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 :-)

> >> 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.