On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:59 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:11:09 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:55:59 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:37:50 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>The subject of my PhD is in the public domain and obviously I'm proud to
>>>>>>>see it there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems it took you at least six years to get your PhD from your first
>>>>>>degree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>It seems that you are wrong. How unsurprising.
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't look like it. How long from your first degree to your PhD?
>>>>
>>>I remain flattered that you are so interested in my academic
>>>achievements of many years ago.
>>
>>Good for you.
>>
>No, Angus, good for you for taking such a great interest in me.
>

It's good fun.

>>>
>>>Work it out for yourself, bearing in mind that the answer is not six
>>>years :-)
>>>
>>
>> 1977 to 1983 does seem like six years to me - or are you lying?
>>
>What sort of a person who, when he can't understand something 
>immediately thinks that it must be a lie? Oh, I know, a person like 
>Angus Macmillan.
>

Is 77 to 83 not six?  I suppose it could be 7 inclusively but I was
giving you the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe you're thicker than I
thought :-))


>>>>>>And as far as I'm aware  "Member of the Institute of Biology and
>>>>>>Chartered Biologist (MIBiol, CBiol)" is not a qualification but merely
>>>>>>membership of an organisation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your awareness is, as always, letting you down. How unsurprising.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's unsurprising is that you are claiming it's a qualification.
>>>>
>>>No, it isn't.
>>>
>>>>So what qualification is it?
>>>>
>>>Work it out for yourself.
>>>
>>
>>Looking at their website it seems that it's not a qualification. So
>>why are you claiming it is?
>>
>Perhaps you can't read. Or, and there's plenty of evidence for this, you 
>lack comprehension skills.
>

So what actual qualifications do they offer?


>>Looks like you could be faking your qualifications.  Is that the case?
>>
>Looks like you could be getting very close to libelling me. Is that the 
>case?
>

Is it the case you're faking your qualifications?


>>>>>>  So why do you list it as a
>>>>>>"qualification" in your biography?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not surprised that you can't work it out. Obviously not simple
>>>>>enough for you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems very simple.  You are claiming it's a qualification and I don't
>>>>think it is.
>>>>
>>>What you think is of no consequence whatsoever, Angus, on this or any
>>>other subject.
>>
>>It is if you're bullshitting the public.
>>
>You're the master bullshitter, on woodlands, squirrels, non-natives, 
>avian flu, walking in the countryside, fences, etc., etc.
>

Not me.  I don't claim to be an expert in anything.  I presume a
"master" might be regarded as an expert.


>>>>Who is correct?
>>>>
>>>Well, you're not :-)
>>>>
>>
>>Seems I might be.
>>
>But, as we know only too well, you get things wrong all the time, don't 
>you?
>

Not me.  I just expose fakes.

>>
>>>>>> Are you just bullshitting the
>>>>>>public?
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, Angus, I leave that entirely to you with your ridiculous remarks
>>>>>about squirrels, avian flu, woodlands, and fences, as well as your vile
>>>>>and contemptible crowing about people dying, without a thought for their
>>>>>relatives and friends.
>>>>
>>>>I have no objection to people getting shot while out hunting - the
>>>>more the merrier
>>>>
>>>Thank you for confirming just how despicable you are.
>>>
>>
>>Not at all. Live by the gun; die by the gun.  Seems fair.
>>
>Despicable.
>

Why?


>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Read what I wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I did. More importantly, I also noted that you didn't alter the subject
>>>>>>>>>line of the message.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Good for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, I'm observant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No you're not; you're blinded by conceit and self importance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Not at all. I continue to be flattered that you take so much interest in
>>>>>me and my qualifications.
>>>>
>>>>One of which seems to be fake?
>>>>
>>>Are you claiming that I have a fake qualification? Yes or no.
>>>
>>
>>It does seem that way.  You seem to be claiming a qualification where
>>one doesn't exist.
>>
>You are getting very close to libelling me. So don't say I didn't warn 
>you.
>

Well, I'm asking you what qualification do they offer.  Seems strange
you can't tell me and others on this ng.


