On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:26:33 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:04:24 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>How many grey squirrels or deer have you saved since you started?
>>
>>I'm not in a position to "save" animals but I am in a position to
>>counter those who kill them and undermine their activities.
>>
>>And according to the responses I get I'm reasonably successful at
>>that.
>>
>So, even though you claim to "undermine their activities", you haven't 
>actually saved a single grey squirrel from being killed.
>
>What a triumph!

I should imagine he has saved many animals from the hands of
CONservation hooligans, not to mention the money we have saved
ignoring ponces like you infesting conservation and holding their
hands out for doing nothing!

Yes enlightenment is a wonderful thing. I remember the days when
conservation charity was a good thing, hell I even remember days when
people used to respect you. Now both are treated with the contempt
they deserve, and no longer get our money!

Looks like your gravy train has run out of steam Malcolm, no wonder
you can afford to stalk Usenet 24/7 you don't have anything else left
to do.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity of proving what a prick you are.

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:41:33 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>
>> >Malcolm was correct.  
>
>> Well that depends how you look at it :-))
>In saying it was a contorted question.

Perhaps to him it was :-))


>> What's your answer to the question about yourself?
>

Well?

>> >
>> >You never have any understanding of anything.
>> >
>
>> Like what?   And don't forget you've said you agree with some thing I
>> say so where does that leave you?
>
>Well I agree with some of the points you make, but am fully aware that you
>only hold those views for purely different reasons based on your only
>passion, the hatred of conservation.

But I don't "hate" conservation. I think if people want to practice
conservation they should be free to do so just like any religion.  But
it's the ones that say they're conservationists and are not, I oppose
- those who sanctimoniously preach about conserving the natural
environment,  then engage in and encourage environmentally damaging
activities to keep themselves in business.


>> >> >and your repetition of the same flawed points demonstrates either your
>
>> >> Come on Robert, spit them out.
>> >
>> >That Red Squirrels may not be native..............
>
>> What I've said is that those who say they are should be able to prove
>> it.   
>No, the scientific consensus is that the Red has been here having
>colonised following the last ice age.

That's the flaw.  They agree on something of which they have no proof.
.
> If you have another hypothesis, lay
>down your evidence and submit it to peer review.
>
>
My hypothesis, if you can call it that, is that they have no proof of
what they claim.  They are merely speculating.

>> I regard all squirrels as "native" because they're born here.
>
>> Others say they're native because they've been here since the land
>> bridge 
>
>> You obviously support the latter view.  So can you prove it?

>I don't have to.  You going through the pretence of having some other
>scientific reason to think otherwise have to submit your case as I said.
>

Nonsense.  If they make a claim they should be able to substantiate it
- and they can't.

>> I can certainly prove that they're born here.
>
>So what.

Well, they're just as native as we are.

Why are you a native of England?


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:
>


> >> What's your answer to the question about yourself?
> >

> Well?
I was asking you.  No answer coming surprise surprise.
> >> >
> >> >You never have any understanding of anything.
> >> >
> >
> >> Like what?   And don't forget you've said you agree with some thing I
> >> say so where does that leave you?
> >
> >Well I agree with some of the points you make, but am fully aware that you
> >only hold those views for purely different reasons based on your only
> >passion, the hatred of conservation.

> But I don't "hate" conservation. I think if people want to practice
> conservation they should be free to do so just like any religion.  But
> it's the ones that say they're conservationists and are not, I oppose
> - those who sanctimoniously preach about conserving the natural
> environment,  then engage in and encourage environmentally damaging
> activities to keep themselves in business.


> >> >> >and your repetition of the same flawed points demonstrates either your
> >
> >> >> Come on Robert, spit them out.
> >> >
> >> >That Red Squirrels may not be native..............
> >
> >> What I've said is that those who say they are should be able to prove
> >> it.   
> >No, the scientific consensus is that the Red has been here having
> >colonised following the last ice age.

> That's the flaw.  They agree on something of which they have no proof.
There is rarely any proof in these things but you spout off as though you
have evidence that the scientific consensus is flawed.  Well come on
publish your evidence and subvmit it to peer review.
> .
> > If you have another hypothesis, lay
> >down your evidence and submit it to peer review.
> >
> >
> My hypothesis, if you can call it that, is that they have no proof of
> what they claim.  They are merely speculating.
Well, My hypothesis, if you can call it that, is that you have no proof of
what you claim.  You are merely speculating.

> >> I regard all squirrels as "native" because they're born here.
> >
> >> Others say they're native because they've been here since the land
> >> bridge 
> >
> >> You obviously support the latter view.  So can you prove it?

> >I don't have to.  You going through the pretence of having some other
> >scientific reason to think otherwise have to submit your case as I said.
> >

> Nonsense.  If they make a claim they should be able to substantiate it
> - and they can't.

So you are making a claim.  Prove it., or at least publish your evidence.

> >> I can certainly prove that they're born here.
> >
> >So what.

> Well, they're just as native as we are.
Not according to the normal use of the term.
> Why are you a native of England?

Why do a family whom I know well who have 4 children born in Africa and
the Pacific, consider themselves natives of the UK.

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

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:42:39 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>>
>
>
>> >> What's your answer to the question about yourself?
>> >
>
>> Well?
>I was asking you.  No answer coming surprise surprise.

