Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacountry227.xml

Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?

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
>Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacoun
>try227.xml
>
>Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?
>
Duh! The muntjac evolved in China along with lots of competitors and, 
importantly, predators which don't occur here, and so as a result the 
deer are behaving differently here. Is that really too difficult for you 
to work out for yourself?

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:58:53 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacoun
>>try227.xml
>>
>>Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?
>>
>Duh! The muntjac evolved in China along with lots of competitors and, 
>importantly, predators which don't occur here, and so as a result the 
>deer are behaving differently here. Is that really too difficult for you 
>to work out for yourself?

Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?  And
I'm quite sure that foxes would have a go at muntjac calves if they
weren't shot and hunted so much. 

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, 27 Jan 2008 16:58:53 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?
>>>
>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacoun
>>>try227.xml
>>>
>>>Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?
>>>
>>Duh! The muntjac evolved in China along with lots of competitors and,
>>importantly, predators which don't occur here, and so as a result the
>>deer are behaving differently here. Is that really too difficult for you
>>to work out for yourself?
>
>Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?  And
>I'm quite sure that foxes would have a go at muntjac calves if they
>weren't shot and hunted so much.
>
Thank you for demonstrating for further ignorance about muntjac, not to 
mention foxes.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:11:52 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:58:53 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacoun
>>>>try227.xml
>>>>
>>>>Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?
>>>>
>>>Duh! The muntjac evolved in China along with lots of competitors and,
>>>importantly, predators which don't occur here, and so as a result the
>>>deer are behaving differently here. Is that really too difficult for you
>>>to work out for yourself?
>>
>>Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?  And
>>I'm quite sure that foxes would have a go at muntjac calves if they
>>weren't shot and hunted so much.
>>
>Thank you for demonstrating for further ignorance about muntjac, not to 
>mention foxes.

Foxes do take small deer.  Didn't you know?


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, 27 Jan 2008 20:11:52 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:58:53 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacoun
>>>>>try227.xml
>>>>>
>>>>>Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?
>>>>>
>>>>Duh! The muntjac evolved in China along with lots of competitors and,
>>>>importantly, predators which don't occur here, and so as a result the
>>>>deer are behaving differently here. Is that really too difficult for you
>>>>to work out for yourself?
>>>
>>>Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?  And
>>>I'm quite sure that foxes would have a go at muntjac calves if they
>>>weren't shot and hunted so much.
>>>
>>Thank you for demonstrating for further ignorance about muntjac, not to
>>mention foxes.
>
>Foxes do take small deer.  Didn't you know?
>
But obviously not enough. Didn't you know?

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:05:38 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:11:52 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:58:53 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacoun
>>>>>>try227.xml
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Duh! The muntjac evolved in China along with lots of competitors and,
>>>>>importantly, predators which don't occur here, and so as a result the
>>>>>deer are behaving differently here. Is that really too difficult for you
>>>>>to work out for yourself?
>>>>
>>>>Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?  And
>>>>I'm quite sure that foxes would have a go at muntjac calves if they
>>>>weren't shot and hunted so much.
>>>>
>>>Thank you for demonstrating for further ignorance about muntjac, not to
>>>mention foxes.
>>
>>Foxes do take small deer.  Didn't you know?
>>
>But obviously not enough. Didn't you know?

Don't suppose that has anything to do with you pro hunt nuts
slaughtering them all does it?

wrote in message 
news:8t9pp3ln7qo69nsa0qp6stmc45eb2e9fqi@4ax.com...
> Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacountry227.xml
>
> Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?
>

Of course there are. Man made pollution, abstraction and habitat loss is far 
more likely to imperil birds and trees, etc., in China than the Muntjac.

Muntjac deer at large in the UK will (of course) influence (alter) the 
ecosystems with which they interact, and some people fear that the effect 
will be one they don't particularly want. Hence, they want to manage it - 
this is the anthropocene era, after all ...

Putting my nit-picking hat on, I note the article says :-

"Britain's only other native deer, the red deer, now number 15,000."

Current estimates of the British red deer pre breeding population are around 
360,000. Perhaps 15,000 is the current estimate of the red deer population 
in England and Wales?

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:59:40 -0000, "BAC"
 wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:8t9pp3ln7qo69nsa0qp6stmc45eb2e9fqi@4ax.com...
>> Another grant screwing opportunity for fake conservationists?
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/27/eacountry227.xml
>>
>> Are there no trees, birds or insects in China because of the muntjac?
>>
>
>Of course there are. Man made pollution, abstraction and habitat loss is far 
>more likely to imperil birds and trees, etc., in China than the Muntjac.
>
>Muntjac deer at large in the UK will (of course) influence (alter) the 
>ecosystems with which they interact, and some people fear that the effect 
>will be one they don't particularly want. Hence, they want to manage it - 
>this is the anthropocene era, after all ...

Yes. As I said, "another grant screwing opportunity".

However, I think the nature control brigade will get a rude awakening
in the future when nature starts to control the human population.

>
>Putting my nit-picking hat on, I note the article says :-
>
>"Britain's only other native deer, the red deer, now number 15,000."
>
>Current estimates of the British red deer pre breeding population are around 
>360,000. Perhaps 15,000 is the current estimate of the red deer population 
>in England and Wales? 
>


That's "experts" for you!


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:
>> work out for yourself?

> Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain? 

That's exactly not what hhe said.

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

In article , Robert Seago 
 writes
>In article ,
>    wrote:
>>> work out for yourself?
>
>> Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?
>
>That's exactly not what hhe said.
>
Just a blatant bit of Macmillan garbage. Something he tries on time and 
time again. But no wonder someone so ignorant about what he chooses to 
start threads on should be reduced to asking questions which further 
expose his ignorance.

-- 
Malcolm

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:56 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , Robert Seago 
> writes
>>In article ,
>>    wrote:
>>>> work out for yourself?
>>
>>> Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?
>>
>>That's exactly not what hhe said.
>>
>Just a blatant bit of Macmillan garbage. Something he tries on time and 
>time again. But no wonder someone so ignorant about what he chooses to 
>start threads on should be reduced to asking questions which further 
>expose his ignorance.

If you're talking about ignorance, that's where you are in a class of
your own.

Ignorance like:

_________________________________

Malcolm:  
No, Angus, that's just you wriggling again. You used a specific term,
"sock-puppet", on the internet and, as that term has no meaning other
than that used on the internet, you must expect people to think that
that's the meaning you were attributing to it.

Angus:
Complete rubbish! See above.

Malcolm:
No, Angus, a fact. Unless of course you can find a definition of 
sock-puppet as being the same as glove-puppet.

Angus:
From Wikipedia:

"Simple hand puppets are usually not much larger than the hand itself.
A sock puppet is a particularly simple type of hand puppet made from a
sock. A glove puppet is slightly more complex, with an internal
division for fingers allowing independent manipulation of a
character's arms.

______________________________

or prejudice like:


_____________________________

Internet posting to Malcolm Kane of Penrith from Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie


"Malcolm, it must be what a teacher feels like after trying to drum
something into the head of the dullard who is going to leave school
with a single 'O' grade. There's only so much that someone so
intellectually challenged can understand. The problem will come in
later life, when an inability to grasp concepts, not to mention be
able to understand the meanings of words, will seriously let them
down, to the point when, how ever often they are told something, they
merely repeat, as a rote, statements and claims which they think are
very telling but, in fact, were meaningless or just plain wrong the
first time, and continue to be so regardless of how many times they
are repeated. The situation will be even worse if, during their lives,
they have gained absolutely no personal knowledge of the subjects
about which they spout and thus are completely unable to comprehend
anyone who points out that their ignorance is letting them down."

Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie
Scientific Adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage
On Internet Newsgroup uk.environment.conservation
Date: Mon,18 Sept 2006 07:32;30 +0100

Comment:  	A  nasty prejudiced and unwarranted attack on kids 
		leaving school with one O Grade.

___________________________

Or dimness of mind when he can't understand a question:

__________________________

Malcolm Ogilvie aka Dr Thick is confused about his measure of
intelligence.

A Macmillan:  "Do you think you don't have limited intelligence?"

Dr Thick:  "What a contorted question. The answer is yes. What about
yourself?"

___________________________

Or confusion about what is natural

__________________________

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"The grey squirrel, on the other hand, is an invasive non-native
introduced from North America."

Angus Macmillan:
"In perfectly natural circumstances, unless you exclude man from
nature."  

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"More nonsensical rubbish."

Angus Macmillan:
"Are you saying that man is outside nature and that his actions are
not natural?"

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"Are you claiming that ships are natural objects?"

Angus Macmillan:
"Of course they are.  They are a product of man's evolution and made
entirely of natural materials."

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"LOL!!!!  

You're a card, Angus, a real card :-))))

Since when have manufactured materials, for example, steel, been
"natural"?"

