0700, "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 24, 5:18 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 24 May 2007 06:43:22 -0700, "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 22, 5:00 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 22 May 2007 02:22:43 -0700, "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 21, 10:47 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 21 May 2007 05:17:42 -0700, "John M."

<john_howard_mor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 12, 11:14 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 12 May 2007 13:24:33 -0700, "John M."

<snip>

If you were honest you'd be obliged to end your life immediately, but
you're a fake so you'll go on living and try to assuage your guilt by
pointing the finger at others. What an excellent strawman for you is
the RSPB, for sure. They do all the things that you perceive as the
antithesis of conservation, so your daily dose of conscience salving
is to post the same message several times daily on Usenet.

Well you don't get much bigger fakes than them. Telling us to stop
"cooking the planet" and at the same time accepting money for adverts
to do just that.

Like you buying milk when the supply depends on farmers fattening
calves for veal, perhaps the most obscene of all forms of animal
husbandry apart from 'foie gras'. You do use milk don't you? Yet I bet
you are appalled by the treatment of a by-product that makes its price
affordable. You are no better than the people you constantly berate on
this newsgroup, you fake.

You're confused - again.

Aha. Gotcha. The standard Angus white flag gets trotted out once more.
Stained red with the blood of the slaughtered calves so that you may
have cheap milk.

Quite the other way round. Milk production does not "depend" on
calves being slaughtered for veal and animal rights people oppose this
unnecessary trade. It is not and never has been conventional farming
and neither has the factory farms and the production of foie gras. But
you're such a sloppy "scientist" you put everything in the same bowl
and the result is the usual garbage.

Everybody can see that my argument is generically identical to the one
you constantly carp about, when conservationists use cars and planes
to get around.

So you're saying conservationists are fakes :-))

Can't you see it too.

I can see very well that you're arguing against yourself.

Yes, of course you can ,but it's
not something you dare own up to because it destroys your standard
rants.

As I said, you're confused.

I have never condemned farming.

I condemn the killing of wildlife for fake conservation agendas and
for so-called sport.

Well, I'm with you on the sport, but there is a fine line between
"chinless wonders" from the City slaughtering pheasants and a Solway
wildfowler nobbling a few ducks and geese for the pot.

I'd say there's no line at all. Especially on RSPB owned property.

I am not an animal rightist, but I believe those who are should be
honest about it. You are not, so your concern for animals is fake.
Isn't that how your argument goes when you rant about conservation?

See above and try learning something.

<snip>

Good. You've finally got it.

I had it all along but as a scientist I have to keep re-examining the
basic premisses and returning to fundamentals.

You haven't had anything all along except the need to keep saying
you're a scientist. I bet you're not a real one. Probably just a
teacher with a ordinary science degree :-))

No answer :-))

Was there a question? I only see another childish ad hominem.

So what are you? A real scientist or a fake? And if you're a real
scientist tell us what you've done for science. You only make a fool
of yourself by telling your intelligent French neighbours something
that everybody has heard about for years - that if you cut weeds for
seven years they're supposed to stop growing. I can tell you it
seldom works and I'm no "scientist" - fake or otherwise.

Not only "no scientist". It appears you are not a literate person
either - just a fake animal activist. Do try to improve in reading
comprehension. At least up to 'O' grade English standard. With two
under your belt you might feel less like the proverbial dullard with
just one.

Another faux pas by one who claims to be able to comprehend.



I think I've hit the nail on the head.

I think you need to acquire a fresh arsenal of metaphors.

Not to deal with you :-))

But you wouldn't know
about any of that now, would you. Ignorance may be bliss, but in your
case it's a henious crime. As it is in anyone who refuses to examine
their raison d'etre as a matter of daily routine.

I think your heinous crime is pretending you're a real scientist.

Looks like it is.

Oh, really. And why is that pray? You have admitted you know nothing
about the scientific fields discussed on this newsgroup, yet you
pontificate ad lib about them.

Where did I "admit" that?

Do your own research.

Thought you couldn't prove it :-))

The only person who doesn't see that
you are a complete fake is Pete, and that's only because he's head-
over-heels in love with you and love is blind.

From one who's in love with himself like you, that's a bit much :-))

Careful. Pete is very sensitive about his not-so-secret passion for
you.

See above.

What have you ever done for science?

Considerably more than you have ever done for animals, you fake.
I'm not an animal rightist but I believe those who are should be
honest about it.

Seems you're pretty small time with a big ego :-))

James Clark Maxwell was pretty small time too. Just the two equations
to his credit. The local dullards where he lived called him 'Dafty'.

So are you in the same league as JCM?

There aren't any dullards living hereabouts.

There's one I know of.

If there were, I expect
they'd call me "Le Fou".

They probably do but not to your face.

Regarding my scientific contributions, time
and peer review alone can decide.

I don't know if they'd bother.

But I also know a big timer who has hundreds of publications to his
name. Some of the data collection for these I was involved in and have
on my computer for back reference, so I can see he has massaged the
same (ie. fudged it) to get the results he wanted. The people around
him have to call him Doctor Reuvan Yosef because he insists on it.

So you were a data collecting dogsbody like Ogilvie

In most cases, no data = no science. And a sensible scientist will not
try to incorporate data in his work unless he has either collected it
or overseen its collection.

So proper scientists didn't bother to "oversee" your data. I can see
why you're bitter.



So which of these is a "real" scientist do you think? Perhaps the
question is a bit too complicated for you, but do try to reason it out
as the answer is well worthwhile.

Certainly not the dogsbody whose data was probably considered
unreliable.

Just answer the question - or say outright that it is beyond your
intellectual capability to do so.

Not worth the bother of answering a bitter old has been.

It's not the first time you've come across as a bitter old has been
that never was.

Oh, really. So pray tell, when was the first time?

Do your own research :-))





Do they do night classes on real science in France?

If they do, perhaps you could do yourself some good by joining one.

Is that all you've got? You need some instruction yourself in the art
of Usenet ad hominem. Real artists in this technique can even make it
sound believable. Meanwhile, as you seem to be obsessively interested
in my research, there is a recent paper in .pdf freely obtainable over
the Internet.

That nobody probably bothers to read.

In other words, you aren't going to risk looking for it and then
attempting a rebuttal of the contents, eh? Or you couldn't find it
because Internet searches are too complicated for you? No wonder your
standard reply is," Do your own research" It's because you are
incapable of doing it yourself.

I don't waste my time.

Alas, I'm afraid a single 'O' grade dullard will find it
hard going, even if that 'O' is in arithmetic.

If that refers to me I think it might just be classified in the ad
hominem brackets :-))

Why would you imagine it applies to you? It was a clue to help in your
researches for my papers.

A clue from the clueless doesn't help anyone.

You really needn't go to such inordinate lengths to surrender. Just a
simple one liner is enough to let me know that you have capitulated.


.