On Aug 25, 10:33 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> 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."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Aug 24, 9:29 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:08:55 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >On Aug 24, 1:08 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:59:13 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Aug 23, 5:48 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:57:26 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Aug 23, 12:02 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
> >> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Aug 22, 7:09 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:23:37 -0700 (PDT), tourism
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You will find that there are many different types of eco-tourism;
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >however, you will find that there are many reasons why you will need
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to get involved as well. You will find that there are many different
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >types of eco-tourism so that everyone can take an interest in the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >project and be able to make a project that is convenient for them.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.extremeelements.com/
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Eco-tourism is fake!  It is not eco friendly at all and is a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> contradiction in terms.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Which part of "eco-tourism" contradicts which other part?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> The first and the last.  Eco-tourism is being falsely promoted as
> >> >> >> >> >> environmentally friendly but tourism overall is environmentally
> >> >> >> >> >> damaging.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Nope. There is no such contradiction in eco-tourism. It's being
> >> >> >> >> >promoted as a way of enjoying an environmentally negative practice,
> >> >> >> >> >while at the same time trying to reduce the negativity inherent in it.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Using home appliances to increase comfort and motor cars to increase
> >> >> >> >> >individual mobility are also environmentally negative. Switching to
> >> >> >> >> >reduced domestic energy use, generating power from renewable sources,
> >> >> >> >> >making cars that are more efficient are all ways of reducing the
> >> >> >> >> >negativity.
>
> >> >> >> >> >But whatever we do as a species, we are going to remain
> >> >> >> >> >environmentally negative unless, as is needed in places for the
> >> >> >> >> >environmentally negative African Elephant, we get the population down
> >> >> >> >> >- or return to an Australopithecine life style.
>
> >> >> >> >>> >This is not to say that there are no unscrupulous operators out there
> >> >> >> >> >who are branding their product in this way, when it is not.
>
> >> >> >> >> Rubbish.  We don't need to travel to faraway places to view rare
> >> >> >> >> animals and plants but we do need transport to go about our daily
> >> >> >> >> business.
>
> >> >> >> >So you never take a holiday away from home then?
>
> >> >> >> Very seldom, I don't feel the need.  Holidays are generally
> >> >> >> boring.unless going to meet friends.  I see little value in oohing and
> >> >> >> aahing at other species
>
> >> >> >We are all different. Why should those who get pleasure out of
> >> >> >wildlife give that up to please you?
>
> >> >> I don't care where they travel to see wildlife.  It's the fakes that
> >> >> try to market it as eco friendly I object to
>
> >> >> >Would you give up something you
> >> >> >enjoy, such as driving a large gas-guzzling car, in order to please
> >> >> >those who regard it as obscene?
>
> >> >> Same applies. I don't care how many people drive large cars - it's
> >> >> their choice.
>
> >> >> >> and disturbing their habitat.
>
> >> >> >Has it occured to you that every individual on the planet is
> >> >> >disturbing the habitat. You do it by proxy when you shop for food,
> >> >> >forcing some third world farmer to destroy wilderness to produce it.
> >> >> >Pristine rainforest is sliced up to plant palm oil trees to feed your
> >> >> >penchant for driving a gas-guzzling Range Rover
>
> >> >> Of course it has but I don't claim to be a conservationist.  It the
> >> >> crooks who do the same as me but try to say it's environmentally
> >> >> friendly I oppose.
>
> >> >Well so do I. It's just that thus far I have not been able to spot any
> >> >such crooks.
>
> >> Seems you're not very good at spotting very much.
>
> >So who else, besides yourself, has spotted these "crooks". Name
> >somebody, anybody, who has identified an eco-tourism enterprise as
> >being run by a crook and finger the crook they spotted.
>
> People I speak to frequently refer to conservationists in general as
> crooks when they realise they are damaging the environment rather than
> protecting it to further their own agenda.

I asked for a name - any name. You gave me the result of most likely
imaginary conversations you have had.

> >> >> >> >> Your theory is like saying that because Mugabe hasn't killed more
> >> >> >> >> people he can be regarded as a humanitarian.
>
> >> >> >> >Does your brain hurt? It should.
>
> >> >> >> Not at all.  One cannot damage the environment and claim to be eco
> >> >> >> friendly by reducing the damage when there is an option not damage it
> >> >> >> at all.
>
> >> >> >As I pointed out above, you and I damage the environment even while
> >> >> >not shifting from our regular ambit.
>
> >> >> Sure.  See above.
>
> >> >> >>  And many eco tourism operators are taking people where little
> >> >> >> or no damage was done before.  So they're actually increasing the
> >> >> >> damage by exploiting wild places for economic benefit to themselves.
>
> >> >> >You need to demonstrate that this is not pure speculation on your part
> >> >> >by giving a documented example.
>
> >> >> Polar beard sightseeing trips aimed at people thousands of miles away
> >> >> is an example.
>
> >> >That would be the white beard, I suppose, of Santa Claus ;-))))
>
> >> :-)))
>
> >> >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.

I don't know of any charities actually running ec-tourism as part of
their core business. Neither do yo, or you would have posted the
damning references and links long ago. Stop making stuff up and rejoin
us in the real world - then we can perhaps discuss matters better and
improve the environment for all.

> > 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.

The mis-representation is a matter for the courts to decide. Take your
evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. Put up ,or.......hey, you
know the rest.

> >> >> >> The Woodland Trust are like this. The exploit woodlands for access
> >> >> >> where there was little or no access before.  If that's not bad enough
> >> >> >> they're now consuming agricultural land at a time there is a global
> >> >> >> food shortage.
>
> >> >> >> And the Mugabe analogy isn't far away.  He hasn't killed as many
> >> >> >> people as he could have killed, just as fake conservationists haven't
> >> >> >> done as much damage as they could have done.  But they're both
> >> >> >> culpable of what they actually do.
>
> >> >> >See a professional person concerning this obsessive attachment of
> >> >> >yours to such weird ideas.
>
> >> >> It's not weird at all.
>
> >> >> I think it's you who needs help.to understand.
>
> >> >I understand your state of mind OK. But I have no professional
> >> >qualification to help you deal with it.
>
> >> Your professional qualification doesn't appear to help you deal with
> >> anything.
>
> >Which one of my professional qualifications are you referring to?
>
> Any one you like.

In that case I have to tell you that you are wrong. I have a
professional qualification that helps me deal with something.