Angus Macmillan:
"Steel and manufacturing are products of man's evolution and consists
of entirely natural materials.

I am gob-smacked at your ignorance in this matter."

__________________________

Or when all else fails:

_________________________

Angus:   Is this where you tell me to "f****" off" like the last time
I mentioned your air ambulance trip?

 Malcolm:  Yes, if you like. Fuck off, Angus. 

_________________________


Now, that really good ignorance, Malcolm :-))


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)

wrote in message
news:2pcsp35foum3kvvcj8q6qec3ogdvqacau4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:56 +0000, Malcolm
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >In article , Robert Seago
> > writes
> >>In article ,
> >>    wrote:
> >>>> work out for yourself?
> >>
> >>> Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?
> >>
> >>That's exactly not what hhe said.
> >>
> >Just a blatant bit of Macmillan garbage. Something he tries on time and
> >time again. But no wonder someone so ignorant about what he chooses to
> >start threads on should be reduced to asking questions which further
> >expose his ignorance.
>
> If you're talking about ignorance, that's where you are in a class of
> your own.
>
> Ignorance like:

Ignorance, (convenient) memory loss and a whole lot more from Angus below........
Read and weep with laughter

Angus text in quotes
*************************************************************************************

First we have Angus with the short/long term memory loss..

He can't remember what he calls his Range Rover..........

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Native Species?
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:10:30 +0000
Lines: 134
Message-ID: 

>If you knew anything about cars you would know that RR doesn't stand for Range
Rover.


"OK, then RR doesn't stand for Range Rover......or does it?"

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 10 Apr 2004 08:02:12 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: More fake conservation!
Message-ID: 

>Subject: Re: More fake conservation!

"The impact of one of these fools travelling to the UK damages the environment more
that I do in a year with my RR."

Hmm, changed your mid Angus?  So RR now means Range Rover.



From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 25 Feb 2004 21:44:23 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Withdraw government funding from the fakes?
Message-ID: 

">I'm not defensive at all aboout my RR."

Hmm, still calling your Range Rover "RR"


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 27 Feb 2004 00:49:28 GMT
References: <c1lacv$eif$1@titan.btinternet.com>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Withdraw government funding from the fakes?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: 

"It's the same thing. If fuel was £5 a litre many people would reduce their
mileage or buy more economical  cars.  I have done so already by buying the
most economical RR. "

Oops. have you forgotten what you said earlier Angus?
Shall I repeat it for you?
OK, you said "If you knew anything about cars you would know that RR doesn't stand
for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover
Date: 13 Nov 2001 23:10:08 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: What are they doing to the new Range Rover?
Message-ID: 

>No separate chassis
>No manual option
>No cloth seats

">Are they trying to kill off the the traditional RR user and going only for the
poser
market?

">The off-road capability is irrelevant. There are many on-road cars that consume a
great deal more fuel than my RR."

Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 26 Jul 2001 17:55:05 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: A reply about foxhunting from the RSPB
Message-ID: 

">What MPG do the above do in comparison with my RR?"

Nope, still calling a Range Rover a RR.


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover
Date: 27 Apr 2001 07:40:11 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Help!!!  Range Rover rear axle click
Message-ID: 

">PS I not a RR poser with no idea of mechanics."

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: What I s sustainable development?
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:25:13 +0100
Lines: 226
Message-ID: 

">I'm not avoiding anything. It's you who says I shouldn't use my RR - not me."

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: What I s sustainable development?
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:01:15 +0100
Lines: 392
Message-ID: 

">I could use a petrol RR instead of a diesel:-))"

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."

*************************************************************************************

And now onto the selfish double standards..

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.birdwatching
Date: 02 Apr 2002 15:46:35 GMT
References: <a82tqs$9m5$2@helle.btinternet.com>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Six of the Worst?
Message-ID: 

">All birds have a right to live whether you want to see them or not!"

Highly laudible of you Angus.

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 25 Feb 2003 21:37:35 GMT
References: <BC3H31AGxxW+EwBv@blencathra.org.uk>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Goose shooting at Loch Leven
Message-ID: 

">I have been honest enough to say that I eat the occasional chinese meal with
chicken."

OK, either chickens are not part of "All birds"  - they were birds last time I looked
at one on a plate - or only when it suits you to eat them.  I'm disappointed in you
Angus - I thought you had the courage of your convictions.
So from this we can see that it is OK for Angus to approve the killing of birds for
his own prandial pleasure. Remember he will also kill things which threaten him as he
has said in the past.   So it's a case of I'm alright Jack and sod everything else.

*************************************************************************************

Next he gets seriously confused about manmade, natural and artificial - or else it is
more of his double standards - use whichever meaning to suit his latest "campaign".

So folks, here we go with Angus and his take on man versus nature.


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Shrinking nativeness :-(
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:14:27 +0000
Lines: 596
Message-ID: 


"But he doesn't. He colonises regions by artificial means."

>>>>>And how many "native" plant seeds might have been transported and
>>>>>dropped out of the rectums of birds to regions that the trees couldn't
>>>>>travel to by themselves.

>>>>But only by its own means, Angus. Many plant seeds have evolved to
>>>>survive the passage through a bird or animal's gut and still be viable,
>>>>and hence help them extend their ranges.

>>>But not transported by their own means.

>>Yes, Angus, because the seeds have evolved to be attractive to animals and birds.

">But they are still not transported by their own means."

So we can take it from this that Angus thinks man's impact is "artifical".

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Natural.
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:57:55 +0000
Lines: 86
Message-ID: 

"It's a question of how these "artificial" compounds came about.  It is the evolution
of the human mind that is responsible for them and therefore they are a product of a
perfectly natural process and using natural materials as ingredients. "

OK, now man's impact is entirely natural.  I'm getting as confused as he is !

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Natural.
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:58:11 +0000
Lines: 40
Message-ID: 

"On the other hand, I believe everything on the planet is natural and every action of
man is natural - including the design and building of ships - because they are
products of his evolution."

 Angus is still thinking man's actions are "natural"

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: A letter I agree with
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:27:12 +0100
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 

"I was struck by a feeling of being in a manufactured and artificial
environment where the woodland picture was evident but lacking
expected wildlife."

OK, I hope you're all keeping up here.  Angus is now back to thinking man's impact is
"artificial"

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Steall paths and rope bridge
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:29:00 +0100
Lines: 43
Message-ID: 

Steall paths and rope bridge are man made.

They should comply with safety regulations of any other man made
structure.

The paths should have safety rails where the pass steep drops and the
bridge should be removed.and replaced with a safe walking bridge.

>Do you really have nothing better to do?

"I think it's an interesting point. These are not natural structures as
are many paths on JMT land I believe."

On a roll, eh Angus - you've found a definition and you're sticking with it....aren't
you?

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: A letter I agree with ..
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:16:29 +0000
Lines: 352
Message-ID: 

"So is man, his tools and inventions, and his actions, not part of nature?   Of
course they are!  Everything we do is part of nature as we have evolved to pur
present position. "

Oh dear - changed our minds again have we Angus?  Now man's actions and impact are
natural again.
Maybe you'd better sleep on it and come back to us when you've made up your mind.

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,uk.rec.gardening
Subject: Re: Who is Responsible for the Size of Our Deer Population?
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:03:01 +0100
Lines: 142
Message-ID: 


>And thereby give encouragement to landowners and keepers who want to
>cull birds of prey :-((

"Not at all, because their breeding systems are not natural nor is the introduction
of birds of prey."

Ah, but I though that as man's actions were natural...or was it
artifical/manmade.....or was it..... I'm confused again....



From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Time to Pay!
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:48:08 +0000
Lines: 82
Message-ID: 

"If one considers man to be an integral part of nature we must accept that all we do
is natural in respect of (debateably) improving our habitat

The closest parallel to man's motorways, bridges  and cities that I can think of
might well be displayed by the activities of ants; which I'm sure everybody would
regard as natural.

So in this respect I would say everything we do or build can be described as within
the natural environment."

OK, so now you say man's actions are natural.  My head's in a spin!

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Protection of the public
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:30 +0100
Lines: 339
Message-ID: 

"I love your lack of logic.  One the one hand your include man in nature but when it
suits you, you change tack. "

Oh the irony!!!  Sadly it probably escapes Angus



From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Protection of the public
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:30 +0100
Lines: 339
Message-ID: 

>Yes but humans are also part of the "natural world". The concept of  "nature"
separate from humans is some kind of ridiculous idealised, >subjective viewpoint that
many people like yourself have adopted.

"I have never adopted that. "

I think you'd better read what you've written. :-)

*************************************************************************************



And then we have Angus the ignorant......

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:38:32 +0100
Lines: 460
Message-ID: 

"CO2 emmissions are a result of using energy."

