In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:00:18 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> If you read about it you'll find out it's not a "law" at all. And the
>comparison between Hitler and his thugs who killed millions to benefit
>his chosen ones is the very same principle as the fake conservationist
>who kill wildlife for the same reason.
>
And here is the obsession, alive and well :-((

-- 
Malcolm