Re: A menace?


In article <8j8vl49iki0mg6fvjmeaqmkr120a1mhh05@xxxxxxx>, amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:05:58 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <8fhul4ls0sta0b94n0sjmoqnke3v52p5a5@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 07:48:21 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <6l3tl4dr15gf6ggrlm3kn48k530g82i8ps@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:32:38 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <0otsl419amhm32ju9hspm5u75jsl3h15ql@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:17:05 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <h8dsl4db7lhckjd4cl8vb79uugd5evjuhe@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:15:36 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <s58sl4h9kvv980ihno3vjpoc254kptapan@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 13:58:06 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <0h2sl45e4vs8oe19egpbdkhn6gi6cvt0d4@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

I've been underneath turbines long before they were in this country
and they do make a interupted whirr.

So you haven't been underneath a turbine for more than 10
years and have
no experience of the noise made by the turbines now installed in this
country. Thank you for confirming your lack of knowledge on
this, as on
so many, subjects.

Are you saying there is a substantial difference. If so, what
difference?

Look it up for yourself.

So you don't know the difference.

Yet another wrong assumption by Angus - the master of wrong assumptions.

Or in other words, he realises, too late yet again, that he has tried to
pronounce on a subject about which he is ignorant.

Perhaps you should find out the difference between turbines in use "long
before" 1991, which was when the first windfarm was completed in
Britain, and those in use today before you make any other ill-informed
claims.


Are they designed to miss birds? :-))

More ignorance from Angus.


So they're not?

So they're not what?



Designed to miss birds?

More ignorance about wind turbines from Angus.

Try thinking before you ask the question again.


Truth is they don't miss birds.


That's novel for you. Asking a question then answering it yourself.





As was said several days ago, the great majority of windfarms are sited
so that birds are not at risk. Pity you can't or won't understand that.

Of which you've provided no evidence.

So come on Malcolm, Give us the evidence.


The evidence is widely available, Angus.

That's not giving the evidence

Of course it is.


No it's not. Anyone can say that.

I could say that evidence is widely available that turbines kill many
birds.

Then please produce it. And don't just produce the evidence from a single windfarm but from the thousands in existence.



The subject of the risk to
birds and of the correct/incorrect siting of windfarms in the UK has
been the subject of published papers, reports, discussion documents and
media articles for at least the last dozen years or more. They are
widely available as are maps of windfarm locations in the UK.

Well, just give a reference for one such paper.

No, you look it up for yourself. I'm not going to spoonfeed your
ignorance.

Malcolm Ogilvie has a great problem with personal abuse;

Only with abuse given by others, such as you.



If you are genuinely interested, which I doubt because all you want to
do is to rubbish everything you are told, then you can investigate the
subject and actually become informed about it instead of, as happened in
this case, you so typically decided that you would contradict the facts
when you actually knew nothing about the subject.


One bird killed every seven years does sound ridiculous. So who says
that?

Look it up.

You seem to have no idea.


Oh, but I do, and you very obviously.don't.




So, Angus. You have a choice. You can either do your own research and
become informed or you can accept what you've been told as factual.
There is certainly no excuse for your remaining ignorant and making
ignorant remarks.

Could it be that the RSPB has identified a way of making money and are
now playing don the bird hits or only taking into consideration birds
of the species they want to protect?

It could be that that is one of your more ridiculous and prejudiced
claims for which you haven't, and won't be able to provide, one shred of
evidence.

The sniff of money might be the reason.

Past form could suggest something like that

No, your past form suggests that you will come up with ridiculous claims
like that.

Little is more important to fake conservationists than money :-(

Who are the fake conservationists?

They don't exist, except in your head.







But that won't stop birds flying into them.

Who said that it would?


So you agree they will.

Who said that they don't?

one in seven years is almost that they don't and you said it.

No, one kill in seven years is a not "almost that they don't", but an
accurate and widely available figure. Just because you don't appear to
want to believe it, doesn't mean (a) that it isn't true and (b) that no
birds are killed.



Well they can't kill a seventh of a bird each year

Gosh. Well done.

and I'm sure they
wouldn't pay you to sit around for seven years to see if more birds
got killed and the corpses were carried off by scavengers. Mind. you
it would be the grant screwing research of a lifetime.

No, Angus, grants are awarded.


The fake conservation scam is to dream up a crisis, make enough noise
about it, get paid by government to research it, reach a conclusion
that ensures more research is necessary and at the same time have
enough of the primary conclusion brings in money for acting to allay
the "crisis". When this doesn't work start all over again.

