It seems the fake conservationists have devised a method of faking
ancient woodlands.

Step 1.  Look up an old map to see if a woodland existed at a
particular place prior to 1600 in England and Wales. or 1750 in
Scotland

Step 2.  Visit the site to see if there's any trees on it and them
assume for one's own benefit that there's been trees on it for 400+
years.  It doesn't matter about the age of the trees on site or where
they came from.

Step 3  Tell everyone  it's an "ancient woodland" and start
campaigning for support from the public and grants to "restore" it, by
planting new native saplings from wherever they can be bought at a
good price.

This is not what the public believe to be ancient woodlands.

Ancient woodland should consist of  trees that have stood there for
hundreds of years.

Another con from the CON-servationists.
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)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>It seems the fake conservationists have devised a method of faking
>ancient woodlands.
>
>Step 1.  Look up an old map to see if a woodland existed at a
>particular place prior to 1600 in England and Wales. or 1750 in
>Scotland
>
>Step 2.  Visit the site to see if there's any trees on it and them
>assume for one's own benefit that there's been trees on it for 400+
>years.  It doesn't matter about the age of the trees on site or where
>they came from.
>
>Step 3  Tell everyone  it's an "ancient woodland" and start
>campaigning for support from the public and grants to "restore" it, by
>planting new native saplings from wherever they can be bought at a
>good price.
>
>This is not what the public believe to be ancient woodlands.
>
Please produce your evidence as to what "the public" believe about 
ancient woodlands?


>Ancient woodland should consist of  trees that have stood there for
>hundreds of years.

LOL :-))))

You're a hoot, Angus, you really are. For heaven's sake, do try and 
think before you write about woodlands - or anything else for that 
matter.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:16:59 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>It seems the fake conservationists have devised a method of faking
>>ancient woodlands.
>>
>>Step 1.  Look up an old map to see if a woodland existed at a
>>particular place prior to 1600 in England and Wales. or 1750 in
>>Scotland
>>
>>Step 2.  Visit the site to see if there's any trees on it and them
>>assume for one's own benefit that there's been trees on it for 400+
>>years.  It doesn't matter about the age of the trees on site or where
>>they came from.
>>
>>Step 3  Tell everyone  it's an "ancient woodland" and start
>>campaigning for support from the public and grants to "restore" it, by
>>planting new native saplings from wherever they can be bought at a
>>good price.
>>
>>This is not what the public believe to be ancient woodlands.
>>
>Please produce your evidence as to what "the public" believe about 
>ancient woodlands?

Please produce yours.

>
>
>>Ancient woodland should consist of  trees that have stood there for
>>hundreds of years.
>
>LOL :-))))
>

Fake conservationists laughing all the way to the bank?   I can see
that's good fun.


>You're a hoot, Angus, you really are. For heaven's sake, do try and 
>think before you write about woodlands - or anything else for that 
>matter.

Resort to ridicule when you're stuck, Malcolm.  That's the Nazi in you
coming out.

But the whole scam of "ancient woodlands" does look a nice little
earner.

Manufacturing "ancient" woodlands is probably easier to screw money
out of than red squirrels and the like.

Let's see.  Capital equipment:  An old map, a bicycle, and enough gab
to persuade the public donate towards the "cause" and collect some
grants - then a little oil for the chain of your bicycle and move on
to the next one.  Oh, and pay yourself a good salary at the same time.

Who says the manufacturing industry is dead in the UK?



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)

In message , Malcolm 
 writes
>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>It seems the fake conservationists have devised a method of faking
>>ancient woodlands.
>>
>>Step 1.  Look up an old map to see if a woodland existed at a
>>particular place prior to 1600 in England and Wales. or 1750 in
>>Scotland
>>
>>Step 2.  Visit the site to see if there's any trees on it and them
>>assume for one's own benefit that there's been trees on it for 400+
>>years.  It doesn't matter about the age of the trees on site or where
>>they came from.
>>
>>Step 3  Tell everyone  it's an "ancient woodland" and start
>>campaigning for support from the public and grants to "restore" it, by
>>planting new native saplings from wherever they can be bought at a
>>good price.
>>
>>This is not what the public believe to be ancient woodlands.
>>
>Please produce your evidence as to what "the public" believe about 
>ancient woodlands?
>
>
>>Ancient woodland should consist of  trees that have stood there for
>>hundreds of years.
>
>LOL :-))))
>
>You're a hoot, Angus, you really are. For heaven's sake, do try and 
>think before you write about woodlands - or anything else for that 
>matter.
>
Come on you surely don't expect him to change the habits of a life time 
do you?   :-))
-- 
Malcolm Kane