Classic!

*************************************************************************************

And then we have Angus the liar......

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:38:32 +0100
Lines: 460
Message-ID: 


>>>I did. You quoted from a website which had some inaccurate facts on it
>>>about another species.
>>>
>>
>>What did I say about the website?
>>
>Read your own posts.

""I didn't "quote from the website"."


From: Malcolm 
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:56:46 +0100
Organization: MAO
Lines: 528
Sender: Malcolm Ogilvie 
Message-ID: 

This is what you posted:

.........................................................................
....
 From the Isle of Wight

"Red Squirrels: Red Squirrels find the environment especially to their
liking, the Island being almost the last bastion for them in the south
of England. It is popularly supposed that grey squirrels drive out the
red variety. But greys tend rather to move into Red territory which -
for reasons yet understood - the red squirrels have already vacated.
Nevertheless, the Solent forms a protective barrier enabling the red
variety to flourish."
.........................................................................
....


This is what is written on the website:

"Red Squirrels: Red Squirrels find the environment especially to their
liking, the Island being almost the last bastion for them in the south
of England. It is popularly supposed that grey squirrels drive out the
red variety. But greys tend rather to move into Red territory which -
for reasons yet understood - the red squirrels have already vacated.
Nevertheless, the Solent forms a protective barrier enabling the red
variety to flourish."


If you didn't quote from the website, you are exhibiting an
extraordinary capacity for writing exactly the same words as someone
else.

*************************************************************************************

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:04:36 +0000
Lines: 213
Message-ID: ol1fj3ljervhlu69cu2nprh3ocehja4i95@4ax.com>If you disagree, then tell us
how you would go about counting the
>squirrels on Anglesey. You've claimed it requires "constant monitoring",
>but despite being asked repeatedly, have been unable to say what you
>mean by that. It seems you don't know, in which case how can you
>possibly know whether the figure of 200 was accurate to the nearest one
>squirrel.

"Very simply, I would lie and say there was any specific figure if I
couldn't count them."

Oh dear! - an admitted liar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

Now we come to Angus and his lack of a grasp of the English language

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:50:31 +0000
Lines: 473
Message-ID: 3c57j3pjqqkba16guv5pqkb7hnrlc4u407@4ax.com>

>It is a vital tool in conservation.

Another stolen word!   Counting something was never really a "tool".


Well, I suppose he only got "O" grade Arithmetic (or was it Mathematics)."O" grade
English obviously evaded him let alone a basic understanding of the English language.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------

Next we have Angus the arrogant. All mouth and no knowledge.

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:15:47 +0000
Lines: 385
Message-ID: 

>>  Anyway, what so scientific about counting
>>animals?
>>
>Try it and see. And then try it again and see. And then again and again,
>until you are regularly (as opposed to constantly) monitoring a
>population. But before you start you will, of course, have chosen the
>type of monitoring most suitable to, e.g., the species concerned, the
>habitat, the time available, and what you are actually setting out to
>achieve, whether a total count or a sample from which you can calculate
>a total.

>And if the latter, you will have also needed to decide what
>sample size will give you a sufficiently accurate total to be
>meaningful, and be sufficiently repeatable. Sampling can include for
>different species, fixed area surveys (e.g. presence/absence in 1- or
>10-km squares), transects, point counts, physical signs of presence,
>timed counts, calls, capture-mark-recapture, etc., etc. You may want to
>attempt to sample equally from the whole of the range, or you may
>consider that stratified sampling, or indeed stratified random sampling,
>may be more efficient and give you sufficiently accurate results. There
>are several statistical tests which will help you decide as well as a
>wealth of published papers showing what other scientists did. There is
>indeed a whole book devoted to the different methods of counting birds,
>explaining which is the most appropriate for different species or in
>different circumstances.
>
>It doesn't stop there, because if the totals from each of your counts
>are to be comparable and enable one to record changes (which is what you
>correctly said monitoring is about), then the methodology (you do know
>what I mean by methodology, I hope!) has to be standardised (you do know
>what I mean by standardised, I hope!), and if changes at your site are
>to be compared with changes at other sites then the methodology at all
>the sites has to be standardised across them. You have to know whether,
>if you've decided on a total count, you are definitely seeing every
>single animal, or if a sample that your sampling technique in the field
>is achieving your intentions. You have to know the statistical tests
>which can, and cannot, be applied to your data, and how to apply them.
>You have to know the correct way to present your results in order to
>demonstrate that your results are as accurate as possible. And so on and
>so on. That's not an inclusive description above.
>
>Do you think you could do any of that?
>

"Very easily and get the same junk out of it as you do" .

So now we can sit back and wait while Angus decides on his monitoring protocol,
decides which statistical tests to apply to his data for analysis and how to present
his data.  Methinks it will be a looooooong wait while he runs off (not) to find out
what standard deviation means!

Absolute classic!

--
Pete

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:14:04 -0000, "Pete" 
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news:2pcsp35foum3kvvcj8q6qec3ogdvqacau4@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:56 +0000, Malcolm
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >In article , Robert Seago
>> > writes
>> >>In article ,
>> >>    wrote:
>> >>>> work out for yourself?
>> >>
>> >>> Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?
>> >>
>> >>That's exactly not what hhe said.
>> >>
>> >Just a blatant bit of Macmillan garbage. Something he tries on time and
>> >time again. But no wonder someone so ignorant about what he chooses to
>> >start threads on should be reduced to asking questions which further
>> >expose his ignorance.
>>
>> If you're talking about ignorance, that's where you are in a class of
>> your own.
>>
>> Ignorance like:
>
>Ignorance

Is bliss yeah we know! Only I have news for you ignoramus, it isn't.

"Adam Hart"  wrote in message
news:bhhsp3hm7n0delhmn62k6r69khbft5nmde@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:14:04 -0000, "Pete" 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> >news:2pcsp35foum3kvvcj8q6qec3ogdvqacau4@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:56 +0000, Malcolm
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >In article , Robert Seago
> >> > writes
> >> >>In article ,
> >> >>    wrote:
> >> >>>> work out for yourself?
> >> >>
> >> >>> Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?
> >> >>
> >> >>That's exactly not what hhe said.
> >> >>
> >> >Just a blatant bit of Macmillan garbage. Something he tries on time and
> >> >time again. But no wonder someone so ignorant about what he chooses to
> >> >start threads on should be reduced to asking questions which further
> >> >expose his ignorance.
> >>
> >> If you're talking about ignorance, that's where you are in a class of
> >> your own.
> >>
> >> Ignorance like:
> >
> >Ignorance
>
> Is bliss yeah we know!

If you say so, Pete.  You must be incredibly blissful, you and Angus together
wallowing in complete blissful ignorance.  Ah, sweet.

Seeing as how you've snipped my post, I've reinstated it.


Angus text in quotes
*************************************************************************************

First we have Angus with the short/long term memory loss..

He can't remember what he calls his Range Rover..........

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Native Species?
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:10:30 +0000
Lines: 134
Message-ID: 

>If you knew anything about cars you would know that RR doesn't stand for Range
Rover.


"OK, then RR doesn't stand for Range Rover......or does it?"

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 10 Apr 2004 08:02:12 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: More fake conservation!
Message-ID: 

>Subject: Re: More fake conservation!

"The impact of one of these fools travelling to the UK damages the environment more
that I do in a year with my RR."

Hmm, changed your mid Angus?  So RR now means Range Rover.



From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 25 Feb 2004 21:44:23 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Withdraw government funding from the fakes?
Message-ID: 

">I'm not defensive at all aboout my RR."

Hmm, still calling your Range Rover "RR"


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 27 Feb 2004 00:49:28 GMT
References: <c1lacv$eif$1@titan.btinternet.com>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Withdraw government funding from the fakes?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: 

"It's the same thing. If fuel was £5 a litre many people would reduce their
mileage or buy more economical  cars.  I have done so already by buying the
most economical RR. "

Oops. have you forgotten what you said earlier Angus?
Shall I repeat it for you?
OK, you said "If you knew anything about cars you would know that RR doesn't stand
for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover
Date: 13 Nov 2001 23:10:08 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: What are they doing to the new Range Rover?
Message-ID: 

>No separate chassis
>No manual option
>No cloth seats

">Are they trying to kill off the the traditional RR user and going only for the
poser
market?

">The off-road capability is irrelevant. There are many on-road cars that consume a
great deal more fuel than my RR."

Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 26 Jul 2001 17:55:05 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: A reply about foxhunting from the RSPB
Message-ID: 

">What MPG do the above do in comparison with my RR?"

Nope, still calling a Range Rover a RR.


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover
Date: 27 Apr 2001 07:40:11 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Help!!!  Range Rover rear axle click
Message-ID: 

">PS I not a RR poser with no idea of mechanics."

