On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:51:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 17, 6:47 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:12:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Jan 17, 5:53 pm, Adam Hart  wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:55 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 15, 10:42 am, David L  wrote:
>>
>> >> > Subscribers might find it interesting to see Pete's posting history
>> >> > using this pseudonym.
>>
>> >> > Go to:http://groups.google.com/find a post by David L, click on
>> >> > "View profile" next to the name at the top of the post
>>
>> >> > Best hurry before he cancels them all, like he did for many other
>> >> > pseudonyms he has used over the years
>>
>> >> The trouble is David, when you get excited, upset and confused you
>> >> start stuttering and making a bigger fool of yourself than usual.
>>
>> >> So pete is david and david is david so who's pete?
>>
>> >Another identity crisis, Pete? Not surprising given your sexual
>> >proclivities, as revealed by those May 2004 posts to a multitude of
>> >sex groups. You really ought to be more careful about which persona
>> >posts to which group, if you don't want people (Angus apart) to know
>> >your dark little secrets.
>>
>> I think it's you who has the identity crisis.  You seem to make up
>> names as you go along.
>
>Oh, really? What names would those be?

Pete, for one.
>
>> Who's John Howard Morgan other than a sloppy scientists who seems to
>> go onto alt.telephone.sex while his computer illiterate wife keeps
>> house.
>
>There is no such ng that I can discover called alt.telephone.sex, but
>you obviously know better - as always. 

You brought it up so I presume you know all about it.  

>Is it your's and Pete's private
>website, or something? Here's what Google throws up:
>

Who's Pete?

>"No groups match alt.telephone.sex.
>Suggestions:
>

Did you make it up?


>    - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
>    - Try different keywords."
>
>So, do you want to have another stab at it?
>

Not particularly.  I think you made it up like most of what you seem
to do. 


>> Did the mayor know all about this before he asked you to stand as a
>> councillor?  Or is he an alt.telephone.sex freak as well?
>
>You'll need to ask him that, as I don't keep track of his personal
>life.
>

OK. What's his name and email address?

>Nice of you to step up to the plate for poor old keyboard warrior Pete
>when he found himself compromised through his own multiplicity of
>personae. But he's going to fancy you even more after thie above
>posting, you know.

You've a vivid imagination. 

Pity it didn't improve your science.


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)

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 17, 11:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:51:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Jan 17, 6:47 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:12:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 17, 5:53 pm, Adam Hart  wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:55 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >On Jan 15, 10:42 am, David L  wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Subscribers might find it interesting to see Pete's posting history
>> >> >> > using this pseudonym.
>>
>> >> >> > Go to:http://groups.google.com/finda post by David L, click on
>> >> >> > "View profile" next to the name at the top of the post
>>
>> >> >> > Best hurry before he cancels them all, like he did for many other
>> >> >> > pseudonyms he has used over the years
>>
>> >> >> The trouble is David, when you get excited, upset and confused you
>> >> >> start stuttering and making a bigger fool of yourself than usual.
>>
>> >> >> So pete is david and david is david so who's pete?
>>
>> >> >Another identity crisis, Pete? Not surprising given your sexual
>> >> >proclivities, as revealed by those May 2004 posts to a multitude of
>> >> >sex groups. You really ought to be more careful about which persona
>> >> >posts to which group, if you don't want people (Angus apart) to know
>> >> >your dark little secrets.
>>
>> >> I think it's you who has the identity crisis.  You seem to make up
>> >> names as you go along.
>>
>> >Oh, really? What names would those be?
>>
>> Pete, for one.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Who's John Howard Morgan other than a sloppy scientists who seems to
>> >> go onto alt.telephone.sex while his computer illiterate wife keeps
>> >> house.
>>
>> >There is no such ng that I can discover called alt.telephone.sex, but
>> >you obviously know better - as always.
>>
>> You brought it up so I presume you know all about it.
>
>Well, you presumed wrongly, didn't you? Just like you presume wrongly
>about everything to do with natural history and conservation.

