Re: Not even duff science!

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:49:11 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <lsnhn4lt5htvdvk6nl2qh0ht4jp6eo5qpm@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:52:43 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <hk5hn4ti7d0rk917tc06j5f117rtde52f8@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:50:34 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <aq7fn4tbpd6im89r71g19f0nsfdvdc7htu@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:45:35 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <0osen4p2oqrgj8kjjo6o80e8ng9489untv@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:17:25 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <j26cn41donkhhgkev48s3j9kdr4af8fdoa@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

Farmers should need paying for conservation with social engineering
strings attached more than any other business. They should be paid
adequately for what they produce.

So what?

That may be your opinion and it may be shared by others, but you're
avoiding the issue which is that farmers are in the business of
conservation, many of them are excellent conservationists, and many of
them work closely with conservationists and conservation organisations.
All you huffing and puffing about not approving of them receiving
subsidies makes no difference to the reality. Try and live in the real
world, Angus.

I do,. and most conservation is fake.

Oooh! "Most"!!!

Is Angus changing his tune by any chance?



Not at all. I have said I don't know of any organisations that aren't
involved in deliberately damaging the natural environment to fund
their existence.

Do you know of any?

Cut the repetitive waffle, Angus.

Do you accept that a great many farmers are excellent conservationists?

Yes or no?


If they're supporting the fake conservation agenda for money the
answer is no. If they are genuinely preserving the natural
environment then the answer is yes.

Bwahahahahaha!!

Angus has been caught out not knowing what to say because, yet again, he
is completely ignorant of the subject.

No Malcolm, I have outlined my position exactly.

By the way, as there is no such thing as a "fake conservation agenda",
or only in your head, you have agreed unequivocally that farmers are
conservationists.

Angus has this ides, one shared by Hitler, that if you repeat lies and
libels enough people might come to believe them. Sadly for Angus, no-one
believes him.


Not so , Malcolm. You have no evidence to support this claim and it
seem that you think if you say it often enough people might come to
believe you.

On the question of Hitler, It is not me who share my idea. It if the
conservationists that kill wildlife for the very same reason that
Hitler and his thugs killed humans - and that was to make a better
life for the chosen ones. So that's what makes conservationists
nazis.




Thank you, Angus. I dare say this will be remembered :-))

The you're a fake.

You are a liar and libeller.

No, Malcolm. You're a fake and you support the Nazi principles of
conservation.




Not at all. The are faced with the choice of getting money for fake
conservation agendas.

More nonsense responses. The "conservation agenda" as you call it is
dictated by government and before that Brussels.

That doesn't give it much credit.

That's merely your opinion. The fact is that the EU and the British and
Scottish governments have rather more credibility that you do.

That's merely your opinion.

Not just mine.


Probably the opinion of most fake conservationists.

But as such people don't exist outside your head, they can't possibly
have opinions, can they?

See above.

There's nothing "above" that contradicts the fact that fake
conservationists don't exist outside your head.


Of course there is.





There's nothing "fake"
about it.

snip usual lies and libels.


Some excellent conservation goes on on farms nowadays about
which you clearly know nothing.

You clearly know nothing about genuine conservation.

That, Angus, is a lie. A blatant lie. Indeed, a libel.


If you did, you wouldn't support fake conservation.

I don't support something which only exists in your head. How could I?


snip the usual lies and libels

See above about fake conservationists.

There's nothing "above" that contradicts the fact that fake
conservationists don't exist outside your head.

Here it is again.


Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem with me calling conservation
organisations "fakes" because he doesn't have an argument against it
and it is amusing to see his only response is that "the fakes are in
my mind".

So let me spell it out in the hope that it might educate him.

The reason why so-called conservation organisations are fakes is that
they say they are conserving the natural environment but in reality
they are indulging in and encouraging environmentally damaging
activities which make them attractive to the general public and pulls
in their favourite commodity - money. 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!

But it doesn't stop there.

The whole conservation industry is a con from top to bottom!

The Kyoto Protocol scam got over 100 countries including the UK to
sign up to reducing emissions but excluded the emerging economies from
such limitations. Despite signing the commitment and making great
claims about it, the UK is importing masses of produce from countries
of the emerging economies, so all that's happening is that we are
"exporting" our environmental so-called responsibilities to the likes
of China. Indeed, in Canada a last minute agreement was
manufactured to keep the scam going.

Another example of fake conservation was the RSPB's news release of
February 2005 in which they said "cooking our planet will disrupt and
devastate all life and giving this process the cosy name global
warming only makes it easier for all of us, especially politicians, to
ignore the consequences", yet at the same time they were accepting
pages of world wide travel advertisements in their Birds magazine. Is
there any reason I should not call into question the honesty of these
people and call them fakes? That's exactly what they are!

So Malcolm, wise up to the fact that the whole conservation industry
is bent from the top down and I've yet to see an exception.








But then that's hardly a surprise. It's
a speciality of yours to pronounce on a subject about which you have no
knowledge.