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: What I s sustainable development?
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:25:13 +0100
Lines: 226
Message-ID: 

">I'm not avoiding anything. It's you who says I shouldn't use my RR - not me."

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: What I s sustainable development?
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:01:15 +0100
Lines: 392
Message-ID: 

">I could use a petrol RR instead of a diesel:-))"

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."

*************************************************************************************

And now onto the selfish double standards..

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.birdwatching
Date: 02 Apr 2002 15:46:35 GMT
References: <a82tqs$9m5$2@helle.btinternet.com>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Six of the Worst?
Message-ID: 

">All birds have a right to live whether you want to see them or not!"

Highly laudible of you Angus.

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 25 Feb 2003 21:37:35 GMT
References: <BC3H31AGxxW+EwBv@blencathra.org.uk>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Goose shooting at Loch Leven
Message-ID: 

">I have been honest enough to say that I eat the occasional chinese meal with
chicken."

OK, either chickens are not part of "All birds"  - they were birds last time I looked
at one on a plate - or only when it suits you to eat them.  I'm disappointed in you
Angus - I thought you had the courage of your convictions.
So from this we can see that it is OK for Angus to approve the killing of birds for
his own prandial pleasure. Remember he will also kill things which threaten him as he
has said in the past.   So it's a case of I'm alright Jack and sod everything else.

*************************************************************************************

Next he gets seriously confused about manmade, natural and artificial - or else it is
more of his double standards - use whichever meaning to suit his latest "campaign".

So folks, here we go with Angus and his take on man versus nature.


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Shrinking nativeness :-(
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:14:27 +0000
Lines: 596
Message-ID: 


"But he doesn't. He colonises regions by artificial means."

>>>>>And how many "native" plant seeds might have been transported and
>>>>>dropped out of the rectums of birds to regions that the trees couldn't
>>>>>travel to by themselves.

>>>>But only by its own means, Angus. Many plant seeds have evolved to
>>>>survive the passage through a bird or animal's gut and still be viable,
>>>>and hence help them extend their ranges.

>>>But not transported by their own means.

>>Yes, Angus, because the seeds have evolved to be attractive to animals and birds.

">But they are still not transported by their own means."

So we can take it from this that Angus thinks man's impact is "artifical".

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Natural.
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:57:55 +0000
Lines: 86
Message-ID: 

"It's a question of how these "artificial" compounds came about.  It is the evolution
of the human mind that is responsible for them and therefore they are a product of a
perfectly natural process and using natural materials as ingredients. "

OK, now man's impact is entirely natural.  I'm getting as confused as he is !

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Natural.
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:58:11 +0000
Lines: 40
Message-ID: 

"On the other hand, I believe everything on the planet is natural and every action of
man is natural - including the design and building of ships - because they are
products of his evolution."

 Angus is still thinking man's actions are "natural"

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: A letter I agree with
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:27:12 +0100
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 

"I was struck by a feeling of being in a manufactured and artificial
environment where the woodland picture was evident but lacking
expected wildlife."

OK, I hope you're all keeping up here.  Angus is now back to thinking man's impact is
"artificial"

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Steall paths and rope bridge
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:29:00 +0100
Lines: 43
Message-ID: 

Steall paths and rope bridge are man made.

They should comply with safety regulations of any other man made
structure.

The paths should have safety rails where the pass steep drops and the
bridge should be removed.and replaced with a safe walking bridge.

>Do you really have nothing better to do?

"I think it's an interesting point. These are not natural structures as
are many paths on JMT land I believe."

On a roll, eh Angus - you've found a definition and you're sticking with it....aren't
you?

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: A letter I agree with ..
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:16:29 +0000
Lines: 352
Message-ID: 

"So is man, his tools and inventions, and his actions, not part of nature?   Of
course they are!  Everything we do is part of nature as we have evolved to pur
present position. "

Oh dear - changed our minds again have we Angus?  Now man's actions and impact are
natural again.
Maybe you'd better sleep on it and come back to us when you've made up your mind.

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,uk.rec.gardening
Subject: Re: Who is Responsible for the Size of Our Deer Population?
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:03:01 +0100
Lines: 142
Message-ID: 


>And thereby give encouragement to landowners and keepers who want to
>cull birds of prey :-((

"Not at all, because their breeding systems are not natural nor is the introduction
of birds of prey."

Ah, but I though that as man's actions were natural...or was it
artifical/manmade.....or was it..... I'm confused again....



From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Time to Pay!
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:48:08 +0000
Lines: 82
Message-ID: 

"If one considers man to be an integral part of nature we must accept that all we do
is natural in respect of (debateably) improving our habitat

The closest parallel to man's motorways, bridges  and cities that I can think of
might well be displayed by the activities of ants; which I'm sure everybody would
regard as natural.

So in this respect I would say everything we do or build can be described as within
the natural environment."

OK, so now you say man's actions are natural.  My head's in a spin!

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Protection of the public
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:30 +0100
Lines: 339
Message-ID: 

"I love your lack of logic.  One the one hand your include man in nature but when it
suits you, you change tack. "

Oh the irony!!!  Sadly it probably escapes Angus



From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Protection of the public
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:30 +0100
Lines: 339
Message-ID: 

>Yes but humans are also part of the "natural world". The concept of  "nature"
separate from humans is some kind of ridiculous idealised, >subjective viewpoint that
many people like yourself have adopted.

"I have never adopted that. "

I think you'd better read what you've written. :-)

*************************************************************************************



And then we have Angus the ignorant......

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:38:32 +0100
Lines: 460
Message-ID: 

"CO2 emmissions are a result of using energy."

Classic!

*************************************************************************************

And then we have Angus the liar......

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:38:32 +0100
Lines: 460
Message-ID: 


>>>I did. You quoted from a website which had some inaccurate facts on it
>>>about another species.
>>>
>>
>>What did I say about the website?
>>
>Read your own posts.

""I didn't "quote from the website"."


From: Malcolm 
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:56:46 +0100
Organization: MAO
Lines: 528
Sender: Malcolm Ogilvie 
Message-ID: 

This is what you posted:

.........................................................................
....
 From the Isle of Wight

"Red Squirrels: Red Squirrels find the environment especially to their
liking, the Island being almost the last bastion for them in the south
of England. It is popularly supposed that grey squirrels drive out the
red variety. But greys tend rather to move into Red territory which -
for reasons yet understood - the red squirrels have already vacated.
Nevertheless, the Solent forms a protective barrier enabling the red
variety to flourish."
.........................................................................
....


This is what is written on the website:

"Red Squirrels: Red Squirrels find the environment especially to their
liking, the Island being almost the last bastion for them in the south
of England. It is popularly supposed that grey squirrels drive out the
red variety. But greys tend rather to move into Red territory which -
for reasons yet understood - the red squirrels have already vacated.
Nevertheless, the Solent forms a protective barrier enabling the red
variety to flourish."


If you didn't quote from the website, you are exhibiting an
extraordinary capacity for writing exactly the same words as someone
else.

*************************************************************************************

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:04:36 +0000
Lines: 213
Message-ID: ol1fj3ljervhlu69cu2nprh3ocehja4i95@4ax.com>If you disagree, then tell us
how you would go about counting the
>squirrels on Anglesey. You've claimed it requires "constant monitoring",
>but despite being asked repeatedly, have been unable to say what you
>mean by that. It seems you don't know, in which case how can you
>possibly know whether the figure of 200 was accurate to the nearest one
>squirrel.

"Very simply, I would lie and say there was any specific figure if I
couldn't count them."

Oh dear! - an admitted liar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

Now we come to Angus and his lack of a grasp of the English language

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:50:31 +0000
Lines: 473
Message-ID: 3c57j3pjqqkba16guv5pqkb7hnrlc4u407@4ax.com>

>It is a vital tool in conservation.

Another stolen word!   Counting something was never really a "tool".


Well, I suppose he only got "O" grade Arithmetic (or was it Mathematics)."O" grade
English obviously evaded him let alone a basic understanding of the English language.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------

Next we have Angus the arrogant. All mouth and no knowledge.

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:15:47 +0000
Lines: 385
Message-ID: 

>>  Anyway, what so scientific about counting
>>animals?
>>
>Try it and see. And then try it again and see. And then again and again,
>until you are regularly (as opposed to constantly) monitoring a
>population. But before you start you will, of course, have chosen the
>type of monitoring most suitable to, e.g., the species concerned, the
>habitat, the time available, and what you are actually setting out to
>achieve, whether a total count or a sample from which you can calculate
>a total.