So you made it up.  Did you make up all your scientific nonsense as
well?

>>
>> >Is it your's and Pete's private
>> >website, or something? Here's what Google throws up:
>>
>> Who's Pete?
>>
>> >"No groups match alt.telephone.sex.
>> >Suggestions:
>>
>> Did you make it up?
>>
>> >    - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
>> >    - Try different keywords."
>>
>> >So, do you want to have another stab at it?
>>
>> Not particularly.  I think you made it up like most of what you seem
>> to do.
>
>If you wish to verify whether or not I am lying, search for the
>profile of David L (aka too many names to list here) on "Google
>Groups" Why do I think you won't bother doing that?
>

Not particularly interested if it's more of your trolling.

>> >> Did the mayor know all about this before he asked you to stand as a
>> >> councillor?  Or is he an alt.telephone.sex freak as well?
>>
>> >You'll need to ask him that, as I don't keep track of his personal
>> >life.
>>
>> OK. What's his name and email address?
>
>I would NEVER give an addy out over Usenet, neither would I do so
>privately without asking the address owner first
>

I don't mind giving out my address.  Do you yours?


>> >Nice of you to step up to the plate for poor old keyboard warrior Pete
>> >when he found himself compromised through his own multiplicity of
>> >personae. But he's going to fancy you even more after the above
>> >posting, you know.
>>
>> You've a vivid imagination.
>>
>> Pity it didn't improve your science.
>
>If this means you are offering criticism of my recent paper, I suggest
>you write a reasoned rebuttal and send it to the editor. That's the
>way it's done.

What paper's that?

Andrex?


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)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:08:19 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 17, 11:44 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Jan 17, 11:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:51:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 17, 6:47 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>> >> >There is no such ng that I can discover called alt.telephone.sex, but
>> >> >you obviously know better - as always.
>>
>> >> You brought it up so I presume you know all about it.
>>
>> >Well, you presumed wrongly, didn't you? Just like you presume wrongly
>> >about everything to do with natural history and conservation.
>>
>> So you made it up.
>
>Nope. Just a senior moment during which the news group title I 'd
>spotted in David L.'s "Profile" (aka Pete the Perve) was not correctly
>stored in memory. Nice though, 'cos I was able to use this
>recollection error to stuff one to you.
>

No you didn't. You just made yourself look a fool.


>> Did you make up all your scientific nonsense as
>> well?
>
>You'll need to be more specific as there may be some old stuff that
>has been superseded and therefore contains hypotheses no longer
>supportable. That's how it works in science. There are no absolutes.
>Doesn't mean it was made up, although it can look that way to 'hoi
>polloi'
>




><snip>
>
>> >If you wish to verify whether or not I am lying, search for the
>> >profile of David L (aka too many names to list here) on "Google
>> >Groups" Why do I think you won't bother doing that?
>>
>> Not particularly interested if it's more of your trolling.
>
>So if I tell you it's not trolling, will you go and look it up? Or
>does the real Pete scare you a tad? You really ought to read some of
>stuff he/she/it has posted to a shed load of dodgy sounding ngs.
>Specially the pseudonyms he used at the time.

Who's Pete?


>
><snip>
>>
>> >I would NEVER give an addy out over Usenet, neither would I do so
>> >privately without asking the address owner first
>>
>> I don't mind giving out my address.  Do you yours?
>
>Not at all. But there are people who clearly do - Pete the Perve for
>one.
>

Who's Pete?


>> >> >Nice of you to step up to the plate for poor old keyboard warrior Pete
>> >> >when he found himself compromised through his own multiplicity of
>> >> >personae. But he's going to fancy you even more after the above
>> >> >posting, you know.
>>
>> >> You've a vivid imagination.
>>
>> >> Pity it didn't improve your science.
>>
>> >If this means you are offering criticism of my recent paper, I suggest
>> >you write a reasoned rebuttal and send it to the editor. That's the
>> >way it's done.
>>
>> What paper's that?
>
>Do your own research. It's not difficult to find. I refuse to be a
>self-publicist.
>
>> Andrex?
>
>Your obssesion with things excremental is becoming clearer.