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:16:59 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>It seems the fake conservationists have devised a method of faking
>>>ancient woodlands.
>>>
>>>Step 1.  Look up an old map to see if a woodland existed at a
>>>particular place prior to 1600 in England and Wales. or 1750 in
>>>Scotland
>>>
>>>Step 2.  Visit the site to see if there's any trees on it and them
>>>assume for one's own benefit that there's been trees on it for 400+
>>>years.  It doesn't matter about the age of the trees on site or where
>>>they came from.
>>>
>>>Step 3  Tell everyone  it's an "ancient woodland" and start
>>>campaigning for support from the public and grants to "restore" it, by
>>>planting new native saplings from wherever they can be bought at a
>>>good price.
>>>
>>>This is not what the public believe to be ancient woodlands.
>>>
>>Please produce your evidence as to what "the public" believe about
>>ancient woodlands?
>
>Please produce yours.
>
Ah, another well-known Angus tactic when he's been asked a question he 
can't answer. When asked for his evidence he doesn't respond, because he 
hasn't got any, and instead asks the questioner to produce some.

Pathetic.

I don't have to produce any evidence, as I've not made a claim about 
what the public believes.

You have. Produce your evidence.

>>
>>
>>>Ancient woodland should consist of  trees that have stood there for
>>>hundreds of years.
>>
>>LOL :-))))
>>
>
>Fake conservationists laughing all the way to the bank?   I can see
>that's good fun.
>
No suich people as fake conservationists, Angus, as you very well know. 
It's merely one of your obsessions coming to the fore. There's not 
allowed to be a thread without mentioning "fakes".

I was laughing at the naivety of your statement about what an ancient 
woodland should consist of. And it actually did make me laugh out loud 
when I read it.

LOL!!

>
>>You're a hoot, Angus, you really are. For heaven's sake, do try and
>>think before you write about woodlands - or anything else for that
>>matter.
>
>Resort to ridicule when you're stuck, Malcolm.  That's the Nazi in you
>coming out.
>
Ah, the second Angus obsession appears. When he's already mentioned his 
"fake" nonsense, he inevitably drags in the Nazis with whom he is 
undoubtedly obsessed :-(


>But the whole scam of "ancient woodlands" does look a nice little
>earner.
>
What "scam"?  You've read something about woodlands. You therefore 
oppose it on principle, without in the slightest understanding what it 
is about.

>Manufacturing "ancient" woodlands is probably easier to screw money
>out of than red squirrels and the like.
>
No-one is "manufacturing" anything. Woodlands are being conserved and 
prevented from disappearing. If you knew the first thing about woodlands 
you wouldn't be making such completely ill-informed remarks. This is 
totally on a par with your nonsense abotu woodlands not being managed. 
You never did get round to naming the "many" that you claimed existed. 
All you could come up with was a woodland you apparently own and knew 
nothing about, i.e. whether or not it was fenced or what the adjacent 
land use was.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:07:17 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:16:59 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>It seems the fake conservationists have devised a method of faking
>>>>ancient woodlands.
>>>>
>>>>Step 1.  Look up an old map to see if a woodland existed at a
>>>>particular place prior to 1600 in England and Wales. or 1750 in
>>>>Scotland
>>>>
>>>>Step 2.  Visit the site to see if there's any trees on it and them
>>>>assume for one's own benefit that there's been trees on it for 400+
>>>>years.  It doesn't matter about the age of the trees on site or where
>>>>they came from.
>>>>
>>>>Step 3  Tell everyone  it's an "ancient woodland" and start
>>>>campaigning for support from the public and grants to "restore" it, by
>>>>planting new native saplings from wherever they can be bought at a
>>>>good price.
>>>>
>>>>This is not what the public believe to be ancient woodlands.
>>>>
>>>Please produce your evidence as to what "the public" believe about
>>>ancient woodlands?
>>
>>Please produce yours.
>>
>Ah, another well-known Angus tactic when he's been asked a question he 
>can't answer. When asked for his evidence he doesn't respond, because he 
>hasn't got any, and instead asks the questioner to produce some.
>
>Pathetic.
>
>I don't have to produce any evidence, as I've not made a claim about 
>what the public believes.
>
>You have. Produce your evidence.

I don't have to produce anything to you, Malcolm.

All I need to do is to produce the idea that the public are being
bullshitted by the conservationists.- which is what is happening.


>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ancient woodland should consist of  trees that have stood there for
>>>>hundreds of years.
>>>
>>>LOL :-))))
>>>
>>
>>Fake conservationists laughing all the way to the bank?   I can see
>>that's good fun.
>>
>No suich people as fake conservationists, Angus, as you very well know. 