It really is of no consequence whatsoever what you say about "fake
conservation" because it doesn't exist outside your head.


Who are the fake conservationists?

No-one other than in your head.

Who are the fake conservationists?


They don't exist, except in your head.


So how do you know how many birds get killed?

Look it up, you boring little man.

It's rather pathetic and obvious that when you can't hack the argument
you attack me as an individual.

That wasn't an attack, it was a true comment. You have become tedious in
the extreme with your inane comments based on ignorance and your
inability to provide any evidence for your claims.

It you who made the claim and can't provide evidence, Dr Thick.


That wasn't an attack either, it was a true comment. You have become
tedious in the extreme with your inane comments based on ignorance and
your inability to provide any evidence for your claims.


Do stop projecting.

See above.










And if you've never seen a scavenger lift a carcase then you don't
know as much as you pretend.to do.

Who said I have never seen that happen? Are you making wild and
unsubstantiated assumptions about me - again?

So you have seen them lift carcases. Good.

Angus, I have seen far more happenings in the natural world than you
have. Get used to it.

Y0ou don't appear to know much about the natural world except how to
screw it for fake conservation.

Your choice of words reveals firstly your inability to select the
correct word and secondly the extent of your anti-conservation
obsession.

Please note that "fake conservation" doesn't exist outside your head.


The fake conservationists say they are conserving the natural
environment but in reality they are indulging in and encouraging
environmentally damaging activities that makes them attractive to the
general public therefore bringing in donations and memberships They
also pump out masses of junk mail and publications which are
environmentally damaging in their production, distribution and
disposal and con the public into thinking these are environmentally
friendly by printing "100% recycled paper". What a bunch of crooks
these people really are!

Like I said, there are no such people and you have produced not one jot
of evidence to show they exist, outside your head that is.


See above what fakes are.

That doesn't tell me what fakes are, merely what you claim non-existent
people are.


Who are the fake conservationists?

No-one. They don't exist outside your head.


The fake conservationists

don't exist except in your head.


What's this got to do with scavengers?


It's to do with honesty


What's it got to do with scavengers?

It's to do with honest appraisal.

Well, that rules you out.


It rules out the RSPB.

Your deep and completely obsessive prejudices are showing again :-(


snip lies and distortions

All you can think to post is your repeated lies and distortions about
me. That shows you have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion
on scavengers at windfarms, about which you appear completely

so I naturally accept your abject and repeated surrender.

No Malcolm, it's all the truth and shows what a lying and prejudiced
person you are.

This, from someone who not only frequently tells deliberate lies and
utters libels about those who point out his lies, but is so prejudiced
against conservation that he constantly reveals his complete ignorance
as he makes ill-informed statement after statement and clutches at every
passing straw.

The ignorance and prejudice is all yours


Angus surrenders again. Thank you, Angus, your surrender is accepted as
is your acknowledgement that you fear me because you know that I will
inevitably rubbish what you post, pointing out the evidenceless claims,
the lies and the libels.


Malcolm Ogilvie has a great problem with personal abuse; he can give
it but can't take it.

No, Angus, I don't give out personal abuse until you do.

Malcolm, you can hardly write a post with out avoiding a question or
dishing out abuse in one form or another

Do stop projecting.


see above

You start it
every time and then whinge when someone points out your obvious faults.

There you go again.

No, there you go again, quoting out of context, lying and libelling.

Where?

Every time you post those out of context quotes, lies and libels about me.

--
Malcolm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A menace?
    ... More ignorance about wind turbines from Angus. ... Truth is they don't miss birds. ... I could say that evidence is widely available that turbines kill many ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A menace?
    ... More ignorance about wind turbines from Angus. ... Truth is they don't miss birds. ... I could say that evidence is widely available that turbines ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Threatened capercaillies
    ... >>>reeking of bias and ignorance. ... >>>Do you have a bird table in your garden, Angus? ... The birds aren't ... >>>you would be able to see a great many examples of wildlife taking ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: A menace?
    ... so that birds are not at risk. ... start to give evidence others may reciprocate. ... my ignorance of quantum physics. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: F**k the birds if theres money to be made
    ... presence/absence of foxes as scavengers. ... I'm quite sure there's foxes in Fintry. ... there would be there which might remove corpses of dead birds. ... Please produce your evidence for that claim. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
Loading