Answering your posts must be something to do with it.


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)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:45:51 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 18, 5:53 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:08:19 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Jan 17, 11:44 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 17, 11:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:51:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >On Jan 17, 6:47 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>> >> >> >There is no such ng that I can discover called alt.telephone.sex, but
>> >> >> >you obviously know better - as always.
>>
>> >> >> You brought it up so I presume you know all about it.
>>
>> >> >Well, you presumed wrongly, didn't you? Just like you presume wrongly
>> >> >about everything to do with natural history and conservation.
>>
>> >> So you made it up.
>>
>> >Nope. Just a senior moment during which the news group title I 'd
>> >spotted in David L.'s "Profile" (aka Pete the Perve) was not correctly
>> >stored in memory. Nice though, 'cos I was able to use this
>> >recollection error to stuff one to you.
>>
>> No you didn't. You just made yourself look a fool.
>
>Oh yes I did.  But I won't crow about it any longer 'cos it's not that
>hard to stuff one to an easy target like you.

You've just had another senior moment.

Do dementia sufferers have to pay for their treatment in France?


>
>> >> Did you make up all your scientific nonsense as
>> >> well?
>>
>> >You'll need to be more specific as there may be some old stuff that
>> >has been superseded and therefore contains hypotheses no longer
>> >supportable. That's how it works in science. There are no absolutes.
>> >Doesn't mean it was made up, although it can look that way to 'hoi
>> >polloi'
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >If you wish to verify whether or not I am lying, search for the
>> >> >profile of David L (aka too many names to list here) on "Google
>> >> >Groups" Why do I think you won't bother doing that?
>>
>> >> Not particularly interested if it's more of your trolling.
>>
>> >So if I tell you it's not trolling, will you go and look it up? Or
>> >does the real Pete scare you a tad? You really ought to read some of
>> >stuff he/she/it has posted to a shed load of dodgy sounding ngs.
>> >Specially the pseudonyms he used at the time.
>>
>> Who's Pete?
>
>See below
>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >I would NEVER give an addy out over Usenet, neither would I do so
>> >> >privately without asking the address owner first
>>
>> >> I don't mind giving out my address.  Do you yours?
>>
>> >Not at all. But there are people who clearly do - Pete the Perve for
>> >one.
>>
>> Who's Pete?
>
>Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know.

No idea.

> I recognise that
>you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.
>

Well, who's Pete.  You keep going on about this but never come up with
any answers.

>> >> >> >Nice of you to step up to the plate for poor old keyboard warrior Pete
>> >> >> >when he found himself compromised through his own multiplicity of
>> >> >> >personae. But he's going to fancy you even more after the above
>> >> >> >posting, you know.
>>
>> >> >> You've a vivid imagination.
>>
>> >> >> Pity it didn't improve your science.
>>
>> >> >If this means you are offering criticism of my recent paper, I suggest
>> >> >you write a reasoned rebuttal and send it to the editor. That's the
>> >> >way it's done.
>>
>> >> What paper's that?
>>
>> >Do your own research. It's not difficult to find. I refuse to be a
>> >self-publicist.
>>
>> >> Andrex?
>>
>> >Your obssesion with things excremental is becoming clearer.
>>
>> Answering your posts must be something to do with it.
>
>Have you tried to stop. Oh, I forgot. You're obsessed.

Forgot again!  Definitely dementia.  Will this bring you scurrying
back to 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)

,snip>
> >
> > Who's Pete?

> Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know. I recognise that
> you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.
He doesn't do his reputation for integrity much good keep saying that.

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:02:45 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>,snip>
>> >
>> > Who's Pete?
>
>> Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know. I recognise that
>> you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.
>He doesn't do his reputation for integrity much good keep saying that.

Do you know?

And how does it feel to be a volunteer warden for a wildlife trust
that only allows £120 for maintenance for a reserve, has shooting
tenants blasting wild birds out of the sky on four of its reserves and
probably pays its CEO mega bucks.

