Re: Hey Ogilvie

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:18:09 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <s2upp31v30mb2j8agcofug1ma4873k70aq@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:59 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <u9qpp3pjm4phttvfm5mi21der6tcog03vu@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:11:09 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <60opp3lmd70bp4gt7qctekajggm23gp3no@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:55:59 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <a5top3dbh57b2lebce6765jrskfbnm1tng@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:37:50 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The subject of my PhD is in the public domain and obviously I'm proud to
see it there.


Seems it took you at least six years to get your PhD from your first
degree.

It seems that you are wrong. How unsurprising.

Doesn't look like it. How long from your first degree to your PhD?

I remain flattered that you are so interested in my academic
achievements of many years ago.

Good for you.

No, Angus, good for you for taking such a great interest in me.


It's good fun.

Well, I suppose it is teaching you how to search the internet, which is
a skill you might find handy some time.


Perhaps you should learn to spell it :-))


Work it out for yourself, bearing in mind that the answer is not six
years :-)


1977 to 1983 does seem like six years to me - or are you lying?

What sort of a person who, when he can't understand something
immediately thinks that it must be a lie? Oh, I know, a person like
Angus Macmillan.


Is 77 to 83 not six? I suppose it could be 7 inclusively but I was
giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're thicker than I
thought :-))

It's you who are being thick, Angus.


Not me, Malcolm :-)



And as far as I'm aware "Member of the Institute of Biology and
Chartered Biologist (MIBiol, CBiol)" is not a qualification but merely
membership of an organisation.

Your awareness is, as always, letting you down. How unsurprising.


What's unsurprising is that you are claiming it's a qualification.

No, it isn't.

So what qualification is it?

Work it out for yourself.


Looking at their website it seems that it's not a qualification. So
why are you claiming it is?

Perhaps you can't read. Or, and there's plenty of evidence for this, you
lack comprehension skills.


So what actual qualifications do they offer?

Read their website.


Don't worry, I have.


Looks like you could be faking your qualifications. Is that the case?

Looks like you could be getting very close to libelling me. Is that the
case?


Is it the case you're faking your qualifications?

Is it the case you are getting very close to libelling me?


Not really, just manipulating you .


So why do you list it as a
"qualification" in your biography?

I'm not surprised that you can't work it out. Obviously not simple
enough for you.


Seems very simple. You are claiming it's a qualification and I don't
think it is.

What you think is of no consequence whatsoever, Angus, on this or any
other subject.

It is if you're bullshitting the public.

You're the master bullshitter, on woodlands, squirrels, non-natives,
avian flu, walking in the countryside, fences, etc., etc.


Not me. I don't claim to be an expert in anything. I presume a
"master" might be regarded as an expert.

No, on the whole, experts don't bull***.

That means they do sometimes. So which ones bull*** in your opinion?

They've no need to because
they've got the requisite knowledge.

Of course they have, just look at you.

It's the non-experts, desperately
trying to make an impression, that bull*** all the time, just as you do
on woodlands, squirrels, non-natvies, avian flu, walking in the
countryside, fences, etc., etc. After all, the definition of bull***
fits you perfectly: "Talk emptily or boastfully."


No one does it more than you.



Who is correct?

Well, you're not :-)


Seems I might be.

But, as we know only too well, you get things wrong all the time, don't
you?


Not me. I just expose fakes.

More bullshitting. You can only say that when you've actually done it.


I do it quite often.



Are you just bullshitting the
public?

No, Angus, I leave that entirely to you with your ridiculous remarks
about squirrels, avian flu, woodlands, and fences, as well as your vile
and contemptible crowing about people dying, without a thought for their
relatives and friends.

I have no objection to people getting shot while out hunting - the
more the merrier

Thank you for confirming just how despicable you are.


Not at all. Live by the gun; die by the gun. Seems fair.

Despicable.


Why?

If you don't even know, that just makes you even more despicable.


There's not much despicable about a hunter getting shot with his own,
or a friend's gun.




Read what I wrote

I did. More importantly, I also noted that you didn't alter
the subject
line of the message.

Good for you.

Yes, I'm observant.

No you're not; you're blinded by conceit and self importance.

Not at all. I continue to be flattered that you take so much interest in
me and my qualifications.

One of which seems to be fake?

Are you claiming that I have a fake qualification? Yes or no.


It does seem that way. You seem to be claiming a qualification where
one doesn't exist.

You are getting very close to libelling me. So don't say I didn't warn
you.


Well, I'm asking you what qualification do they offer. Seems strange
you can't tell me and others on this ng.

I'm sure they can read as well as you can.

Probably.


Perhaps they will read this, which I'm sure you found unwelcome
information:

Not at all.


Members and Fellows are awarded Chartered Biologist (CBiol) status, the
professional qualification for bioscientists, recognised throughout
Europe as a hallmark of excellence. It demonstrates a high level of
attainment in biological experience, personal integrity, professional
attributes and academic qualifications.


Manipulation complete :-)) I knew your conceit couldn't resist this.

Now perhaps you can tell us what your thesis was about just to
complete the picture.



Why don't you tell us?

I prefer to let you find out for yourself. I find it more amusing.

Ashamed?

You should be ashamed of gloating over the deaths of your fellow humans.

Not at all. Live by the gun; die by the gun. Seems fair to me.

Perhaps you would like to write a letter to the newspapers saying that
you don't care about deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They're not hunting innocent wildlife that can't shoot back.

Doesn't matter. They have guns and they shoot.

Of course it does. It's a completely different scenario.


As far as I am concerned those who hunt wildlife are welcome to shoot
each other.

Seems fair to me.

Your attitude is truly despicable.

Not nearly as despicable as shooting wildlife that can't shoot back.


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)
.

Quantcast