>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Imagine having a "biography" on the Internet.  It's just a joke.and
>>>>>>it's full of "has been" entries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Regard it as being there solely for your benefit, Angus, as I know how
>>>>>interested you are in me :-))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I find it amusing.
>>>>
>>>Good.
>>>
>>>>>>Now that's being observant:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>Only a little. Still, if you can find my biography on the Internet, you
>>>>>won't have any difficult discovering the title of my PhD thesis, will
>>>>>you? You know you want to know :-)
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you tell us?
>>>>
>>>I prefer to let you find out for yourself. I find it more amusing.
>>>
>>>>Ashamed?
>>>>
>>>You should be ashamed of gloating over the deaths of your fellow humans.
>>
>>Not at all. Live by the gun; die by the gun.  Seems fair to me.
>>
>Perhaps you would like to write a letter to the newspapers saying that 
>you don't care about deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They're not hunting innocent wildlife that can't shoot back.

As far as I am concerned those who hunt wildlife are welcome to shoot
each other.

Seems fair to me.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:18:09 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>>
>>>>Looks like you could be faking your qualifications.  Is that the case?
>>>>
>>>Looks like you could be getting very close to libelling me. Is that the
>>>case?
>>>
>>
>>Is it the case you're faking your qualifications?
>>
>Is it the case you are getting very close to libelling me?

Still wriggling Ogilvie. What is it about your qualifications you
desperately want to hide?

>>Not me.  I don't claim to be an expert in anything.  I presume a
>>"master" might be regarded as an expert.

>No, on the whole, experts don't bullshit. They've no need to because 
>they've got the requisite knowledge.

That makes you a  non-expert then, as you are desperately 
trying to make an impression, and bullshit all the time, just as you
do on woodlands, squirrels, non-natives, avian flu, walking in the 
countryside, fences, etc., etc.  After all, the definition of bullshit
fits you perfectly: "Talk emptily or boastfully."

Not to mention being ashamed of your dubious qualifications
apparently!

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:18:09 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:59 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:11:09 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:55:59 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:37:50 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The subject of my PhD is in the public domain and obviously I'm proud to
>>>>>>>>>see it there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Seems it took you at least six years to get your PhD from your first
>>>>>>>>degree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It seems that you are wrong. How unsurprising.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doesn't look like it. How long from your first degree to your PhD?
>>>>>>
>>>>>I remain flattered that you are so interested in my academic
>>>>>achievements of many years ago.
>>>>
>>>>Good for you.
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, good for you for taking such a great interest in me.
>>>
>>
>>It's good fun.
>>
>Well, I suppose it is teaching you how to search the internet, which is 
>a skill you might find handy some time.
>

Perhaps you should learn to spell it :-))

>>>>>
>>>>>Work it out for yourself, bearing in mind that the answer is not six
>>>>>years :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1977 to 1983 does seem like six years to me - or are you lying?
>>>>
>>>What sort of a person who, when he can't understand something
>>>immediately thinks that it must be a lie? Oh, I know, a person like
>>>Angus Macmillan.
>>>
>>
>>Is 77 to 83 not six?  I suppose it could be 7 inclusively but I was
>>giving you the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe you're thicker than I
>>thought :-))
>>
>It's you who are being thick, Angus.
>

Not me, Malcolm :-)


>>
>>>>>>>>And as far as I'm aware  "Member of the Institute of Biology and
>>>>>>>>Chartered Biologist (MIBiol, CBiol)" is not a qualification but merely
>>>>>>>>membership of an organisation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your awareness is, as always, letting you down. How unsurprising.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's unsurprising is that you are claiming it's a qualification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>>So what qualification is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Work it out for yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Looking at their website it seems that it's not a qualification. So
>>>>why are you claiming it is?
>>>>
>>>Perhaps you can't read. Or, and there's plenty of evidence for this, you
>>>lack comprehension skills.
>>>
>>
>>So what actual qualifications do they offer?
>>
>Read their website.
>

Don't worry, I have.

>>
>>>>Looks like you could be faking your qualifications.  Is that the case?
>>>>
>>>Looks like you could be getting very close to libelling me. Is that the
>>>case?
>>>
>>
>>Is it the case you're faking your qualifications?
>>
>Is it the case you are getting very close to libelling me?
>

Not really, just manipulating you .

