In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:36:29 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 25, 5:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:33:12 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>>
>>> >Explain how these trips are more damaging to the Arctic environment
>>> >than the trans-Alaska pipeline, which carries the oil for gas-guzzling
>>> >cars such as Range Rovers..
>>>
>>> They're probably not but only crooks would try to make money out of
>>> then under the "conservation" banner.
>>
>>It's a business like any other.
>
>Yes I agree.  But many are masquerading under the charity banner and
>claim not to be "a business like any other".  How many times has
>Malcolm Ogilvie said they're not businesses but charities.  Pleased to
>see you disagree with him.  You're getting there.
>
>> It has its codes of conduct ,and all
>>business is ethically reviewed to some degree by the powers that be.
>>So are you saying that all business people are crooks?
>
>No I'm not.  But those even you think are "businesses like any other"
>should be subject to the same rules as other "businesses like any
>other" with regard to misrepresentation.  And misrepresentation in
>business is crooked and seen as such.
>
Says Angus, after a typical piece of misrepresentation :-(

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:43:14 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Aug 27, 6:10 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:00:29 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Aug 27, 2:50 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:11:27 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 27, 8:35 am, Malcolm  wrote:
>> >> >> In article
>> >> >> ,
>> >> >> John M.  writes
>>
>> >> >> >On Aug 25, 11:05 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article ,
>> >> >> >> amacmil...@aol.com writes
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:36:29 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>On Aug 25, 5:23 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:33:12 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> >Explain how these trips are more damaging to the Arctic environment
>> >> >> >> >>> >than the trans-Alaska pipeline, which carries the oil for gas-guzzling
>> >> >> >> >>> >cars such as Range Rovers..
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> They're probably not but only crooks would try to make money out of
>> >> >> >> >>> then under the "conservation" banner.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>It's a business like any other.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Yes I agree.  But many are masquerading under the charity banner and
>> >> >> >> >claim not to be "a business like any other".  How many times has
>> >> >> >> >Malcolm Ogilvie said they're not businesses but charities.  Pleased to
>> >> >> >> >see you disagree with him.  You're getting there.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> It has its codes of conduct ,and all
>> >> >> >> >>business is ethically reviewed to some degree by the powers that be.
>> >> >> >> >>So are you saying that all business people are crooks?
>>
>> >> >> >> >No I'm not.  But those even you think are "businesses like any other"
>> >> >> >> >should be subject to the same rules as other "businesses like any
>> >> >> >> >other" with regard to misrepresentation.  And misrepresentation in
>> >> >> >> >business is crooked and seen as such.
>>
>> >> >> >> Says Angus, after a typical piece of misrepresentation :-(
>>
>> >> >> >Isn't it interesting that we have got this far in the discussion and
>> >> >> >he has yet to invoke Godwin's Law.
>>
>> >> >> Perhaps my telling him repeatedly that he is obsessed has had an effect
>> >> >> :-))
>>
>> >> >> But perhaps not!
>>
>> >> >The crucial point about obsession is that the obsessed cannot know
>> >> >that they have a problem. Cultural institutions like revealed religion
>> >> >make billions of people partially or totally obsessed. These belief
>> >> >systems are carefully crafted, or have evolved with time, to do just
>> >> >that. Compulsive behaviour linked to the obsession reinforces it on a
>> >> >daily or even hourly basis. Visit any flavour of temple to see this in
>> >> >action.
>>
>> >> I would agree with that.  Malcolm's obsession is supporting the
>> >> killing of members of one species to benefit another and yours is the
>> >> wish to be regarded as an eminent scientist.
>>
>> >The last thing I would say about myself is that I am any more than
>> >just a scientist. Eminence is of no interest to me. If it was I would
>> >be engaged in furious research to produce as many publications as
>> >possible, as this is the only way one gains eminence in science theses
>> >days.
>>
>> So if you were "just a scientist" by your own admission then you were
>> probably a  pretty mediocre scientist stuck in a lab not achieving
>> very much.
>
>Nope. I was never in a lab after those early days, and I achieved the
>most valuable prize known in science - doing it correctly. As some
>wise person once wrote about science:" If you aren't upsetting
>somebody, somewhere, you aint doin' it right" Looks like conservation
>fills the bill very neatly :-)

A chemistry scientist without a lab?  Sounds like you were a science
teacher masquerading as a scientist.

>
>> >> I don't have one.
>>
>> >I have already dealt with the problem of how obsessed people view
>> >themselves elsewhere. Your response indicates I hit the nail on the
>> >head.
>>
>> So what qualification do you have to make such a statement?
>
>I can spot a real obsession from a fake any old time, and yours isn't
>faked. The rest of what you create in pursuit of this obsession is
>fake, of course.

So you don't have a qualification in this respect but mouth off as
usual.. That figures.

.  
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)