In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 21:47:27 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:57:26 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:10:01 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 07:54:50 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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 :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bored, Malcolm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, hugely amused :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>So am I.  Looks like you regard me as an expert in something :-))
>>>>>
>>>>Yes, Angus, in bullshitting the public.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not me, Malcolm.  I don't claim to be an expert in anything.
>>>
>>What you *claim* is immaterial, Angus. The fact remains that you are an
>>expert in bullshitting the public.
>
>Not me.  All I do is expose and oppose the fakes.
>

So you claim. But as "fakes" don't exist, there's nothing to expose or 
oppose.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Talking to your sock puppet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't have one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course you do. The drivelling Penrith jeweller.
>>>>>
>>>>I don't know any jewellers in Penrith.
>>>
>>>Really?  And you so close :-)
>>>
>>A silly remark.
>>
>
>I would reckon a hand in a sock-puppet is pretty close:-))
>
It's not just "pretty close" to being a silly remark, it *is* a silly 
remark.

>
>>>>
>>>>I note your use of an abusive term and, naturally, accept your surrender
>>>>from the argument.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You'd think by now that you'd know I don't surrender.
>>>
>>Of course you would claim that, but it isn't true, like so many of your
>>claims.
>>
>
>So you say :-)
>
Absolutely.
>
>>>You're a slow learner, Malcolm.  How long did you take to get your
>>>PhD?  Was it 10 years?
>>>
>>No.
>>
>
>How long then, Malcolm from your first degree?
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Try squeezing it a bit harder and it might talk some sense:-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can't do anything like that to something I don't have.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course you can.  And if you squeeze in the right place you never
>>>>>know what precious stones might pop out :-))
>>>>>
>>>>  More silly remarks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Quite funny, I thought.
>>>
>>Your thoughts on the matter are of no consequence.
>
>According to the number of fake conservationists that pounce on me
>perhaps you're wrong.
>

What "number"?

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I see you are
>>>>>>still living in fantasy land, inventing things about people who
>>>>>>constantly get the better of you by showing up your lack of
>>>>>>understanding on conservation, woodlands, woodland management, ecology,
>>>>>>deer, squirrels, indeed anything you try and pontificate about :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>No Malcolm, just showing up the fakes for what they're worth.
>>>>>
>>>>Thank you for confirming that you are living in fantasy land as that's
>>>>the only place that your "fakes" exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's your world they live in.
>>>
>>The only "fakes" are in your fantasy land, Angus.
>>
>
>Regrettably, I don't have a fantasy land.
>
Well, as you're living in it, you wouldn't recognise it as one, would 
you?

>>>
>>>>>My pleasure :-))
>>>>>
>>>>I couldn't care less if you find it pleasurable to keep living in
>>>>fantasy land.
>>>
>>>No fantasy in my land but plenty of fakes in yours.
>>>
>>Just not true, like so much you say :-(
>
>You always say that but you can't combat my arguments effectively.
>
I do it all the time.

You start a thread with some ill-researched statement which can be 
readily challenged. But you never seem to have the required knowledge to 
respond to serious questions about what you've claimed, but instead try 
dodging the question, answering with another question, requesting the 
evidence from the person who has asked you for yours and then, 
inevitably, when you realise you can't continue to support your claim, 
you descend to childish abuse and name-calling.

>Why is that?
>
>Let's talk about management and fences:-))
>
Indeed, let's do that.

Does the woodland you own have a fence round it? And what is the 
adjoining land use?

-- 
Malcolm