>And if the latter, you will have also needed to decide what
>sample size will give you a sufficiently accurate total to be
>meaningful, and be sufficiently repeatable. Sampling can include for
>different species, fixed area surveys (e.g. presence/absence in 1- or
>10-km squares), transects, point counts, physical signs of presence,
>timed counts, calls, capture-mark-recapture, etc., etc. You may want to
>attempt to sample equally from the whole of the range, or you may
>consider that stratified sampling, or indeed stratified random sampling,
>may be more efficient and give you sufficiently accurate results. There
>are several statistical tests which will help you decide as well as a
>wealth of published papers showing what other scientists did. There is
>indeed a whole book devoted to the different methods of counting birds,
>explaining which is the most appropriate for different species or in
>different circumstances.
>
>It doesn't stop there, because if the totals from each of your counts
>are to be comparable and enable one to record changes (which is what you
>correctly said monitoring is about), then the methodology (you do know
>what I mean by methodology, I hope!) has to be standardised (you do know
>what I mean by standardised, I hope!), and if changes at your site are
>to be compared with changes at other sites then the methodology at all
>the sites has to be standardised across them. You have to know whether,
>if you've decided on a total count, you are definitely seeing every
>single animal, or if a sample that your sampling technique in the field
>is achieving your intentions. You have to know the statistical tests
>which can, and cannot, be applied to your data, and how to apply them.
>You have to know the correct way to present your results in order to
>demonstrate that your results are as accurate as possible. And so on and
>so on. That's not an inclusive description above.
>
>Do you think you could do any of that?
>

"Very easily and get the same junk out of it as you do" .

So now we can sit back and wait while Angus decides on his monitoring protocol,
decides which statistical tests to apply to his data for analysis and how to present
his data.  Methinks it will be a looooooong wait while he runs off (not) to find out
what standard deviation means!

Absolute classic!