You're one.

>It's merely one of your obsessions coming to the fore. There's not 
>allowed to be a thread without mentioning "fakes".
>

Because it's about fakes.

>I was laughing at the naivety of your statement about what an ancient 
>woodland should consist of. And it actually did make me laugh out loud 
>when I read it.
>
>LOL!!
>

Good for you.


>>
>>>You're a hoot, Angus, you really are. For heaven's sake, do try and
>>>think before you write about woodlands - or anything else for that
>>>matter.
>>
>>Resort to ridicule when you're stuck, Malcolm.  That's the Nazi in you
>>coming out.
>>
>Ah, the second Angus obsession appears. When he's already mentioned his 
>"fake" nonsense, he inevitably drags in the Nazis with whom he is 
>undoubtedly obsessed :-(

It's not me who's obsessed.   It's principles of the fake
conservationists that stem from Nazism.. 

>
>
>>But the whole scam of "ancient woodlands" does look a nice little
>>earner.
>>
>What "scam"?  You've read something about woodlands. You therefore 
>oppose it on principle, without in the slightest understanding what it 
>is about.

The problem is the public don't have the slightest understanding
they're being conned.


>
>>Manufacturing "ancient" woodlands is probably easier to screw money
>>out of than red squirrels and the like.
>>

>No-one is "manufacturing" anything. 

Of course they are.  The type of special "ancient" woodland your lot
is promoting is little different from woodlands everywhere - except
that there's money to be screwed out of them.

They're bullshitting the public for money.

>Woodlands are being conserved and 
>prevented from disappearing. If you knew the first thing about woodlands 
>you wouldn't be making such completely ill-informed remarks. This is 
>totally on a par with your nonsense abotu woodlands not being managed. 
>You never did get round to naming the "many" that you claimed existed. 
>All you could come up with was a woodland you apparently own and knew 
>nothing about, i.e. whether or not it was fenced or what the adjacent 
>land use was.


More the problem you had, when you couldn't answer how a fence round
cottage garden could "manage" a ten mile radius of land on the other
side of the fence.  Care to answer it now?

And you deny there are fake conservationists:-((

There's plenty of them about earning between £50 and £100k for
something that could be done for next to nothing.

People don't need to become members of conservation organisations to
protect trees; they can do it themselves with a little effort and next
to no expense.

Malcolm, not only are the fake conservationists screwing grants;
they're screwing the public as well.



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)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:07:17 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:16:59 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>It seems the fake conservationists have devised a method of faking
>>>>>ancient woodlands.
>>>>>
>>>>>Step 1.  Look up an old map to see if a woodland existed at a
>>>>>particular place prior to 1600 in England and Wales. or 1750 in
>>>>>Scotland
>>>>>
>>>>>Step 2.  Visit the site to see if there's any trees on it and them
>>>>>assume for one's own benefit that there's been trees on it for 400+
>>>>>years.  It doesn't matter about the age of the trees on site or where
>>>>>they came from.
>>>>>
>>>>>Step 3  Tell everyone  it's an "ancient woodland" and start
>>>>>campaigning for support from the public and grants to "restore" it, by
>>>>>planting new native saplings from wherever they can be bought at a
>>>>>good price.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is not what the public believe to be ancient woodlands.
>>>>>
>>>>Please produce your evidence as to what "the public" believe about
>>>>ancient woodlands?
>>>
>>>Please produce yours.
>>>
>>Ah, another well-known Angus tactic when he's been asked a question he
>>can't answer. When asked for his evidence he doesn't respond, because he
>>hasn't got any, and instead asks the questioner to produce some.
>>
>>Pathetic.
>>
>>I don't have to produce any evidence, as I've not made a claim about
>>what the public believes.
>>
>>You have. Produce your evidence.
>
>I don't have to produce anything to you, Malcolm.
>
>All I need to do is to produce the idea that the public are being
>bullshitted by the conservationists.- which is what is happening.
>
Ah, so now it is just an "idea", is it? Nice to see you modifying your 
stance. I take it that means that you know you haven't a shred of 
evidence to support your claim that you know what "the public" believe.

>>>>
>>>>>Ancient woodland should consist of  trees that have stood there for
>>>>>hundreds of years.
>>>>
>>>>LOL :-))))
>>>>
>>>
>>>Fake conservationists laughing all the way to the bank?   I can see
>>>that's good fun.
>>>
>>No suich people as fake conservationists, Angus, as you very well know.
>
>You're one.
>
No, Angus, I'm not.