Quite the reverse.

The evidence, as shown in your posts going back years, is against you.

What evidence?




You'll doubtless recall your resort to libel and ridicule
when presented with facts about birds and turbines and look how far that
got you, except to show you up as not knowing what you were talking
about.

Which you couldn't provide any evidence to back up your statement of
so-called "facts".

Another lie from the master liar.

Well please provide it .

No. Look it up for yourself.

So you don't have any.

Yes, I do. And so could you if you looked it up.


No you don't. And I can't look up something that's only in your head
:-))

Your attempt at a witticism has fallen flat because the facts we are
discussing are widely available and widely accepted. All you have to do
is to look them up, Try using Google.


So it's alright for you to say what's in my head but not alright for
me to say what's in yours. Not that there's very much :-)




As has been explained to you many
times, the evidence is widely available and widely accepted, and I
*could* and still can produce all the evidence.

So you have said, without any evidence to back it up.

All the evidence is widely available. Look it up for yourself.


So you don't have any.

Yes, I do. And so could you if you looked it up.


No you don't. And I can't look up something that's only in your head
:-))

Your attempt at a witticism has fallen flat because the facts we are
discussing are widely available and widely accepted. All you have to do
is to look them up, Try using Google.

So it's alright for you to say what's in my head but not alright for
me to say what's in yours. Not that there's very much :-)




However, in view of your
greeting the *facts* with libel and ridicule - facts dealing with a
subject about which you subsequently confessed you were ignorant, my
natural reaction was to tell you to look it up for yourself.

What "facts"?

The facts you were given.

Where did I say I was "ignorant"?

Because of the questions you asked.


here did I say I was "ignorant"?

Definitely "here" :-))


Where, I meant.

Ah, Angus's epitaph: "I meant".


You're the liar around here.

Look back at your own posts and you will find I am right.

That is
still my advice.

Who wants your advice? You pals in SNH?

Them and many others.


What evidence do you have to support this statement.

All the evidence I need.


Please provide it.

No need. Anyone with any intelligence knows what I said is true.

So you don't have any. What a cop out.






If you want evidence for facts presented to you,
perhaps you might learn from this experience to greet them with interest
and polite enquiry. That might be difficult for you, but at least it
would stop you shooting yourself in the foot as you did on this
occasion.


The problem is you've no facts.

All the facts are readily available and you could find them if you
weren't afraid that they would confirm exactly what Robert and I told
you.

For which you had no evidence.

The evidence is widely available for anyone who cares to look it up. You
have chosen not to - or so you say - presumably because you know that it
will confirm what Robert and I told you. Alternatively, you have looked
it up and know that it confirms what we said but, being you, you can't
bring yourself to admit it. The latter looks more and more the likely
answer the more you prevaricate.

I can't look up something that's only in your head

Your attempt at a witticism has fallen flat because the facts we are
discussing are widely available and widely accepted. All you have to do
is to look them up, Try using Google.

So it's alright for you to say what's in my head but not alright for
me to say what's in yours. Not that there's very much :-)






Had you responded to what you were told, on a subject on which you knew
you were ignorant, with some interest and a polite request for some
evidence, you might have been given it. However, your response was such
that neither Robert nor I saw any point in providing it and thus
pandering to your prejudiced, ignorant, response.

What evidence do you have?

See above and stop wriggling.

Learn from this incident.

What I learned is that when you say something is "fact" you have no
evidence to back it up.

I have all the evidence needed to back it up and you, too, could have
all the same evidence if you could bring yourself to look it up.
However, either you daren't or you already have and realise you were
wrong to greet the facts with libel and ridicule.



I can't look up something that's only in your head

Your attempt at a witticism has fallen flat because the facts we are
discussing are widely available and widely accepted. All you have to do
is to look them up, Try using Google.


So it's alright for you to say what's in my head but not alright for
me to say what's in yours. Not that there's very much :-)




I have never applied for or received any grant in my life.

But that wasn't what I asked about, was it?

Now answer my question.



Are you saying I have?

Here's the question again.

Are you claiming that you have never benefitted from a grant of any
kind?


Yes or no?

I don't think I have but I don't know what you really mean.

No, your comprehension skills aren't of the highest, are they?

If you think I have give me an example.

Examine your business and personal life.



So we're back to square one.

You can't provide an example.

You still haven't answered my question. Are you claiming that you have
never benefitted from a grant of any kind?

Yes or no?

No wriggling, or asking a question of your own. Just answer mine.

I've said I don't know. You don't seem able to provide an example.


Go and look.

Read what I wrote. I've already been and looked. How much have you done
so?


I rely on the eyes of locals and their opinions.

It's called "anecdotal", Angus. I asked for real evidence.

Unless they're liars, it's real evidence.

It's anecdotal evidence, certainly. But what I said was needed, to
support what you have reported, is some real evidence of surveys before
and after the NP was created.


