On Aug 26, 6:38 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:41:14 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
>  wrote:
> >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:

<snip>

> >> >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.
>
> SNH to start with. They claim to protect the natural environment but
> encourage its destruction by increasing the human footprint.

SNH calls conservationists crooks? That's a whopper even by your
standards.

<snip>

> I have often said that charities like the RSPB are indistinguishable
> from tourist operators by encouraging environmentally damaging
> activities and by their own admission are responsible for thousands of
> tourists visiting Islay  I think they claimed 6000 if I remember
> correctly.

So 6 000 people escaped briefly from hopeless ennui which more-than-
likely engulfs their lives. And you object to that? Get a life!
>
> >Stop making stuff up and rejoin
> >us in the real world - then we can perhaps discuss matters better and
> >improve the environment for all.
>
> Not by being fake conservationists.
>
> >> > 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.
>
> As I have said before. the courts are on the side of the
> "establishment" and if that's not a crooked bunch just ask anybody how
> this country is being run.  It's rotten from the top down and there is
> hardly a day goes by when this is not confirmed in one way or another.
> Even you got out of it.

I didn't "get out" because I was obsessed by paranoiac conspiracy
theories.

> >> >> >> >> 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.
>
> Like what?

Well for a start, I know how to deal with the synthesis of a number of
obscure heterocyclic organic compounds.......

> You seem to be of a kind with Malcolm :-))

Dishing out compliments for a change, eh?

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:18:08 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Aug 27, 3:02 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:21:10 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Aug 27, 12:23 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:10:46 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 26, 10:56 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:28:37 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >On Aug 26, 6:38 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:41:14 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
><snip>
>
>> >> >> You asked for a name and I gave it..  Where did I say SNH calls
>> >> >> conservationists crooks?
>>
>> >> >> Like most fake conservationists you start lying when you're stuck.
>>
>> >> >Read the thread above. I asked for a name, any name, of somebody other
>> >> >than yourself who has spotted "crooks" masquerading as
>> >> >conservationists. You gave me SNH.
>>
>> >> >I accept your apology in advance.
>>
>> >> You're right! I misread your post.
>>
>> >It happens. I've done it myself. And thank you for being good enough
>> >to say so, and therefore to distance me from imaginary fake
>> >conservationists that infect your brain so badly :-))))
>>
>> Don't get carried away.  I didn't say I was distancing you from
>> anything.  Perhaps you can apologise for misreading my post.
>
>What did I misread. You said I was lying like a 'fake
>conservationist'. Then you noted that I was not lying. That changes
>the sense of your statement, and by default its re-interpretation
>distances me from the implications of it.
>

Fair enough.   

>> >> >> >> I have often said that charities like the RSPB are indistinguishable
>> >> >> >> from tourist operators by encouraging environmentally damaging
>> >> >> >> activities and by their own admission are responsible for thousands of
>> >> >> >> tourists visiting Islay  I think they claimed 6000 if I remember
>> >> >> >> correctly.
>>
>> >> >> >So 6 000 people escaped briefly from hopeless ennui which more-than-
>> >> >> >likely engulfs their lives. And you object to that? Get a life!
>
>Whilst you are making insinuations about why I did not answer certain
>bits of your posts, here's a bit of one of mine that you ignored. Do I
>take it I am correct in my presumption?

I don't care how many people travel anywhere. - I have said this
before - but I oppose those who try to say it's conserving the natural
environment.   I thought you might understand that.

You must have lived a terribly miserable life if you think people go
away to get away from their hopeless ennui.  On the other hand, I have
never done anything in my life I didn't want to do and enjoyed every
minute of it.


>
>> >> >> >> >Stop making stuff up and rejoin
>> >> >> >> >us in the real world - then we can perhaps discuss matters better and
>> >> >> >> >improve the environment for all.
>>
>> >> >> >> Not by being fake conservationists.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> >> >> As I have said before. the courts are on the side of the
>> >> >> >> "establishment" and if that's not a crooked bunch just ask anybody how
>> >> >> >> this country is being run.  It's rotten from the top down and there is
>> >> >> >> hardly a day goes by when this is not confirmed in one way or another.
>> >> >> >> Even you got out of it.
>>
>> >> >> >I didn't "get out" because I was obsessed by paranoiac conspiracy
>> >> >> >theories.
>>
>> >> >> You have frequently criticised the UK in your posts here.
>>
>> >> >Criticism is nothing to do with ludicrous conspiracy theories.
>>
>> >> I don't need conspiracy theories.  The facts are there for all to see.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> >> >> Like what?
>>
>> >> >> >Well for a start, I know how to deal with the synthesis of a number of
>> >> >> >obscure heterocyclic organic compounds.......
>>
>> >> >> Big deal!   Is that all?   Doesn't seem to have done you much good.
>>
>> >> >Well you were wrong about that too. I learned to get out of a
>> >> >synthetic chemistry laboratory as fast as possible if I wanted to live
>> >> >to a ripe old age.
>>
>> >> So how long did it take you to learn that?
>>
>> >3 years.
>>
>> You're obviously not a fast learner.
>
>In the 60s nobody knew what we know today. Some of my colleagues from
>those days, who made research chemistry their career choice are dead
>now.

So you were a research chemist?  How boring.  And here's me thinking
you were a leading edge scientist.  Were you a professor? 