>>It's merely one of your obsessions coming to the fore. There's not
>>allowed to be a thread without mentioning "fakes".
>>
>
>Because it's about fakes.
>
No, it isn't. It's about ancient woodland.

>>I was laughing at the naivety of your statement about what an ancient
>>woodland should consist of. And it actually did make me laugh out loud
>>when I read it.
>>
>>LOL!!
>>
>
>Good for you.
>
It enters the long list of your memorable statements about the natural 
world, and does so pretty well near the top :-)))

>
>>>
>>>>You're a hoot, Angus, you really are. For heaven's sake, do try and
>>>>think before you write about woodlands - or anything else for that
>>>>matter.
>>>
>>>Resort to ridicule when you're stuck, Malcolm.  That's the Nazi in you
>>>coming out.
>>>
>>Ah, the second Angus obsession appears. When he's already mentioned his
>>"fake" nonsense, he inevitably drags in the Nazis with whom he is
>>undoubtedly obsessed :-(
>
>It's not me who's obsessed.   It's principles of the fake
>conservationists that stem from Nazism..
>
No-one other than you mentions the Nazis in this ng. You should think 
about that when you deny being obsessed by them.

>>
>>
>>>But the whole scam of "ancient woodlands" does look a nice little
>>>earner.
>>>
>>What "scam"?  You've read something about woodlands. You therefore
>>oppose it on principle, without in the slightest understanding what it
>>is about.
>
>The problem is the public don't have the slightest understanding
>they're being conned.
>
Here we go again!  You not only claim to know all about what "the 
public" believe in, now you say they "don't have the slightest 
understanding". I think it only fair to ask for your evidence for such 
claims. They could strike people as being a little arrogant, don't you 
think?

Have you commissioned national opinion polls on these matters? If not, 
then all you are offering are very heavily biased claims of your own, 
things which you would like to believe are true because of your vendetta 
against conservation organisations, but not based on any facts.

>
>>
>>>Manufacturing "ancient" woodlands is probably easier to screw money
>>>out of than red squirrels and the like.
>>>
>
>>No-one is "manufacturing" anything.
>
>Of course they are.  The type of special "ancient" woodland your lot
>is promoting is little different from woodlands everywhere - except
>that there's money to be screwed out of them.
>
What "special" type of ancient woodland?  Your own failure to understand 
what is meant by different woodland types and, especially, the 
conservation and management of woodlands is leading you make claims like 
"Ancient woodland should consist of trees that have stood there for 
hundreds of years."


>They're bullshitting the public for money.
>
Ah, the word of the moment "bullshitting" :-)

>>Woodlands are being conserved and
>>prevented from disappearing. If you knew the first thing about woodlands
>>you wouldn't be making such completely ill-informed remarks. This is
>>totally on a par with your nonsense abotu woodlands not being managed.
>>You never did get round to naming the "many" that you claimed existed.
>>All you could come up with was a woodland you apparently own and knew
>>nothing about, i.e. whether or not it was fenced or what the adjacent
>>land use was.
>
>
>More the problem you had, when you couldn't answer how a fence round
>cottage garden could "manage" a ten mile radius of land on the other
>side of the fence.  Care to answer it now?
>
It's a nonsense question. It doesn't deserve an answer.

>And you deny there are fake conservationists:-((
>
>There's plenty of them about earning between £50 and £100k for
>something that could be done for next to nothing.
>
On the planet you live on perhaps, but here on Earth, that's just silly.

>People don't need to become members of conservation organisations to
>protect trees; they can do it themselves with a little effort and next
>to no expense.
>
As, doubtless, many do. However, you appear to be forgetting (or haven't 
even thought about) that those who join conservation organisations may 
be doing so to help the organisations do things which they can't do 
themselves.

>Malcolm, not only are the fake conservationists screwing grants;
>they're screwing the public as well.
>
The poor old public. They don't believe, they don't have the slightest 
understanding, and they're being screwed. Three claims that aren't based 
on the slightest evidence merely on your biased view of conservation.