What is "evidence" other than anecdotal?

Duh! The mere fact that you ask such a question reveals your lack of
knowledge.

Not at all. A lot of research is anecdotal and the conclusions no
more than opinions.

And a great deal of research is in great depth and produces hard facts,

Which are usually contradicted further down the line by another
"expert" screwing more money out of the taxpayer.


just as has the research into the question of bird deaths and wind
turbines.

Which you have failed to produce.

But you, in your ignorance, decided to first use libel and
then ridicule.

Which you seem to be too sensitive about.

Poor wee Malcolm.




I never saw the results of the Holocaust but I believe what I've been
told.

Which was not anecdotal.


Why not if weren't there?

I suggest you mean "wasn't" :-(


Yes.


Along the roadside shores every weekend in the summer. And it was
never that bad.


Who says? What is your *personal* experience of Loch Earn?


See above. National Park employees have told me.

Well, next time you are talking to them, ask them nicely if they have
any pre-NP evidence.

You don't have?

Locals will have.

Then ask them if they can produce hard evidence, not anecdotal, but the
results of surveys before and after the NP was formed.

Anecdotal is the evidence before and after the park was formed.

Then that is not good enough for you or anyone else to draw the
conclusion that litter is worse now than before.


Of course it's good enough. What evidence do the NP have to counter
it?




Anecdotal evidence from locals is clear evidence. Even the NP
convener is on record as saying he won't take his daughter to certain
areas of the NP.


Ah, another Angus retreat in the face of evidence. Progress of a kind, I
suppose. "Certain areas" now.

That was what he said.

Fine. It's good to see you alter your claims in the face of evidence.


I haven't altered it one bit. That's what he said and I mentioned it
here some time ago.

BTW Loch Earn side is a "certain area".

But are you referring to the *whole* of Loch Earn side, i.e. all 21 km?


See above.

Nothing "above" answers my question.


It does.

More anecdotes :-((

Evidence from local people.




So why should we pay twice over?

Don't you agree with the idea that those who create waste should pay for
its disposal? Seems right to me.

So why should the taxpayer pay for the waste of those who are
unidentified?

Ask the PTB.

Up until a few years ago I used to pick up litter I saw on our access
road. Now I don't bother. If the government want a mess let them
have it. Why should we worry about the countryside if they don't.

I'm delighted to hear that you used to pick up litter. That flies in the
face of your claim, now proved false, that you are not a
conservationist.


No I did it only to keep the place tidy. Now I don't care.

LOL!!! But while you were doing it you were a conservationist :-))


Rubbish. Keeping a place tidy is not conservation of the natural
environment.. Cutting hedges could be seen as keeping a place tidy .

Of course it is conservation.

No it's not. See above.

You, Angus, are a conservationist, whether you like it or not.



Not in the slightest.



You are removing litter capable of killing
or injuring wildlife.

Few are daft enough to eat it.

Oh dear :-(((

Not again!!!


I frequently see wildlife eating out of fast food containers but they
are not daft enough to eat the container.


Angus has yet again pronounced on a subject about which he is clearly
ignorant.


More you. Stand outside a fast food outlet where a carton has been
dumped and you'll see for yourself. You don't live in the real world.

Put the words "litter" and "wildlife" into Google and learn just how
wrong you can be.


Yes and you'll see it's generally domestic rubbish. Not what is found
at the roadside discarded by walkers - which was what I referred to.

Trust you to wriggle.


No wiggle at all.


If it's conservation, why do the fake conservationists not clear it
up? The Woodland Trust doesn't clear the rubbish their visitors
leave behind, they just let it blow away.


There are no such people as "fake conservationists" to clear up the
litter. They only exist inside your head - which is presumably why you
were picking up litter :-)))

No because the so-called conservationists don't bother. The Woodland
Trust just let's it blow away.



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: A menace?
    ... Malcolm Ogilvie who travels thousands of miles to the south Atlantic ... What evidence do you have for that statement? ... of ignorance exactly as you did with the facts you were given about bird ... Scottish history, squirrels, conservation management, woodland, the ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Whats the difference?
    ... Because you haven't given any evidence that anyone other than you ... fuels is damaging to the natural environment ... It is also self evident that without dispute that conservation ... You have admitted this damage and said it is more than countered by ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Not even duff science!
    ... element related directly to conservation activities on the ... Farmers not unexpectedly seek advice from conservationists or from ... The evidence, as shown in your posts going back years, is against you. ... when presented with facts about birds and turbines and look how far that ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: "Human" defined by Junk (non-Coding) DNA
    ... demonstrate conservation, ... Conservation is excellent evidence of function, ... corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. ... Why do you need to see a statistical test, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Not even duff science!
    ... them work closely with conservationists and conservation organisations. ... By the way, as there is no such thing as a "fake conservation agenda", ... The evidence, as shown in your posts going back years, is against you. ... when presented with facts about birds and turbines and look how far that ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)