--
Pete

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:14:04 -0000, "Pete" 
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news:2pcsp35foum3kvvcj8q6qec3ogdvqacau4@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:56 +0000, Malcolm
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >In article , Robert Seago
>> > writes
>> >>In article ,
>> >>    wrote:
>> >>>> work out for yourself?
>> >>
>> >>> Garbage.  Are you saying that muntjac only eat bark in Britain?
>> >>
>> >>That's exactly not what hhe said.
>> >>
>> >Just a blatant bit of Macmillan garbage. Something he tries on time and
>> >time again. But no wonder someone so ignorant about what he chooses to
>> >start threads on should be reduced to asking questions which further
>> >expose his ignorance.
>>
>> If you're talking about ignorance, that's where you are in a class of
>> your own.
>>
>> Ignorance like:
>
>Ignorance, (convenient) memory loss and a whole lot more from Angus below........
>Read and weep with laughter
>
>Angus text in quotes
>*************************************************************************************
>
>First we have Angus with the short/long term memory loss..
>
>He can't remember what he calls his Range Rover..........
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: Native Species?
>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:10:30 +0000
>Lines: 134
>Message-ID: 
>
>>If you knew anything about cars you would know that RR doesn't stand for Range
>Rover.
>
>
>"OK, then RR doesn't stand for Range Rover......or does it?"
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Date: 10 Apr 2004 08:02:12 GMT
>References: 
>Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
>Subject: Re: More fake conservation!
>Message-ID: 
>
>>Subject: Re: More fake conservation!
>
>"The impact of one of these fools travelling to the UK damages the environment more
>that I do in a year with my RR."
>
>Hmm, changed your mid Angus?  So RR now means Range Rover.
>
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Date: 25 Feb 2004 21:44:23 GMT
>References: 
>Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
>Subject: Re: Withdraw government funding from the fakes?
>Message-ID: 
>
>">I'm not defensive at all aboout my RR."
>
>Hmm, still calling your Range Rover "RR"
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Date: 27 Feb 2004 00:49:28 GMT
>References: <c1lacv$eif$1@titan.btinternet.com>
>Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
>Subject: Re: Withdraw government funding from the fakes?
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Message-ID: 
>
>"It's the same thing. If fuel was £5 a litre many people would reduce their
>mileage or buy more economical  cars.  I have done so already by buying the
>most economical RR. "
>
>Oops. have you forgotten what you said earlier Angus?
>Shall I repeat it for you?
>OK, you said "If you knew anything about cars you would know that RR doesn't stand
>for Range Rover."
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover
>Date: 13 Nov 2001 23:10:08 GMT
>Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
>Subject: What are they doing to the new Range Rover?
>Message-ID: 
>
>>No separate chassis
>>No manual option
>>No cloth seats
>
>">Are they trying to kill off the the traditional RR user and going only for the
>poser
>market?
>
>">The off-road capability is irrelevant. There are many on-road cars that consume a
>great deal more fuel than my RR."
>
>Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
>would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Date: 26 Jul 2001 17:55:05 GMT
>References: 
>Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
>Subject: Re: A reply about foxhunting from the RSPB
>Message-ID: 
>
>">What MPG do the above do in comparison with my RR?"
>
>Nope, still calling a Range Rover a RR.
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover
>Date: 27 Apr 2001 07:40:11 GMT
>Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
>Subject: Help!!!  Range Rover rear axle click
>Message-ID: 
>
>">PS I not a RR poser with no idea of mechanics."
>
>And again!
>Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
>would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: What I s sustainable development?
>Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:25:13 +0100
>Lines: 226
>Message-ID: 
>
>">I'm not avoiding anything. It's you who says I shouldn't use my RR - not me."
>
>And again!
>Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
>would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: What I s sustainable development?
>Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:01:15 +0100
>Lines: 392
>Message-ID: 
>
>">I could use a petrol RR instead of a diesel:-))"
>
>And again!
>Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
>would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."
>
>*************************************************************************************
>
>And now onto the selfish double standards..
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>Newsgroups: uk.rec.birdwatching
>Date: 02 Apr 2002 15:46:35 GMT
>References: <a82tqs$9m5$2@helle.btinternet.com>
>Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
>Subject: Re: Six of the Worst?
>Message-ID: 
>
>">All birds have a right to live whether you want to see them or not!"
>
>Highly laudible of you Angus.
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Date: 25 Feb 2003 21:37:35 GMT
>References: <BC3H31AGxxW+EwBv@blencathra.org.uk>
>Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
>Subject: Re: Goose shooting at Loch Leven
>Message-ID: 
>
>">I have been honest enough to say that I eat the occasional chinese meal with
>chicken."
>
>OK, either chickens are not part of "All birds"  - they were birds last time I looked
>at one on a plate - or only when it suits you to eat them.  I'm disappointed in you
>Angus - I thought you had the courage of your convictions.
>So from this we can see that it is OK for Angus to approve the killing of birds for
>his own prandial pleasure. Remember he will also kill things which threaten him as he
>has said in the past.   So it's a case of I'm alright Jack and sod everything else.
>
>*************************************************************************************
>
>Next he gets seriously confused about manmade, natural and artificial - or else it is
>more of his double standards - use whichever meaning to suit his latest "campaign".
>
>So folks, here we go with Angus and his take on man versus nature.
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: Shrinking nativeness :-(
>Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:14:27 +0000
>Lines: 596
>Message-ID: 
>
>
>"But he doesn't. He colonises regions by artificial means."
>
>>>>>>And how many "native" plant seeds might have been transported and
>>>>>>dropped out of the rectums of birds to regions that the trees couldn't
>>>>>>travel to by themselves.
>
>>>>>But only by its own means, Angus. Many plant seeds have evolved to
>>>>>survive the passage through a bird or animal's gut and still be viable,
>>>>>and hence help them extend their ranges.
>
>>>>But not transported by their own means.
>
>>>Yes, Angus, because the seeds have evolved to be attractive to animals and birds.
>
>">But they are still not transported by their own means."
>
>So we can take it from this that Angus thinks man's impact is "artifical".
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: Natural.
>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:57:55 +0000
>Lines: 86
>Message-ID: 
>
>"It's a question of how these "artificial" compounds came about.  It is the evolution
>of the human mind that is responsible for them and therefore they are a product of a
>perfectly natural process and using natural materials as ingredients. "
>
>OK, now man's impact is entirely natural.  I'm getting as confused as he is !
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Natural.
>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:58:11 +0000
>Lines: 40
>Message-ID: 
>
>"On the other hand, I believe everything on the planet is natural and every action of
>man is natural - including the design and building of ships - because they are
>products of his evolution."
>
> Angus is still thinking man's actions are "natural"
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: A letter I agree with
>Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:27:12 +0100
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: 
>
>"I was struck by a feeling of being in a manufactured and artificial
>environment where the woodland picture was evident but lacking
>expected wildlife."
>
>OK, I hope you're all keeping up here.  Angus is now back to thinking man's impact is
>"artificial"
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
>Subject: Re: Steall paths and rope bridge
>Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:29:00 +0100
>Lines: 43
>Message-ID: 
>
>Steall paths and rope bridge are man made.
>
>They should comply with safety regulations of any other man made
>structure.
>
>The paths should have safety rails where the pass steep drops and the
>bridge should be removed.and replaced with a safe walking bridge.
>
>>Do you really have nothing better to do?
>
>"I think it's an interesting point. These are not natural structures as
>are many paths on JMT land I believe."
>
>On a roll, eh Angus - you've found a definition and you're sticking with it....aren't
>you?
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: A letter I agree with ..
>Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:16:29 +0000
>Lines: 352
>Message-ID: 
>
>"So is man, his tools and inventions, and his actions, not part of nature?   Of
>course they are!  Everything we do is part of nature as we have evolved to pur
>present position. "
>
>Oh dear - changed our minds again have we Angus?  Now man's actions and impact are
>natural again.
>Maybe you'd better sleep on it and come back to us when you've made up your mind.
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,uk.rec.gardening
>Subject: Re: Who is Responsible for the Size of Our Deer Population?
>Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:03:01 +0100
>Lines: 142
>Message-ID: 
>
>
>>And thereby give encouragement to landowners and keepers who want to
>>cull birds of prey :-((
>
>"Not at all, because their breeding systems are not natural nor is the introduction
>of birds of prey."
>
>Ah, but I though that as man's actions were natural...or was it
>artifical/manmade.....or was it..... I'm confused again....
>
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
>Subject: Re: Time to Pay!
>Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:48:08 +0000
>Lines: 82
>Message-ID: 
>
>"If one considers man to be an integral part of nature we must accept that all we do
>is natural in respect of (debateably) improving our habitat
>
>The closest parallel to man's motorways, bridges  and cities that I can think of
>might well be displayed by the activities of ants; which I'm sure everybody would
>regard as natural.
>
>So in this respect I would say everything we do or build can be described as within
>the natural environment."
>
>OK, so now you say man's actions are natural.  My head's in a spin!
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
>Subject: Re: Protection of the public
>Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:30 +0100
>Lines: 339
>Message-ID: 
>
>"I love your lack of logic.  One the one hand your include man in nature but when it
>suits you, you change tack. "
>
>Oh the irony!!!  Sadly it probably escapes Angus
>
>
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
>Subject: Re: Protection of the public
>Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:30 +0100
>Lines: 339
>Message-ID: 
>
>>Yes but humans are also part of the "natural world". The concept of  "nature"
>separate from humans is some kind of ridiculous idealised, >subjective viewpoint that
>many people like yourself have adopted.
>
>"I have never adopted that. "
>
>I think you'd better read what you've written. :-)
>
>*************************************************************************************
>
>
>
>And then we have Angus the ignorant......
>
>From: amacmil304@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:38:32 +0100
>Lines: 460
>Message-ID: 
>
>"CO2 emmissions are a result of using energy."
>
>Classic!
>
>*************************************************************************************
>
>And then we have Angus the liar......
>
>From: amacmil304@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:38:32 +0100
>Lines: 460
>Message-ID: 
>
>
>>>>I did. You quoted from a website which had some inaccurate facts on it
>>>>about another species.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What did I say about the website?
>>>
>>Read your own posts.
>
>""I didn't "quote from the website"."
>
>
>From: Malcolm 
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:56:46 +0100
>Organization: MAO
>Lines: 528
>Sender: Malcolm Ogilvie 
>Message-ID: 
>
>This is what you posted:
>
>.........................................................................
>....
> From the Isle of Wight
>
>"Red Squirrels: Red Squirrels find the environment especially to their
>liking, the Island being almost the last bastion for them in the south
>of England. It is popularly supposed that grey squirrels drive out the
>red variety. But greys tend rather to move into Red territory which -
>for reasons yet understood - the red squirrels have already vacated.
>Nevertheless, the Solent forms a protective barrier enabling the red
>variety to flourish."
>.........................................................................
>....
>
>
>This is what is written on the website:
>
>"Red Squirrels: Red Squirrels find the environment especially to their
>liking, the Island being almost the last bastion for them in the south
>of England. It is popularly supposed that grey squirrels drive out the
>red variety. But greys tend rather to move into Red territory which -
>for reasons yet understood - the red squirrels have already vacated.
>Nevertheless, the Solent forms a protective barrier enabling the red
>variety to flourish."
>
>
>If you didn't quote from the website, you are exhibiting an
>extraordinary capacity for writing exactly the same words as someone
>else.
>
>*************************************************************************************
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
>Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:04:36 +0000
>Lines: 213
>Message-ID: ol1fj3ljervhlu69cu2nprh3ocehja4i95@4ax.com>If you disagree, then tell us
>how you would go about counting the
>>squirrels on Anglesey. You've claimed it requires "constant monitoring",
>>but despite being asked repeatedly, have been unable to say what you
>>mean by that. It seems you don't know, in which case how can you
>>possibly know whether the figure of 200 was accurate to the nearest one
>>squirrel.
>
>"Very simply, I would lie and say there was any specific figure if I
>couldn't count them."
>
>Oh dear! - an admitted liar
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------
>
>Now we come to Angus and his lack of a grasp of the English language
>
>From: amacmil...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
>Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:50:31 +0000
>Lines: 473
>Message-ID: 3c57j3pjqqkba16guv5pqkb7hnrlc4u407@4ax.com>
>
>>It is a vital tool in conservation.
>
>Another stolen word!   Counting something was never really a "tool".
>
>
>Well, I suppose he only got "O" grade Arithmetic (or was it Mathematics)."O" grade
>English obviously evaded him let alone a basic understanding of the English language.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------
>
>Next we have Angus the arrogant. All mouth and no knowledge.
>
>From: amacmil304@aol.com
>Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
>Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
>Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:15:47 +0000
>Lines: 385
>Message-ID: 
>
>>>  Anyway, what so scientific about counting
>>>animals?
>>>
>>Try it and see. And then try it again and see. And then again and again,
>>until you are regularly (as opposed to constantly) monitoring a
>>population. But before you start you will, of course, have chosen the
>>type of monitoring most suitable to, e.g., the species concerned, the
>>habitat, the time available, and what you are actually setting out to
>>achieve, whether a total count or a sample from which you can calculate
>>a total.
>
>>And if the latter, you will have also needed to decide what
>>sample size will give you a sufficiently accurate total to be
>>meaningful, and be sufficiently repeatable. Sampling can include for
>>different species, fixed area surveys (e.g. presence/absence in 1- or
>>10-km squares), transects, point counts, physical signs of presence,
>>timed counts, calls, capture-mark-recapture, etc., etc. You may want to
>>attempt to sample equally from the whole of the range, or you may
>>consider that stratified sampling, or indeed stratified random sampling,
>>may be more efficient and give you sufficiently accurate results. There
>>are several statistical tests which will help you decide as well as a
>>wealth of published papers showing what other scientists did. There is
>>indeed a whole book devoted to the different methods of counting birds,
>>explaining which is the most appropriate for different species or in
>>different circumstances.
>>
>>It doesn't stop there, because if the totals from each of your counts
>>are to be comparable and enable one to record changes (which is what you
>>correctly said monitoring is about), then the methodology (you do know
>>what I mean by methodology, I hope!) has to be standardised (you do know
>>what I mean by standardised, I hope!), and if changes at your site are
>>to be compared with changes at other sites then the methodology at all
>>the sites has to be standardised across them. You have to know whether,
>>if you've decided on a total count, you are definitely seeing every
>>single animal, or if a sample that your sampling technique in the field
>>is achieving your intentions. You have to know the statistical tests
>>which can, and cannot, be applied to your data, and how to apply them.
>>You have to know the correct way to present your results in order to
>>demonstrate that your results are as accurate as possible. And so on and
>>so on. That's not an inclusive description above.
>>
>>Do you think you could do any of that?
>>
>
>"Very easily and get the same junk out of it as you do" .
>
>So now we can sit back and wait while Angus decides on his monitoring protocol,
>decides which statistical tests to apply to his data for analysis and how to present
>his data.  Methinks it will be a looooooong wait while he runs off (not) to find out
>what standard deviation means!
>
>Absolute classic!


Should be signed off as Malcolm Ogilvie.

Not as good as mine of you :-))


_________________________________

Malcolm:  
No, Angus, that's just you wriggling again. You used a specific term,
"sock-puppet", on the internet and, as that term has no meaning other
than that used on the internet, you must expect people to think that
that's the meaning you were attributing to it.

Angus:
Complete rubbish! See above.

Malcolm:
No, Angus, a fact. Unless of course you can find a definition of 
sock-puppet as being the same as glove-puppet.

Angus:
From Wikipedia:

"Simple hand puppets are usually not much larger than the hand itself.
A sock puppet is a particularly simple type of hand puppet made from a
sock. A glove puppet is slightly more complex, with an internal
division for fingers allowing independent manipulation of a
character's arms.