-- 
Malcolm

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 07:44:27 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:07:17 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:16:59 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>It seems the fake conservationists have devised a method of faking
>>>>>>ancient woodlands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Step 1.  Look up an old map to see if a woodland existed at a
>>>>>>particular place prior to 1600 in England and Wales. or 1750 in
>>>>>>Scotland
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Step 2.  Visit the site to see if there's any trees on it and them
>>>>>>assume for one's own benefit that there's been trees on it for 400+
>>>>>>years.  It doesn't matter about the age of the trees on site or where
>>>>>>they came from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Step 3  Tell everyone  it's an "ancient woodland" and start
>>>>>>campaigning for support from the public and grants to "restore" it, by
>>>>>>planting new native saplings from wherever they can be bought at a
>>>>>>good price.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is not what the public believe to be ancient woodlands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Please produce your evidence as to what "the public" believe about
>>>>>ancient woodlands?
>>>>
>>>>Please produce yours.
>>>>
>>>Ah, another well-known Angus tactic when he's been asked a question he
>>>can't answer. When asked for his evidence he doesn't respond, because he
>>>hasn't got any, and instead asks the questioner to produce some.
>>>
>>>Pathetic.
>>>
>>>I don't have to produce any evidence, as I've not made a claim about
>>>what the public believes.
>>>
>>>You have. Produce your evidence.
>>
>>I don't have to produce anything to you, Malcolm.
>>
>>All I need to do is to produce the idea that the public are being
>>bullshitted by the conservationists.- which is what is happening.
>>
>Ah, so now it is just an "idea", is it? Nice to see you modifying your 
>stance. I take it that means that you know you haven't a shred of 
>evidence to support your claim that you know what "the public" believe.
>

Read what I wrote. I didn't say that. I said the idea that the public
were being bullshitted.

>>>>>
>>>>>>Ancient woodland should consist of  trees that have stood there for
>>>>>>hundreds of years.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL :-))))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fake conservationists laughing all the way to the bank?   I can see
>>>>that's good fun.
>>>>
>>>No suich people as fake conservationists, Angus, as you very well know.
>>
>>You're one.
>>
>No, Angus, I'm not.

Of course you are.

>
>>>It's merely one of your obsessions coming to the fore. There's not
>>>allowed to be a thread without mentioning "fakes".
>>>
>>
>>Because it's about fakes.
>>
>No, it isn't. It's about ancient woodland.
>

Which aren't much different from many other woods except that they
generate income for the fakes.


>>>I was laughing at the naivety of your statement about what an ancient
>>>woodland should consist of. And it actually did make me laugh out loud
>>>when I read it.
>>>
>>>LOL!!
>>>
>>
>>Good for you.
>>
>It enters the long list of your memorable statements about the natural 
>world, and does so pretty well near the top :-)))
>

The natural world which the fakes indulge in damaging.


>>
>>>>
>>>>>You're a hoot, Angus, you really are. For heaven's sake, do try and
>>>>>think before you write about woodlands - or anything else for that
>>>>>matter.
>>>>
>>>>Resort to ridicule when you're stuck, Malcolm.  That's the Nazi in you
>>>>coming out.
>>>>
>>>Ah, the second Angus obsession appears. When he's already mentioned his
>>>"fake" nonsense, he inevitably drags in the Nazis with whom he is
>>>undoubtedly obsessed :-(
>>
>>It's not me who's obsessed.   It's principles of the fake
>>conservationists that stem from Nazism..
>>
>No-one other than you mentions the Nazis in this ng. You should think 
>about that when you deny being obsessed by them.
>

I mention it because the fake conservationists use their principles.


>>>
>>>
>>>>But the whole scam of "ancient woodlands" does look a nice little
>>>>earner.
>>>>
>>>What "scam"?  You've read something about woodlands. You therefore
>>>oppose it on principle, without in the slightest understanding what it
>>>is about.
>>
>>The problem is the public don't have the slightest understanding
>>they're being conned.
>>
>Here we go again!  You not only claim to know all about what "the 
>public" believe in, now you say they "don't have the slightest 
>understanding". I think it only fair to ask for your evidence for such 
>claims. They could strike people as being a little arrogant, don't you 
>think?

I believe most people thing of ancient woodland as being composed of
ancient trees - not just ordinary woodlands which come ten a penny.  I
bet most woodlands around Loch Lomond have been there for centuries
and some are  being destroyed by vandalism.  

>
>Have you commissioned national opinion polls on these matters? If not, 
>then all you are offering are very heavily biased claims of your own, 
>things which you would like to believe are true because of your vendetta 
>against conservation organisations, but not based on any facts.
>

No Malcolm,   The facts are there for all to see.  All it needs it for
the flawed concept of ancient woodlands to be exposed widely.


>>
>>>
>>>>Manufacturing "ancient" woodlands is probably easier to screw money
>>>>out of than red squirrels and the like.
>>>>
>>
>>>No-one is "manufacturing" anything.
>>
>>Of course they are.  The type of special "ancient" woodland your lot
>>is promoting is little different from woodlands everywhere - except
>>that there's money to be screwed out of them.
>>
>What "special" type of ancient woodland?  Your own failure to understand 
>what is meant by different woodland types and, especially, the 
>conservation and management of woodlands is leading you make claims like 
>"Ancient woodland should consist of trees that have stood there for 
>hundreds of years."
>
>

Which I believe most people would expect an ancient woodland to be.