>
>> >> >> >> You seem to be of a kind with Malcolm :-))
>>
>> >> >> >Dishing out compliments for a change, eh?
>>
>> >> >> You certainly seem to have similar dubious qualities.  Perhaps you
>> >> >> consider that a compliment.  No accounting for what fake
>> >> >> conservationists think.
>>
>> >> Seems I was right.
>>
>> >Because I ignore your trivia you think that makes you right. Better
>> >get yourself down to the shrink double quick.
>>
>> Seems I was right after all :-))
>
>Seems you were unusually trivial after all.

That confirms I was right.
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 Aug 27, 6:04 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:18:08 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Aug 27, 3:02 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:21:10 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Aug 27, 12:23 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:10:46 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >On Aug 26, 10:56 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:28:37 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Aug 26, 6:38 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:41:14 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >> >> You asked for a name and I gave it..  Where did I say SNH calls
> >> >> >> conservationists crooks?
>
> >> >> >> Like most fake conservationists you start lying when you're stuck.
>
> >> >> >Read the thread above. I asked for a name, any name, of somebody other
> >> >> >than yourself who has spotted "crooks" masquerading as
> >> >> >conservationists. You gave me SNH.
>
> >> >> >I accept your apology in advance.
>
> >> >> You're right! I misread your post.
>
> >> >It happens. I've done it myself. And thank you for being good enough
> >> >to say so, and therefore to distance me from imaginary fake
> >> >conservationists that infect your brain so badly :-))))
>
> >> Don't get carried away.  I didn't say I was distancing you from
> >> anything.  Perhaps you can apologise for misreading my post.
>
> >What did I misread. You said I was lying like a 'fake
> >conservationist'. Then you noted that I was not lying. That changes
> >the sense of your statement, and by default its re-interpretation
> >distances me from the implications of it.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> >> >> >> >> I have often said that charities like the RSPB are indistinguishable
> >> >> >> >> from tourist operators by encouraging environmentally damaging
> >> >> >> >> activities and by their own admission are responsible for thousands of
> >> >> >> >> tourists visiting Islay  I think they claimed 6000 if I remember
> >> >> >> >> correctly.
>
> >> >> >> >So 6 000 people escaped briefly from hopeless ennui which more-than-
> >> >> >> >likely engulfs their lives. And you object to that? Get a life!
>
> >Whilst you are making insinuations about why I did not answer certain
> >bits of your posts, here's a bit of one of mine that you ignored. Do I
> >take it I am correct in my presumption?
>
> I don't care how many people travel anywhere. - I have said this
> before - but I oppose those who try to say it's conserving the natural
> environment.   I thought you might understand that.
>
> You must have lived a terribly miserable life if you think people go
> away to get away from their hopeless ennui.  On the other hand, I have
> never done anything in my life I didn't want to do and enjoyed every
> minute of it.

Obsessive compulsion gets people like that. Born-again christians are
a good example, tramping door-to-door peddling their nonsense and as
happy as the day is long doing it..

> >> >> >> >> >Stop making stuff up and rejoin
> >> >> >> >> >us in the real world - then we can perhaps discuss matters better and
> >> >> >> >> >improve the environment for all.
>
> >> >> >> >> Not by being fake conservationists.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> >> >> >> As I have said before. the courts are on the side of the
> >> >> >> >> "establishment" and if that's not a crooked bunch just ask anybody how
> >> >> >> >> this country is being run.  It's rotten from the top down and there is
> >> >> >> >> hardly a day goes by when this is not confirmed in one way or another.
> >> >> >> >> Even you got out of it.
>
> >> >> >> >I didn't "get out" because I was obsessed by paranoiac conspiracy
> >> >> >> >theories.
>
> >> >> >> You have frequently criticised the UK in your posts here.
>
> >> >> >Criticism is nothing to do with ludicrous conspiracy theories.
>
> >> >> I don't need conspiracy theories.  The facts are there for all to see.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> >> >> >> Like what?
>
> >> >> >> >Well for a start, I know how to deal with the synthesis of a number of
> >> >> >> >obscure heterocyclic organic compounds.......
>
> >> >> >> Big deal!   Is that all?   Doesn't seem to have done you much good.
>
> >> >> >Well you were wrong about that too. I learned to get out of a
> >> >> >synthetic chemistry laboratory as fast as possible if I wanted to live
> >> >> >to a ripe old age.
>
> >> >> So how long did it take you to learn that?
>
> >> >3 years.
>
> >> You're obviously not a fast learner.
>
> >In the 60s nobody knew what we know today. Some of my colleagues from
> >those days, who made research chemistry their career choice are dead
> >now.
>
> So you were a research chemist?  How boring.  And here's me thinking
> you were a leading edge scientist.  Were you a professor?

What makes you think I could achieve that after just 3 years post-
grad. Professors spend more time than that in the lab before moving
up.

> >> >> >> >> You seem to be of a kind with Malcolm :-))
>
> >> >> >> >Dishing out compliments for a change, eh?
>
> >> >> >> You certainly seem to have similar dubious qualities.  Perhaps you
> >> >> >> consider that a compliment.  No accounting for what fake
> >> >> >> conservationists think.
>
> >> >> Seems I was right.
>
> >> >Because I ignore your trivia you think that makes you right. Better
> >> >get yourself down to the shrink double quick.
>
> >> Seems I was right after all :-))
>
> >Seems you were unusually trivial after all.
>
> That confirms I was right.