______________________________

or prejudice like:


_____________________________

Internet posting to Malcolm Kane of Penrith from Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie


"Malcolm, it must be what a teacher feels like after trying to drum
something into the head of the dullard who is going to leave school
with a single 'O' grade. There's only so much that someone so
intellectually challenged can understand. The problem will come in
later life, when an inability to grasp concepts, not to mention be
able to understand the meanings of words, will seriously let them
down, to the point when, how ever often they are told something, they
merely repeat, as a rote, statements and claims which they think are
very telling but, in fact, were meaningless or just plain wrong the
first time, and continue to be so regardless of how many times they
are repeated. The situation will be even worse if, during their lives,
they have gained absolutely no personal knowledge of the subjects
about which they spout and thus are completely unable to comprehend
anyone who points out that their ignorance is letting them down."

Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie
Scientific Adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage
On Internet Newsgroup uk.environment.conservation
Date: Mon,18 Sept 2006 07:32;30 +0100

Comment:  	A  nasty prejudiced and unwarranted attack on kids 
		leaving school with one O Grade.

___________________________

Or dimness of mind when he can't understand a question:

__________________________

Malcolm Ogilvie aka Dr Thick is confused about his measure of
intelligence.

A Macmillan:  "Do you think you don't have limited intelligence?"

Dr Thick:  "What a contorted question. The answer is yes. What about
yourself?"

___________________________

Or confusion about what is natural

__________________________

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"The grey squirrel, on the other hand, is an invasive non-native
introduced from North America."

Angus Macmillan:
"In perfectly natural circumstances, unless you exclude man from
nature."  

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"More nonsensical rubbish."

Angus Macmillan:
"Are you saying that man is outside nature and that his actions are
not natural?"

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"Are you claiming that ships are natural objects?"

Angus Macmillan:
"Of course they are.  They are a product of man's evolution and made
entirely of natural materials."

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"LOL!!!!  

You're a card, Angus, a real card :-))))

Since when have manufactured materials, for example, steel, been
"natural"?"

Angus Macmillan:
"Steel and manufacturing are products of man's evolution and consists
of entirely natural materials.

I am gob-smacked at your ignorance in this matter."

__________________________

Or when all else fails:

_________________________

Angus:   Is this where you tell me to "f****" off" like the last time
I mentioned your air ambulance trip?

 Malcolm:  Yes, if you like. Fuck off, Angus. 

_________________________


Which means just about everything he says is nonsense.



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)

wrote in message
news:sgisp3dguvqf6b3a98fafr63mb760rlidc@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:14:04 -0000, "Pete" 
> wrote:


> Should be signed off as Malcolm Ogilvie.


Why?  He didn't post it, I did.  Are you more confused than we thought?

> Not as good as mine of you :-))

CONfused again Angus, or just playing it dim?
I'm not Malcolm, I'm Pete

Just to remind everyone of your CONfusion............

Angus text in quotes
*************************************************************************************

First we have Angus with the short/long term memory loss..

He can't remember what he calls his Range Rover..........

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Native Species?
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:10:30 +0000
Lines: 134
Message-ID: 

>If you knew anything about cars you would know that RR doesn't stand for Range
Rover.


"OK, then RR doesn't stand for Range Rover......or does it?"

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 10 Apr 2004 08:02:12 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: More fake conservation!
Message-ID: 

>Subject: Re: More fake conservation!

"The impact of one of these fools travelling to the UK damages the environment more
that I do in a year with my RR."

Hmm, changed your mid Angus?  So RR now means Range Rover.



From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 25 Feb 2004 21:44:23 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Withdraw government funding from the fakes?
Message-ID: 

">I'm not defensive at all aboout my RR."

Hmm, still calling your Range Rover "RR"


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 27 Feb 2004 00:49:28 GMT
References: <c1lacv$eif$1@titan.btinternet.com>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Withdraw government funding from the fakes?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: 

"It's the same thing. If fuel was £5 a litre many people would reduce their
mileage or buy more economical  cars.  I have done so already by buying the
most economical RR. "

Oops. have you forgotten what you said earlier Angus?
Shall I repeat it for you?
OK, you said "If you knew anything about cars you would know that RR doesn't stand
for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover
Date: 13 Nov 2001 23:10:08 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: What are they doing to the new Range Rover?
Message-ID: 

>No separate chassis
>No manual option
>No cloth seats

">Are they trying to kill off the the traditional RR user and going only for the
poser
market?

">The off-road capability is irrelevant. There are many on-road cars that consume a
great deal more fuel than my RR."

Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 26 Jul 2001 17:55:05 GMT
References: 
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: A reply about foxhunting from the RSPB
Message-ID: 

">What MPG do the above do in comparison with my RR?"

Nope, still calling a Range Rover a RR.


From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landrover
Date: 27 Apr 2001 07:40:11 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Help!!!  Range Rover rear axle click
Message-ID: 

">PS I not a RR poser with no idea of mechanics."

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: What I s sustainable development?
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:25:13 +0100
Lines: 226
Message-ID: 

">I'm not avoiding anything. It's you who says I shouldn't use my RR - not me."

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: What I s sustainable development?
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:01:15 +0100
Lines: 392
Message-ID: 

">I could use a petrol RR instead of a diesel:-))"

And again!
Oops, silly man - let me remind you.  You said "If you knew anything about cars you
would know that RR doesn't stand for Range Rover."

*************************************************************************************

And now onto the selfish double standards..

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.birdwatching
Date: 02 Apr 2002 15:46:35 GMT
References: <a82tqs$9m5$2@helle.btinternet.com>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Six of the Worst?
Message-ID: 

">All birds have a right to live whether you want to see them or not!"

Highly laudible of you Angus.

From: amacmil...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Date: 25 Feb 2003 21:37:35 GMT
References: <BC3H31AGxxW+EwBv@blencathra.org.uk>
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Goose shooting at Loch Leven
Message-ID: 

">I have been honest enough to say that I eat the occasional chinese meal with
chicken."

OK, either chickens are not part of "All birds"  - they were birds last time I looked
at one on a plate - or only when it suits you to eat them.  I'm disappointed in you
Angus - I thought you had the courage of your convictions.
So from this we can see that it is OK for Angus to approve the killing of birds for
his own prandial pleasure. Remember he will also kill things which threaten him as he
has said in the past.   So it's a case of I'm alright Jack and sod everything else.

*************************************************************************************

Next he gets seriously confused about manmade, natural and artificial - or else it is
more of his double standards - use whichever meaning to suit his latest "campaign".

So folks, here we go with Angus and his take on man versus nature.


From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Shrinking nativeness :-(
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:14:27 +0000
Lines: 596
Message-ID: 


"But he doesn't. He colonises regions by artificial means."

>>>>>And how many "native" plant seeds might have been transported and
>>>>>dropped out of the rectums of birds to regions that the trees couldn't
>>>>>travel to by themselves.

>>>>But only by its own means, Angus. Many plant seeds have evolved to
>>>>survive the passage through a bird or animal's gut and still be viable,
>>>>and hence help them extend their ranges.

>>>But not transported by their own means.

>>Yes, Angus, because the seeds have evolved to be attractive to animals and birds.

">But they are still not transported by their own means."

So we can take it from this that Angus thinks man's impact is "artifical".

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Natural.
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:57:55 +0000
Lines: 86
Message-ID: 

"It's a question of how these "artificial" compounds came about.  It is the evolution
of the human mind that is responsible for them and therefore they are a product of a
perfectly natural process and using natural materials as ingredients. "

OK, now man's impact is entirely natural.  I'm getting as confused as he is !

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Natural.
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:58:11 +0000
Lines: 40
Message-ID: 

"On the other hand, I believe everything on the planet is natural and every action of
man is natural - including the design and building of ships - because they are
products of his evolution."

 Angus is still thinking man's actions are "natural"

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: A letter I agree with
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:27:12 +0100
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 

"I was struck by a feeling of being in a manufactured and artificial
environment where the woodland picture was evident but lacking
expected wildlife."

OK, I hope you're all keeping up here.  Angus is now back to thinking man's impact is
"artificial"

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Steall paths and rope bridge
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:29:00 +0100
Lines: 43
Message-ID: 

Steall paths and rope bridge are man made.

They should comply with safety regulations of any other man made
structure.

The paths should have safety rails where the pass steep drops and the
bridge should be removed.and replaced with a safe walking bridge.

>Do you really have nothing better to do?

"I think it's an interesting point. These are not natural structures as
are many paths on JMT land I believe."

On a roll, eh Angus - you've found a definition and you're sticking with it....aren't
you?