>>They're bullshitting the public for money.
>>
>Ah, the word of the moment "bullshitting" :-)
>

Because that's what's happening.


>>>Woodlands are being conserved and
>>>prevented from disappearing. If you knew the first thing about woodlands
>>>you wouldn't be making such completely ill-informed remarks. This is
>>>totally on a par with your nonsense abotu woodlands not being managed.
>>>You never did get round to naming the "many" that you claimed existed.
>>>All you could come up with was a woodland you apparently own and knew
>>>nothing about, i.e. whether or not it was fenced or what the adjacent
>>>land use was.
>>
>>
>>More the problem you had, when you couldn't answer how a fence round
>>cottage garden could "manage" a ten mile radius of land on the other
>>side of the fence.  Care to answer it now?
>>
>It's a nonsense question. It doesn't deserve an answer.
>

Not at all. You said a fence controls and manages both sides.  

What a load of garbage.


>>And you deny there are fake conservationists:-((
>>
>>There's plenty of them about earning between £50 and £100k for
>>something that could be done for next to nothing.
>>
>On the planet you live on perhaps, but here on Earth, that's just silly.
>

No it's not.  Protecting trees can be done for next to nothing by
local people.


>>People don't need to become members of conservation organisations to
>>protect trees; they can do it themselves with a little effort and next
>>to no expense.
>>
>As, doubtless, many do. 

So I am on the same planet.


>However, you appear to be forgetting (or haven't 
>even thought about) that those who join conservation organisations may 
>be doing so to help the organisations do things which they can't do 
>themselves.
>

Like earn £50 - £100k for doing next to nothing they could do
themselves.


>>Malcolm, not only are the fake conservationists screwing grants;
>>they're screwing the public as well.
>>
>The poor old public. They don't believe, they don't have the slightest 
>understanding, and they're being screwed.

Glad you agree!

Can I quote you?

>Three claims that aren't based 
>on the slightest evidence merely on your biased view of conservation.

But they are based on the evidence that so-called ancient woodlands
are being promoted with no ancient trees.

A bit like a pub with no beer :-))



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)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes


snip over-use of your obsessive words "fake" and "nazi"

>
>But they are based on the evidence that so-called ancient woodlands
>are being promoted with no ancient trees.
>
The first response to your letter in The Scotsman this morning sums you 
up very well:

"What thought process is in operation that has considered this letter 
worthy of publication ?

If Mr MacMillan really does not understand that the process of restoring 
natural woodland, (through the reintroduction and replanting of native 
species within those ancient woodlands that have been allowed to 
degenerated in recent times,) is exactly what it claims to be, surely it 
ill behoves him to expose his lack of understanding of plain English in 
such a public forum."

-- 
Malcolm

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:03:16 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>
>snip over-use of your obsessive words "fake" and "nazi"
>
>>
>>But they are based on the evidence that so-called ancient woodlands
>>are being promoted with no ancient trees.
>>
>The first response to your letter in The Scotsman this morning sums you 
>up very well:
>
>"What thought process is in operation that has considered this letter 
>worthy of publication ?
>
>If Mr MacMillan really does not understand that the process of restoring 
>natural woodland, (through the reintroduction and replanting of native 
>species within those ancient woodlands that have been allowed to 
>degenerated in recent times,) is exactly what it claims to be, surely it 
>ill behoves him to expose his lack of understanding of plain English in 
>such a public forum."



:-))

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)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:03:16 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>
>>snip over-use of your obsessive words "fake" and "nazi"
>>
>>>
>>>But they are based on the evidence that so-called ancient woodlands
>>>are being promoted with no ancient trees.
>>>
>>The first response to your letter in The Scotsman this morning sums you
>>up very well:
>>
>>"What thought process is in operation that has considered this letter
>>worthy of publication ?
>>
>>If Mr MacMillan really does not understand that the process of restoring
>>natural woodland, (through the reintroduction and replanting of native
>>species within those ancient woodlands that have been allowed to
>>degenerated in recent times,) is exactly what it claims to be, surely it
>>ill behoves him to expose his lack of understanding of plain English in
>>such a public forum."
>
>
>
>:-))
>
Just as we keep telling you :-))

I see you couldn't think of anything new to say in your response to that 
regular commentator on your letters, Slioch!