They take you for a fool Robert and you don't see it :-)

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)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:28:00 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 19, 12:51 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:45:51 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Jan 18, 5:53 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:08:19 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 17, 11:44 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >On Jan 17, 11:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:51:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Jan 17, 6:47 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >> >There is no such ng that I can discover called alt.telephone.sex, but
>> >> >> >> >you obviously know better - as always.
>>
>> >> >> >> You brought it up so I presume you know all about it.
>>
>> >> >> >Well, you presumed wrongly, didn't you? Just like you presume wrongly
>> >> >> >about everything to do with natural history and conservation.
>>
>> >> >> So you made it up.
>>
>> >> >Nope. Just a senior moment during which the news group title I 'd
>> >> >spotted in David L.'s "Profile" (aka Pete the Perve) was not correctly
>> >> >stored in memory. Nice though, 'cos I was able to use this
>> >> >recollection error to stuff one to you.
>>
>> >> No you didn't. You just made yourself look a fool.
>>
>> >Oh yes I did.  But I won't crow about it any longer 'cos it's not that
>> >hard to stuff one to an easy target like you.
>>
>> You've just had another senior moment.
>
>Really. I don't recall that :-))
>
>> Do dementia sufferers have to pay for their treatment in France?
>
>No.
>
>> >> >> Did you make up all your scientific nonsense as
>> >> >> well?
>>
>> >> >You'll need to be more specific as there may be some old stuff that
>> >> >has been superseded and therefore contains hypotheses no longer
>> >> >supportable. That's how it works in science. There are no absolutes.
>> >> >Doesn't mean it was made up, although it can look that way to 'hoi
>> >> >polloi'
>>
>> >> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >> >If you wish to verify whether or not I am lying, search for the
>> >> >> >profile of David L (aka too many names to list here) on "Google
>> >> >> >Groups" Why do I think you won't bother doing that?
>>
>> >> >> Not particularly interested if it's more of your trolling.
>>
>> >> >So if I tell you it's not trolling, will you go and look it up? Or
>> >> >does the real Pete scare you a tad? You really ought to read some of
>> >> >stuff he/she/it has posted to a shed load of dodgy sounding ngs.
>> >> >Specially the pseudonyms he used at the time.
>>
>> >> Who's Pete?
>>
>> >See below
>>
>> >> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >> >I would NEVER give an addy out over Usenet, neither would I do so
>> >> >> >privately without asking the address owner first
>>
>> >> >> I don't mind giving out my address.  Do you yours?
>>
>> >> >Not at all. But there are people who clearly do - Pete the Perve for
>> >> >one.
>>
>> >> Who's Pete?
>>
>> >Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know.
>>
>> No idea.
>>
>> > I recognise that
>> >you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.
>>
>> Well, who's Pete.  You keep going on about this but never come up with
>> any answers.
>
>Do your own research. Everybody else here has been told to - by you,
>no less.
>
>> >> >> >> >Nice of you to step up to the plate for poor old keyboard warrior Pete
>> >> >> >> >when he found himself compromised through his own multiplicity of
>> >> >> >> >personae. But he's going to fancy you even more after the above
>> >> >> >> >posting, you know.
>>
>> >> >> >> You've a vivid imagination.
>>
>> >> >> >> Pity it didn't improve your science.
>>
>> >> >> >If this means you are offering criticism of my recent paper, I suggest
>> >> >> >you write a reasoned rebuttal and send it to the editor. That's the
>> >> >> >way it's done.
>>
>> >> >> What paper's that?
>>
>> >> >Do your own research. It's not difficult to find. I refuse to be a
>> >> >self-publicist.
>>
>> >> >> Andrex?
>>
>> >> >Your obssesion with things excremental is becoming clearer.
>>
>> >> Answering your posts must be something to do with it.
>>
>> >Have you tried to stop. Oh, I forgot. You're obsessed.
>>
>> Forgot again!  Definitely dementia.  Will this bring you scurrying
>> back to the UK?
>
>I expect you know the old Lancashire saying, " I mebbe daft, lad, but
>I airn't bludy stoopid." Just the response I need when the subject of
>return to the UK comes up.

