In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:50:31 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes

>>>
>>>The Woodland Trust certainly don't include this in their
>>>environmentally damaging unsolicited persuasion propaganda.
>>>
>>So what?
>>
>>And if everything the WT might do or might be involved in was included
>>in their publicity leaflets they would be even larger and therefore, in
>>your eyes, even more environmentally damaging.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps the same "people" have read the latest statistics which say that
>>>>74,000 road traffic accidents are caused by deer annually.
>>>
>>>No. They are caused by motorists.
>>>
>>So, if a cyclist shot out of a turning a few yards in front of you and
>>you hit him you would accept that you had caused the accident, would
>>you?
>
>Do you not know that motorists are obliged to drive in a manner that
>ensures they can stop in an emergency.

Of course, but as that doesn't happen in the real world in which 
everyone, including you, drives there are inevitably accidents (many 
hundreds of thousands of them a year) and blame is normally apportioned.

> And it should be recognised
>that deer can come out of woodlands on to roads - especially if
>disturbed by human activities - shooting, dogwalkers etc..
>
Indeed, but on 74,000 occasions a year, there are collisions between 
deer and road users. And disturbance by shooting or walkers is only 
involved in some of them.

>>
>>Interesting POV. Does your car insurance company know that you will
>>always take the blame for such an accident?
>
>If I were to blame for an accident I would say so irrespective of what
>insurance companies say.  I don't believe it is right for insurance
>companies to demand that their client always deny responsibility
>irrespective of the circumstances.
>
So have you told your insurance company of this attitude of yours, and 
would you, in the event of an accident in which you felt you were to 
blame refuse to deny responsibility?

>I can quite accept in the dishonest world of fake conservation that
>seems appropriate :-(
>
Your obsession is showing again :-(

-- 
Malcolm