-- 
Malcolm

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:57:00 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:03:16 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>
>>>
>>>snip over-use of your obsessive words "fake" and "nazi"
>>>
>>>>
>>>>But they are based on the evidence that so-called ancient woodlands
>>>>are being promoted with no ancient trees.
>>>>
>>>The first response to your letter in The Scotsman this morning sums you
>>>up very well:
>>>
>>>"What thought process is in operation that has considered this letter
>>>worthy of publication ?
>>>
>>>If Mr MacMillan really does not understand that the process of restoring
>>>natural woodland, (through the reintroduction and replanting of native
>>>species within those ancient woodlands that have been allowed to
>>>degenerated in recent times,) is exactly what it claims to be, surely it
>>>ill behoves him to expose his lack of understanding of plain English in
>>>such a public forum."
>>
>>
>>
>>:-))
>>
>Just as we keep telling you :-))
>
>I see you couldn't think of anything new to say in your response to that 
>regular commentator on your letters, Slioch!


I don't need to say anything "new".  

I am consistent in what I say.


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)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:57:00 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:03:16 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>snip over-use of your obsessive words "fake" and "nazi"
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But they are based on the evidence that so-called ancient woodlands
>>>>>are being promoted with no ancient trees.
>>>>>
>>>>The first response to your letter in The Scotsman this morning sums you
>>>>up very well:
>>>>
>>>>"What thought process is in operation that has considered this letter
>>>>worthy of publication ?
>>>>
>>>>If Mr MacMillan really does not understand that the process of restoring
>>>>natural woodland, (through the reintroduction and replanting of native
>>>>species within those ancient woodlands that have been allowed to
>>>>degenerated in recent times,) is exactly what it claims to be, surely it
>>>>ill behoves him to expose his lack of understanding of plain English in
>>>>such a public forum."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>:-))
>>>
>>Just as we keep telling you :-))
>>
>>I see you couldn't think of anything new to say in your response to that
>>regular commentator on your letters, Slioch!
>
>
>I don't need to say anything "new".
>
>I am consistent in what I say.
>
Hmm, the flaw there is that what you said has been rubbished, not just 
by me but by responses on The Scotsman website. Therefore, if you can 
say anything new you must be accepting that you have exposed your lack 
of understanding of plain English :-)


-- 
Malcolm

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:07:17 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>>
>>Ah, another well-known Angus tactic when he's been asked a question he
>>can't answer. When asked for his evidence he doesn't respond, because he
>>hasn't got any, and instead asks the questioner to produce some.
>>
>>Pathetic.
>>
>>I don't have to produce any evidence, as I've not made a claim about
>>what the public believes.
>>
>>You have. Produce your evidence.
>
>I don't have to produce anything to you, Malcolm.

Typical of Angus.  Note for Angus if you expect casual readers to even 
half believe you, you do indeed need to provide evidence of what you 
say.  The public aren't as silly as you think.  They won't fall for any 
old bull.

>
>All I need to do is to produce the idea that the public are being
>bullshitted by the conservationists.- which is what is happening.

You really are trying to treat the public with complete disregard aren't 
you. You really don't think the public are stupid enough to accept an 
idea being put forward with no evidence do you?

Oh sorry on past evidence you obviously do feel that you can con the 
public into believing your wild statements.

>
>
>>>
>>>>You're a hoot, Angus, you really are. For heaven's sake, do try and
>>>>think before you write about woodlands - or anything else for that
>>>>matter.
>>>
>>>Resort to ridicule when you're stuck, Malcolm.  That's the Nazi in you
>>>coming out.
>>>
>>Ah, the second Angus obsession appears. When he's already mentioned his
>>"fake" nonsense, he inevitably drags in the Nazis with whom he is
>>undoubtedly obsessed :-(
>
>It's not me who's obsessed.   It's principles of the fake
>conservationists that stem from Nazism..

Oh dear another of Angus' attempts to con the public.  I suspect due to 
how he uses the accusation that he thinks the public will latch on to 
the word and say to themselves "Nazis oh dear we can't have anything to 
do with them".

Doesn't he realise the public aren't that daft and they don't like the 
patronising attitude of "you will believe what I say never mind the 
proof".

>
>>
>>
>>>But the whole scam of "ancient woodlands" does look a nice little
>>>earner.
>>>
>>What "scam"?  You've read something about woodlands. You therefore
>>oppose it on principle, without in the slightest understanding what it
>>is about.
>
>The problem is the public don't have the slightest understanding
>they're being conned.


See what I mean about believe what I say.
>
>
>>
>>>Manufacturing "ancient" woodlands is probably easier to screw money
>>>out of than red squirrels and the like.
>>>
>
>>No-one is "manufacturing" anything.
>
>Of course they are.  The type of special "ancient" woodland your lot
>is promoting is little different from woodlands everywhere - except
>that there's money to be screwed out of them.
>
>They're bullshitting the public for money.