Don't be shy we wont bite you! Again.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:28:00 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 19, 12:51 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:45:51 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Jan 18, 5:53 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:08:19 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 17, 11:44 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >On Jan 17, 11:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:51:30 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Jan 17, 6:47 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >> >There is no such ng that I can discover called alt.telephone.sex, but
>> >> >> >> >you obviously know better - as always.
>>
>> >> >> >> You brought it up so I presume you know all about it.
>>
>> >> >> >Well, you presumed wrongly, didn't you? Just like you presume wrongly
>> >> >> >about everything to do with natural history and conservation.
>>
>> >> >> So you made it up.
>>
>> >> >Nope. Just a senior moment during which the news group title I 'd
>> >> >spotted in David L.'s "Profile" (aka Pete the Perve) was not correctly
>> >> >stored in memory. Nice though, 'cos I was able to use this
>> >> >recollection error to stuff one to you.
>>
>> >> No you didn't. You just made yourself look a fool.
>>
>> >Oh yes I did.  But I won't crow about it any longer 'cos it's not that
>> >hard to stuff one to an easy target like you.
>>
>> You've just had another senior moment.
>
>Really. I don't recall that :-))

That's another one :-))
>
>> Do dementia sufferers have to pay for their treatment in France?
>
>No.
>

Even from the UK?


>> >> >> Did you make up all your scientific nonsense as
>> >> >> well?
>>
>> >> >You'll need to be more specific as there may be some old stuff that
>> >> >has been superseded and therefore contains hypotheses no longer
>> >> >supportable. That's how it works in science. There are no absolutes.
>> >> >Doesn't mean it was made up, although it can look that way to 'hoi
>> >> >polloi'
>>
>> >> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >> >If you wish to verify whether or not I am lying, search for the
>> >> >> >profile of David L (aka too many names to list here) on "Google
>> >> >> >Groups" Why do I think you won't bother doing that?
>>
>> >> >> Not particularly interested if it's more of your trolling.
>>
>> >> >So if I tell you it's not trolling, will you go and look it up? Or
>> >> >does the real Pete scare you a tad? You really ought to read some of
>> >> >stuff he/she/it has posted to a shed load of dodgy sounding ngs.
>> >> >Specially the pseudonyms he used at the time.
>>
>> >> Who's Pete?
>>
>> >See below
>>
>> >> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >> >I would NEVER give an addy out over Usenet, neither would I do so
>> >> >> >privately without asking the address owner first
>>
>> >> >> I don't mind giving out my address.  Do you yours?
>>
>> >> >Not at all. But there are people who clearly do - Pete the Perve for
>> >> >one.
>>
>> >> Who's Pete?
>>
>> >Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know.
>>
>> No idea.
>>
>> > I recognise that
>> >you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.
>>
>> Well, who's Pete.  You keep going on about this but never come up with
>> any answers.
>
>Do your own research. Everybody else here has been told to - by you,
>no less.

You obviously don't know :-))

>
>> >> >> >> >Nice of you to step up to the plate for poor old keyboard warrior Pete
>> >> >> >> >when he found himself compromised through his own multiplicity of
>> >> >> >> >personae. But he's going to fancy you even more after the above
>> >> >> >> >posting, you know.
>>
>> >> >> >> You've a vivid imagination.
>>
>> >> >> >> Pity it didn't improve your science.
>>
>> >> >> >If this means you are offering criticism of my recent paper, I suggest
>> >> >> >you write a reasoned rebuttal and send it to the editor. That's the
>> >> >> >way it's done.
>>
>> >> >> What paper's that?
>>
>> >> >Do your own research. It's not difficult to find. I refuse to be a
>> >> >self-publicist.
>>
>> >> >> Andrex?
>>
>> >> >Your obssesion with things excremental is becoming clearer.
>>
>> >> Answering your posts must be something to do with it.
>>
>> >Have you tried to stop. Oh, I forgot. You're obsessed.
>>
>> Forgot again!  Definitely dementia.  Will this bring you scurrying
>> back to the UK?
>
>I expect you know the old Lancashire saying, " I mebbe daft, lad, but
>I airn't bludy stoopid." Just the response I need when the subject of
>return to the UK comes up.