No. It was me asking you.  Look at the chevrons; you didn't answer.


>> >> >
>> >> >You never have any understanding of anything.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Like what?   And don't forget you've said you agree with some thing I
>> >> say so where does that leave you?
>> >
>> >Well I agree with some of the points you make, but am fully aware that you
>> >only hold those views for purely different reasons based on your only
>> >passion, the hatred of conservation.
>
>> But I don't "hate" conservation. I think if people want to practice
>> conservation they should be free to do so just like any religion.  But
>> it's the ones that say they're conservationists and are not, I oppose
>> - those who sanctimoniously preach about conserving the natural
>> environment,  then engage in and encourage environmentally damaging
>> activities to keep themselves in business.
>
>
>> >> >> >and your repetition of the same flawed points demonstrates either your
>> >
>> >> >> Come on Robert, spit them out.
>> >> >
>> >> >That Red Squirrels may not be native..............
>> >
>> >> What I've said is that those who say they are should be able to prove
>> >> it.   
>> >No, the scientific consensus is that the Red has been here having
>> >colonised following the last ice age.
>
>> That's the flaw.  They agree on something of which they have no proof.
>There is rarely any proof in these things but you spout off as though you
>have evidence that the scientific consensus is flawed.  Well come on
>publish your evidence and subvmit it to peer review.
>> .
>> > If you have another hypothesis, lay
>> >down your evidence and submit it to peer review.
>> >
>> >
>> My hypothesis, if you can call it that, is that they have no proof of
>> what they claim.  They are merely speculating.

>Well, My hypothesis, if you can call it that, is that you have no proof of
>what you claim.  You are merely speculating.
>

I'm not claiming anything.  I'm asking you to prove they have been
here continuously for 10,000 years, which according to Malcolm makes
them "native".

>> >> I regard all squirrels as "native" because they're born here.
>> >
>> >> Others say they're native because they've been here since the land
>> >> bridge 
>> >
>> >> You obviously support the latter view.  So can you prove it?
>
>> >I don't have to.  You going through the pretence of having some other
>> >scientific reason to think otherwise have to submit your case as I said.
>> >
>
>> Nonsense.  If they make a claim they should be able to substantiate it
>> - and they can't.
>
>So you are making a claim.  Prove it., or at least publish your evidence.
>

I'm not making a claim that they are not "native" in respect of the
conservationists' idea that they've been here for 10,000 years. All
I'm doing is asking them - and now you - to prove it to justify it.

Simple really!


>> >> I can certainly prove that they're born here.
>> >
>> >So what.
>
>> Well, they're just as native as we are.
>Not according to the normal use of the term.

The term is not substantiated unless you can prove it.  The
conservationists seem to get away with making things up as they go
along.


>> Why are you a native of England?
>
>Why do a family whom I know well who have 4 children born in Africa and
>the Pacific, consider themselves natives of the UK.

Probably because the parents of the 4 children were born and domiciled
here.  If not, they are not native to the UK.

Why are you a native of England?

You avoided the question.





.   

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:

> >>
> >
> >
> >> >> What's your answer to the question about yourself?
> >> >
> >
> >> Well?
> >I was asking you.  No answer coming surprise surprise.

> No. It was me asking you.  Look at the chevrons; you didn't answer.
I had asked you twice and with the last posting thrice.
<snip>


> >> Well, they're just as native as we are.
> >Not according to the normal use of the term.

> The term is not substantiated unless you can prove it.  The
> conservationists seem to get away with making things up as they go
> along.

If you want to challenge the scientific consensus on a decision go on and
do it.  The onus is on you.  I am happy with the status quo.

> >> Why are you a native of England?
> >
> >Why do a family whom I know well who have 4 children born in Africa and
> >the Pacific, consider themselves natives of the UK.

> Probably because the parents of the 4 children were born and domiciled
> here.  If not, they are not native to the UK.

> Why are you a native of England?

> You avoided the question.

I must have learnt the technique from you.

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

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:24:56 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> What's your answer to the question about yourself?
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Well?
>> >I was asking you.  No answer coming surprise surprise.
>
>> No. It was me asking you.  Look at the chevrons; you didn't answer.
>I had asked you twice and with the last posting thrice.
><snip>

I told you already, I don't have unlimited intelligence.

Now you work that out for yourself if that's yes or no :-))

Here's a hint.  Malcolm thinks he has unlimited intelligence.

>
>
>> >> Well, they're just as native as we are.
>> >Not according to the normal use of the term.
>
>> The term is not substantiated unless you can prove it.  The
>> conservationists seem to get away with making things up as they go
>> along.
>
>If you want to challenge the scientific consensus on a decision go on and
>do it.  The onus is on you.  I am happy with the status quo.
>

Not at all.  All I'm asking is for them to prove what they say is
correct.  Otherwise the whole thing is speculation.



>> >> Why are you a native of England?
>> >
>> >Why do a family whom I know well who have 4 children born in Africa and
>> >the Pacific, consider themselves natives of the UK.
>
>> Probably because the parents of the 4 children were born and domiciled
>> here.  If not, they are not native to the UK.
>
>> Why are you a native of England?
>
>> You avoided the question.
>
>I must have learnt the technique from you.

I didn't avoid yours.



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)