Incorrect.  However if you want an example of screwing the public for 
grants I have heard of a farmer who got a grant for planting a wood. 
Almost immediately they began to let stock graze in the wood and within 
a couple of years got a grant for reclaiming land.  All on the same 
piece of land and before you ask I don't think they knew conservation 
existed ( a bit like you I suppose).

>
>>Woodlands are being conserved and
>>prevented from disappearing. If you knew the first thing about woodlands
>>you wouldn't be making such completely ill-informed remarks. This is
>>totally on a par with your nonsense abotu woodlands not being managed.
>>You never did get round to naming the "many" that you claimed existed.
>>All you could come up with was a woodland you apparently own and knew
>>nothing about, i.e. whether or not it was fenced or what the adjacent
>>land use was.
>
>
>More the problem you had, when you couldn't answer how a fence round
>cottage garden could "manage" a ten mile radius of land on the other
>side of the fence.  Care to answer it now?

Perhaps if you were to answer the questions put to you first he might 
consider it.  Here they are again just in case they have slipped your 
mind. Has your wood got any form of fence, hedge or wall round it?  What 
is the adjacent land used for?

Care to answer them now?


-- 
Malcolm Kane

In message , Malcolm 
 writes
>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:57:00 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:03:16 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>snip over-use of your obsessive words "fake" and "nazi"
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But they are based on the evidence that so-called ancient woodlands
>>>>>>are being promoted with no ancient trees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>The first response to your letter in The Scotsman this morning sums you
>>>>>up very well:
>>>>>
>>>>>"What thought process is in operation that has considered this letter
>>>>>worthy of publication ?
>>>>>
>>>>>If Mr MacMillan really does not understand that the process of restoring
>>>>>natural woodland, (through the reintroduction and replanting of native
>>>>>species within those ancient woodlands that have been allowed to
>>>>>degenerated in recent times,) is exactly what it claims to be, surely it
>>>>>ill behoves him to expose his lack of understanding of plain English in
>>>>>such a public forum."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>:-))
>>>>
>>>Just as we keep telling you :-))
>>>
>>>I see you couldn't think of anything new to say in your response to that
>>>regular commentator on your letters, Slioch!
>>
>>
>>I don't need to say anything "new".
>>
>>I am consistent in what I say.
>>
>Hmm, the flaw there is that what you said has been rubbished, not just 
>by me but by responses on The Scotsman website. Therefore, if you can 
>say anything new you must be accepting that you have exposed your lack 
>of understanding of plain English :-)
>
>
This is yet again an example of the attitude Angus has to the "public". 
Basically it appears to be "you are so thick that all I have to do is 
put any old bullshit in front of you and demand you believe it because I 
am the great Angus."

He seems to hold the public in high disregard.
-- 
Malcolm Kane

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 07:44:27 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>
>>Have you commissioned national opinion polls on these matters? If not,
>>then all you are offering are very heavily biased claims of your own,
>>things which you would like to believe are true because of your vendetta
>>against conservation organisations, but not based on any facts.
>>
>
>No Malcolm,   The facts are there for all to see.  All it needs it for
>the flawed concept of ancient woodlands to be exposed widely.

Typical of Angus.  Casual reader note this is yet another situation 
where dear old Angus expects you to believe his wild sweeping statements 
just because he says so not because he can provide a shred of evidence.


-- 
Malcolm Kane

In article <DHbM4+BD5qgHFwmL@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane 
 writes
>>
>>
>This is yet again an example of the attitude Angus has to the "public". 
>Basically it appears to be "you are so thick that all I have to do is 
>put any old bullshit in front of you and demand you believe it because 
>I am the great Angus."
>

While at the same time he accuses conservation organisations of 
bullshitting the public. Even if they were minded to, they couldn't 
compete with his mastery of the technique :-)

-- 
Malcolm

In message <zbJ$X5AKxygHFwhW@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm 
 writes
>
>In article <DHbM4+BD5qgHFwmL@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane 
> writes
>>>
>>>
>>This is yet again an example of the attitude Angus has to the 
>>"public". Basically it appears to be "you are so thick that all I have 
>>to do is put any old bullshit in front of you and demand you believe 
>>it because I am the great Angus."
>>
>
>While at the same time he accuses conservation organisations of 
>bullshitting the public. Even if they were minded to, they couldn't 
>compete with his mastery of the technique :-)
>

LOL
-- 
Malcolm Kane