You might not have an option.  Who can tell the future?

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)

On Jan 20, 5:15 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:28:00 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>  wrote:
> >On Jan 19, 12:51 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:45:51 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Jan 18, 5:53 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:08:19 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >On Jan 17, 11:44 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), "John M."
<snip>
> >> You've just had another senior moment.
>
> >Really. I don't recall that :-))
>
> That's another one :-))

Missed 'em both. Damn :-))

> >> Do dementia sufferers have to pay for their treatment in France?
>
> >No.
>
> Even from the UK?

Who's from the UK?

> >> Well, who's Pete.  You keep going on about this but never come up with
> >> any answers.
>
> >Do your own research. Everybody else here has been told to - by you,
> >no less.
>
> You obviously don't know :-))

Just as we all know that *you* do. If that thought doesn't keep you
awake at nights, it should :-(

<snip>
> >> Forgot again!  Definitely dementia.  Will this bring you scurrying
> >> back to the UK?
>
> >I expect you know the old Lancashire saying, " I mebbe daft, lad, but
> >I airn't bludy stoopid." Just the response I need when the subject of
> >return to the UK comes up.
>
> You might not have an option.  Who can tell the future?

The French are not inclined to exile their own, if that's what you
mean by this rather cryptic line. In the past they've had to call the
Brits in to do it for them ;-)

Subscribers might find it interesting to see Pete's posting history
using another of his pseudonyms.

Go to:http://groups.google.com/ find one of the posts by David L
earlier in this thread, click on "View profile" next to the name at
the top of the post.

Best hurry before he cancels them all, like he did for many other
pseudonyms he has used over the years.

In article ,
    wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:02:45 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>  wrote:

> >,snip>
> >> >
> >> > Who's Pete?
> >
> >> Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know. I recognise that
> >> you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.
> >He doesn't do his reputation for integrity much good keep saying that.

> Do you know?
I don't care who he is.

> And how does it feel to be a volunteer warden for a wildlife trust
> that only allows £120 for maintenance for a reserve, has shooting
> tenants blasting wild birds out of the sky on four of its reserves and
> probably pays its CEO mega bucks.
If I could afford it I would give up other work to do more of it.  It is
great. 

> They take you for a fool Robert and you don't see it :-)
I take you for a miserable old stirrer Angus.

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:41:28 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:02:45 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>  wrote:
>
>> >,snip>
>> >> >
>> >> > Who's Pete?
>> >
>> >> Ten years plus on this ng and you still don't know. I recognise that
>> >> you are a bit slow on the uptake, but that long is ridiculous.
>> >He doesn't do his reputation for integrity much good keep saying that.
>
>> Do you know?
>I don't care who he is.
>
>> And how does it feel to be a volunteer warden for a wildlife trust
>> that only allows £120 for maintenance for a reserve, has shooting
>> tenants blasting wild birds out of the sky on four of its reserves and
>> probably pays its CEO mega bucks.
>If I could afford it I would give up other work to do more of it.  It is
>great. 
>
>> They take you for a fool Robert and you don't see it :-)
>I take you for a miserable old stirrer Angus.


Well, I certainly wouldn't work for a wildlife trust that kills
wildlife and allow bloodsports on its land.

If that makes me a "miserable old stirrer", I'd rather be that than an
old fool who does.


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 ,
    wrote:

> >
> >> They take you for a fool Robert and you don't see it :-)
> >I take you for a miserable old stirrer Angus.


> Well, I certainly wouldn't work for a wildlife trust that kills
> wildlife and allow bloodsports on its land.

I think we all know that.

> If that makes me a "miserable old stirrer", I'd rather be that than an
> old fool who does.

Yawn.

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/