In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:40:41 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:00 +0100, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:04 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>You are perfectly at liberty to ask them questions, indeed you have done
>>>>on several occasions. And you do receive answers. The fact that you
>>>>don't like the answers is largely your own fault.
>>>
>>>On a number of occasions I have not received answers.
>>>
>>Yes, and that's your own fault. You're a bit like that man from People
>>Too. You ask the kind of questions which make it obvious that you are
>>opposed to what the organisation does and are not so much asking a
>>question as criticising them based on a heavily biassed agenda. This is
>>hardly conducive to obtaining answers. A classic example of your
>>technique is contained in the documents accompanying your petition.
>
>So they only want to answer questions that are not awkward or by
>people that support their overall ethos.
>
You are either deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote or you 
actually don't realise how you come over to other people with your 
repeated questions which are nothing more than criticisms based on a 
heavily biassed agenda. It's far too late now, you're too well known 
(?notorious!), but perhaps before you started your endless letter 
writing you should have taken a look at (or even taken some lessons on!) 
how to write letters and ask questions in a manner which would have 
produced answers instead of putting people's backs up.

>That's why Freedom of Information legislation is needed..
>
No, just some skill in letter writing and asking questions.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>>>>>>>day a year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about something will make the
>>>>>>opportunity
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>See above
>>>>>
>>>>This is like your attitude to the National Park, isn't it? You complain
>>>>and whinge on the sidelines and refuse point blank to do anything
>>>>positive, like putting yourself forward for the National Park Board, or
>>>>like becoming a member of either organisation when you could put
>>>>yourself forward for their Councils.
>>>
>>>Not at all.  Joining and undemocratic organisation doesn't make it
>>>democratic.
>>>
>>Hmm, if you believe sufficiently strongly in what you campaign about,
>>you will surely do your utmost to achieve it, including exploring every
>>avenue, such as joining and doing your best to change it and make it
>>more democratic. You clearly don't believe sufficiently strongly to
>>explore every avenue and so just sit on the sidelines and whinge about
>>it.
>>
>
>By saying "making it more democratic" you clearly agree with me that
>it's not.
>
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting the obvious way in which you, who 
constantly say it isn't democratic, have it in your power, as a resident 
of the NP, to do something about your criticism. You refuse to do so, 
which makes your criticism meaningless.

>At a time when our troops are fighting for the fundamental freedom of
>democracy in various parts of the world, one would think that such
>freedoms would be paramount in our own country.  Not so, in the case
>in Scotland's National Parks.
>
LOL!!!  What a splendid inappropriate comparison :-)))

snip.

Just as in the documents accompanying your petition, you clearly don't 
realise how your endless repetition does you far more harm than good.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>You're a very half-hearted campaigner :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>See above.
>>
>>Confirmed :-)
>>
>
>Only in your mind.
>
That's my line :-))

>
>>>
>>>>>>>If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
>>>>>>>included in the FoI legislation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you supportive of businesses being included in the FoI legislation
>>>>>>if they receive public money?
>>>>>
>>>>>That should be up to the government agency providers of such money to
>>>>>determine in detail where it is spent and the FoI should be extended
>>>>>to cover this.
>>>>>
>>>>So that would include your own company then?
>>>
>>>
>>>No.  It would have to have £1m income from public or donated money
>>>annually.
>>>
>>>Suffice to say that your opposition to FoI for charities makes it
>>>something that should be considered.
>>>
>>Where did I say I was opposed to it?
>>
>
>Well, do you agree with me?
>
I'm not convinced by your arguments, because you are a poor advocate, 
being somewhat less than open-minded on the matter.

>
>>>No more time for milking you, Malcolm :-)
>>>
>>Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You're obviously getting less
>>committed as you grow older. It just gets easier and easier to demolish
>>your arguments :-)
>>
>>I see from The Scotsman that you were once again putting forward your
>>wholly flawed points about introduced animals and getting short shrift
>>from people who commented on your letter. One of them summed you up very
>>well, I thought:
>>
>>"Countering this unfounded argument is pointless. Angus's arguments are
>>invariably circular.... adapting themselves endlessly simply to prolong
>>the discussion. The process includes taking what has been said to him
>>out of context, reversing the meaning - (use of double negatives ,
>>removing key definining adverbs etc ) , so that he will then argue round
>>again. He will claim that his reworded version is what was said to
>>him...not by him... , so as to draw attention away from a point he
>>cannot accept the prospect of losing.."
>
>
>This is from "upbeat" whom I frequently demolish and have done so
>again.
>
Only in your mind :-)

>Thanks for letting me know about the letter. I hadn't realised it had
>been published.  I send letters all over the country and mostly I am
>not aware of where and when they've been published.
>
Which demonstrates, yet again, what a poor campaigner you are!

>That's why I don't have the time to milk you as much as I did for
>years.
>
Thank you for that further surrender :-)

-- 
Malcolm