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: A letter I agree with ..
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:16:29 +0000
Lines: 352
Message-ID: 

"So is man, his tools and inventions, and his actions, not part of nature?   Of
course they are!  Everything we do is part of nature as we have evolved to pur
present position. "

Oh dear - changed our minds again have we Angus?  Now man's actions and impact are
natural again.
Maybe you'd better sleep on it and come back to us when you've made up your mind.

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,uk.rec.gardening
Subject: Re: Who is Responsible for the Size of Our Deer Population?
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:03:01 +0100
Lines: 142
Message-ID: 


>And thereby give encouragement to landowners and keepers who want to
>cull birds of prey :-((

"Not at all, because their breeding systems are not natural nor is the introduction
of birds of prey."

Ah, but I though that as man's actions were natural...or was it
artifical/manmade.....or was it..... I'm confused again....



From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Time to Pay!
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:48:08 +0000
Lines: 82
Message-ID: 

"If one considers man to be an integral part of nature we must accept that all we do
is natural in respect of (debateably) improving our habitat

The closest parallel to man's motorways, bridges  and cities that I can think of
might well be displayed by the activities of ants; which I'm sure everybody would
regard as natural.

So in this respect I would say everything we do or build can be described as within
the natural environment."

OK, so now you say man's actions are natural.  My head's in a spin!

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Protection of the public
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:30 +0100
Lines: 339
Message-ID: 

"I love your lack of logic.  One the one hand your include man in nature but when it
suits you, you change tack. "

Oh the irony!!!  Sadly it probably escapes Angus



From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.rec.walking
Subject: Re: Protection of the public
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:30 +0100
Lines: 339
Message-ID: 

>Yes but humans are also part of the "natural world". The concept of  "nature"
separate from humans is some kind of ridiculous idealised, >subjective viewpoint that
many people like yourself have adopted.

"I have never adopted that. "

I think you'd better read what you've written. :-)

*************************************************************************************



And then we have Angus the ignorant......

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:38:32 +0100
Lines: 460
Message-ID: 

"CO2 emmissions are a result of using energy."

Classic!

*************************************************************************************

And then we have Angus the liar......

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:38:32 +0100
Lines: 460
Message-ID: 


>>>I did. You quoted from a website which had some inaccurate facts on it
>>>about another species.
>>>
>>
>>What did I say about the website?
>>
>Read your own posts.

""I didn't "quote from the website"."


From: Malcolm 
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: Sustainability Scam
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:56:46 +0100
Organization: MAO
Lines: 528
Sender: Malcolm Ogilvie 
Message-ID: 

This is what you posted:

.........................................................................
....
 From the Isle of Wight

"Red Squirrels: Red Squirrels find the environment especially to their
liking, the Island being almost the last bastion for them in the south
of England. It is popularly supposed that grey squirrels drive out the
red variety. But greys tend rather to move into Red territory which -
for reasons yet understood - the red squirrels have already vacated.
Nevertheless, the Solent forms a protective barrier enabling the red
variety to flourish."
.........................................................................
....


This is what is written on the website:

"Red Squirrels: Red Squirrels find the environment especially to their
liking, the Island being almost the last bastion for them in the south
of England. It is popularly supposed that grey squirrels drive out the
red variety. But greys tend rather to move into Red territory which -
for reasons yet understood - the red squirrels have already vacated.
Nevertheless, the Solent forms a protective barrier enabling the red
variety to flourish."


If you didn't quote from the website, you are exhibiting an
extraordinary capacity for writing exactly the same words as someone
else.

*************************************************************************************

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:04:36 +0000
Lines: 213
Message-ID: ol1fj3ljervhlu69cu2nprh3ocehja4i95@4ax.com>If you disagree, then tell us
how you would go about counting the
>squirrels on Anglesey. You've claimed it requires "constant monitoring",
>but despite being asked repeatedly, have been unable to say what you
>mean by that. It seems you don't know, in which case how can you
>possibly know whether the figure of 200 was accurate to the nearest one
>squirrel.

"Very simply, I would lie and say there was any specific figure if I
couldn't count them."

Oh dear! - an admitted liar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

Now we come to Angus and his lack of a grasp of the English language

From: amacmil...@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:50:31 +0000
Lines: 473
Message-ID: 3c57j3pjqqkba16guv5pqkb7hnrlc4u407@4ax.com>

>It is a vital tool in conservation.

Another stolen word!   Counting something was never really a "tool".


Well, I suppose he only got "O" grade Arithmetic (or was it Mathematics)."O" grade
English obviously evaded him let alone a basic understanding of the English language.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------

Next we have Angus the arrogant. All mouth and no knowledge.

From: amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
Subject: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:15:47 +0000
Lines: 385
Message-ID: 

>>  Anyway, what so scientific about counting
>>animals?
>>
>Try it and see. And then try it again and see. And then again and again,
>until you are regularly (as opposed to constantly) monitoring a
>population. But before you start you will, of course, have chosen the
>type of monitoring most suitable to, e.g., the species concerned, the
>habitat, the time available, and what you are actually setting out to
>achieve, whether a total count or a sample from which you can calculate
>a total.

>And if the latter, you will have also needed to decide what
>sample size will give you a sufficiently accurate total to be
>meaningful, and be sufficiently repeatable. Sampling can include for
>different species, fixed area surveys (e.g. presence/absence in 1- or
>10-km squares), transects, point counts, physical signs of presence,
>timed counts, calls, capture-mark-recapture, etc., etc. You may want to
>attempt to sample equally from the whole of the range, or you may
>consider that stratified sampling, or indeed stratified random sampling,
>may be more efficient and give you sufficiently accurate results. There
>are several statistical tests which will help you decide as well as a
>wealth of published papers showing what other scientists did. There is
>indeed a whole book devoted to the different methods of counting birds,
>explaining which is the most appropriate for different species or in
>different circumstances.
>
>It doesn't stop there, because if the totals from each of your counts
>are to be comparable and enable one to record changes (which is what you
>correctly said monitoring is about), then the methodology (you do know
>what I mean by methodology, I hope!) has to be standardised (you do know
>what I mean by standardised, I hope!), and if changes at your site are
>to be compared with changes at other sites then the methodology at all
>the sites has to be standardised across them. You have to know whether,
>if you've decided on a total count, you are definitely seeing every
>single animal, or if a sample that your sampling technique in the field
>is achieving your intentions. You have to know the statistical tests
>which can, and cannot, be applied to your data, and how to apply them.
>You have to know the correct way to present your results in order to
>demonstrate that your results are as accurate as possible. And so on and
>so on. That's not an inclusive description above.
>
>Do you think you could do any of that?
>

"Very easily and get the same junk out of it as you do" .

So now we can sit back and wait while Angus decides on his monitoring protocol,
decides which statistical tests to apply to his data for analysis and how to present
his data.  Methinks it will be a looooooong wait while he runs off (not) to find out
what standard deviation means!

Absolute classic!

--
Pete

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:51:47 -0000, "Pete" 
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news:sgisp3dguvqf6b3a98fafr63mb760rlidc@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:14:04 -0000, "Pete" 
>> wrote:
>
>
>> Should be signed off as Malcolm Ogilvie.
>
>
>Why?  He didn't post it, I did.  Are you more confused than we thought?
>
>> Not as good as mine of you :-))
>
>CONfused again Angus, or just playing it dim?
>I'm not Malcolm, I'm Pete
>
>Just to remind everyone of your CONfusion............

You must have one of the worst sock puppet repertoires on Usenet
Malcolm. You have obviously not been paying attention.

"Adam Hart"  wrote in message
news:vdksp3pv9j6n0f3u7qnim2tviarbv64hg3@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:51:47 -0000, "Pete" 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> >news:sgisp3dguvqf6b3a98fafr63mb760rlidc@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:14:04 -0000, "Pete" 
> >> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Should be signed off as Malcolm Ogilvie.
> >
> >
> >Why?  He didn't post it, I did.  Are you more confused than we thought?
> >
> >> Not as good as mine of you :-))
> >
> >CONfused again Angus, or just playing it dim?
> >I'm not Malcolm, I'm Pete
> >
> >Just to remind everyone of your CONfusion............
>
> You must have one of the worst sock puppet repertoires on Usenet
> Malcolm. You have obviously not been paying attention.

You really are rather dim - not as bright as you think you are.
Care in the community hasn't done you much good after all.

In article ,
    wrote:


> If you're talking about ignorance, that's where you are in a class of
> your own.

> Ignorance like:

> _________________________________

<snip>
Did you really post that stuff Angus or is someone impersonating you?

These instances you regularly keep posting demonstrate just how out of
touch with reality you are. 

I believe by the context you think it demonstrates that other people have
made ignorant statements; but those of yours highlight your own.

While you may think you can promote your own prejudices as truth very few
people will be in any way impressed and if they stop to read the material
I snipped, even  if they agree with you ( as I do sometimes) they will be
embarassed for you.

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