>>
>>>>>>>>  So why do you list it as a
>>>>>>>>"qualification" in your biography?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not surprised that you can't work it out. Obviously not simple
>>>>>>>enough for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems very simple.  You are claiming it's a qualification and I don't
>>>>>>think it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>What you think is of no consequence whatsoever, Angus, on this or any
>>>>>other subject.
>>>>
>>>>It is if you're bullshitting the public.
>>>>
>>>You're the master bullshitter, on woodlands, squirrels, non-natives,
>>>avian flu, walking in the countryside, fences, etc., etc.
>>>
>>
>>Not me.  I don't claim to be an expert in anything.  I presume a
>>"master" might be regarded as an expert.
>>
>No, on the whole, experts don't bullshit. 

That means they do sometimes.  So which ones bullshit in your opinion?

>They've no need to because 
>they've got the requisite knowledge. 

Of course they have, just look at you.

>It's the non-experts, desperately 
>trying to make an impression, that bullshit all the time, just as you do 
>on woodlands, squirrels, non-natvies, avian flu, walking in the 
>countryside, fences, etc., etc.  After all, the definition of bullshit 
>fits you perfectly: "Talk emptily or boastfully."
>

No one does it more than you.


>>
>>>>>>Who is correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Well, you're not :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems I might be.
>>>>
>>>But, as we know only too well, you get things wrong all the time, don't
>>>you?
>>>
>>
>>Not me.  I just expose fakes.
>>
>More bullshitting. You can only say that when you've actually done it.
>

I do it quite often.


>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you just bullshitting the
>>>>>>>>public?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, Angus, I leave that entirely to you with your ridiculous remarks
>>>>>>>about squirrels, avian flu, woodlands, and fences, as well as your vile
>>>>>>>and contemptible crowing about people dying, without a thought for their
>>>>>>>relatives and friends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have no objection to people getting shot while out hunting - the
>>>>>>more the merrier
>>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you for confirming just how despicable you are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. Live by the gun; die by the gun.  Seems fair.
>>>>
>>>Despicable.
>>>
>>
>>Why?
>>
>If you don't even know, that just makes you even more despicable.
>

There's not much despicable about a hunter getting shot with his own,
or a friend's gun.  


>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Read what I wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I did. More importantly, I also noted that you didn't alter 
>>>>>>>>>>>the subject
>>>>>>>>>>>line of the message.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Good for you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, I'm observant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No you're not; you're blinded by conceit and self importance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not at all. I continue to be flattered that you take so much interest in
>>>>>>>me and my qualifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One of which seems to be fake?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Are you claiming that I have a fake qualification? Yes or no.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It does seem that way.  You seem to be claiming a qualification where
>>>>one doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>You are getting very close to libelling me. So don't say I didn't warn
>>>you.
>>>
>>
>>Well, I'm asking you what qualification do they offer.  Seems strange
>>you can't tell me and others on this ng.
>>
>I'm sure they can read as well as you can.

Probably.

>
>Perhaps they will read this, which I'm sure you found unwelcome 
>information:

Not at all.

>
>Members and Fellows are awarded Chartered Biologist (CBiol) status, the 
>professional qualification for bioscientists, recognised throughout 
>Europe as a hallmark of excellence. It demonstrates a high level of 
>attainment in biological experience, personal integrity, professional 
>attributes and academic qualifications.
>

Manipulation complete :-))   I knew your conceit couldn't resist this.

Now perhaps you can tell us what your thesis was about just to
complete the picture.


>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why don't you tell us?
>>>>>>
>>>>>I prefer to let you find out for yourself. I find it more amusing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ashamed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>You should be ashamed of gloating over the deaths of your fellow humans.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. Live by the gun; die by the gun.  Seems fair to me.
>>>>
>>>Perhaps you would like to write a letter to the newspapers saying that
>>>you don't care about deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>
>>They're not hunting innocent wildlife that can't shoot back.
>>
>Doesn't matter. They have guns and they shoot.

Of course it does. It's a completely different scenario.

>
>>As far as I am concerned those who hunt wildlife are welcome to shoot
>>each other.
>>
>>Seems fair to me.
>>
>Your attitude is truly despicable.

Not nearly as despicable as shooting wildlife that can't shoot back.


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)