Re: No room for tolerance in 17200 acres

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:58:26 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <rcdpf39ndj980an8dhfp0985aaudhd0sg2@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:48:16 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <2nolf3l15n67b8pniavlo2e9p4m85he0ne@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:40:25 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <9erkf3denkt75mfjt38svk580ssnt6ls75@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:08:57 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <tsokf312pkogsg40ha9gqbu4mek01glgbc@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:49:58 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <n56jf39hlcct5c8n4ufrqpu9nbnd9augok@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:33:38 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <7upif3tu1ae754m85jm41hvhg3op1f0qs1@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:04:40 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <jg4if39ob2cjnudqc77240i4hm8ucnisrp@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

At least I live within twenty miles from where I was born.



No, and nor do the majority of the people living here.

So they're using houses that could be used by locals.

Yes, I thought you would say something like that. But you're wrong,
Angus, unsurprisingly.

Why?

The reason you are wrong is because you are making a false assumption.

What false assumption?

The false assumption that you are making :-)

Why is it a false assumption?

Because it is. Work it out for yourself. Read what you wrote and read
what I replied. Then think about it.


I have and it is significant that you can't or won't give a reason why
you think it's a false assumption.

No, it isn't significant. I am merely waiting to see if you can work it
out for yourself.

Likely story :-))

You always come up with this when stuck for an answer.

You're obviously struggling to work it out, so you are trying every
possible way of explaining why you can't.

I'm not even trying. I want you to justify your claim - which you
can't.






The reason I used the word "unsurprisingly" is that this is par for your
course.

In what way?

There's only one way it can be par for your course, which is that it
fits with your usual behaviour.

Which is to condemn fake conservationists and those who support them.

Which is, unsurprisingly, based on a false assumption, not to mention
prejudice, a wilful ignoring of facts and a closed mind.

What false assumption?

What prejudice?

What facts are being ignored?

I see you're back into abuse.

Oh for heaven's sake!

Nothing to do with heaven; more to do with the hellish attitude of
fake conservationists against animals.

As I have never met a "fake conservationist" and certainly don't know
about their attitudes, I find that comment completely meaningless.

That's your problem - not mine.




<Snip your usual rant>

I'm not "back into abuse", I'm pointing out the state that you have got
yourself into.


Much to do with abuse. You can't argue the point so you go for me.

I am not "going" for you. You "go" for me in post after post.


I give what I get.


To say you are making a false assumption is certainly not abusive, it is
stating a fact.

Which you can't justify

Of course I can. See my other response.


You haven't in any response.


i this occasion you are not in possession of a
particular fact, though I think you ought to be able to work it out, and
so you have made an assumption about people on Islay which is a false
one.

In what way?

Work it out. It really isn't difficult.

You obviously can't justify your claim. Indeed, I can't ever remember
you justifying anything.




You cannot possibly deny that you are prejudiced. You have made all
sorts of (abusive) remarks about the fact that I live on Islay, which
are based on prejudice against me, and, indeed, against remote
communities that have to rely on the air ambulance (remember?).

If you're a conservationist you should be concerned about your impact
on the environment. You're obviously no when you choose to live in a
place that requires more environmentally damaging servicing than on
the mainland.

Yes, we've been here before. If you follow your argument to its
conclusion, everyone should move to the Central Belt, abandoning all
remote communities and islands. And you should certainly move to nearer
your place of work instead of commuting there by Range Rover.

No. only people that falsely claim they're conservationists.


And I am a conservationist, Angus.

No you're not.

I do things to help save the
environment

No you don't. You belong to SNH which damages the natural environment
and encourages others to do the same.


which, when I asked you whether you did them, you retreated
behind the feeble defence that I was asking "personal" questions.


Not at all. I have told you umpteen times I'm not a conservationist.


ou are
prejudiced against conservation organisations.

I'm not! I'm against those who call themselves conservationists but
are fakes.

You're not??????


Exactly.

You have been asked many times to name a conservation organisation of
which you approve. To the best of my knowledge you have named a single
one. You are prejudiced against them all.


I oppose all fake conservationists and to date I have not come across
a single one that does not deliberately damage the natural environment
or encourage others to do so.

t's not a term of abuse,
it is a fact.

It is when it's a lie.

I don't lie.

Of course you do.



You choose, therefore it is wilful, to ignore facts which you have been
told about conservation management.

Can I describe you, unabusively, as a very sensitive little flower if
you think that I have just subjected you to abuse? :-))

You can't combat the argument so you attack me personally.

Angus, you attack me, frequently, always marking your abject surrender
:-))

Malcolm Ogilvie has a great problem with personal abuse; he can give
it but can't take it. He frequently abuses me by calling me a liar,
twister, ignorant, stupid etc., because I don't agree with his fake
conservation opinions but when he makes obvious blunders he can't cope
with personal criticism using similar abuse back at him. He seems to
particularly dislike the Dr Thick label.

He tries to claim that this amounts to my surrender, which is patently
not the case, but seems too dim to understand that by his own argument
he has often already surrendered himself. Such a claim shows a
befuddled mind that is incapable of logical thought and therefore
justifies the labels attached to him.

He has great difficulty in coping with reasoned argument and
mistakenly thinks that his opinions should go unquestioned and that
any other opinions are worthless.

This might be the result of a severe personality disorder that could
perhaps be described as smartarseology and is probably incurable.

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: No room for tolerance in 17200 acres
    ... Which is to condemn fake conservationists and those who support them. ... prejudice, a wilful ignoring of facts and a closed mind. ... I see you're back into abuse. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: RSPB Media Release
    ... into a jam then inevitably you resort to abuse. ... attack with ridicule - as above. ... Which part exactly do you consider ridicule? ... And you wonder why I regard fake conservationists as dishonest? ...
    (uk.rec.birdwatching)
  • Re: No room for tolerance in 17200 acres
    ... Which is to condemn fake conservationists and those who support them. ... prejudice, a wilful ignoring of facts and a closed mind. ... on the environment. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: It the M1 part of nature?
    ... >>cleaner hospitals and less crime or spend the money of rhody bashing ... >There are far more conservationists out there than you suppose. ... There's plenty of fakes but few conservationists. ... >>>prejudice and not facts. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: No room for tolerance in 17200 acres
    ... Which is to condemn fake conservationists and those who support them. ... prejudice, a wilful ignoring of facts and a closed mind. ... on the environment. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)