In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:15:59 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:11:27 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Aug 27, 8:35 am, Malcolm  wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>>
>>>>> >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.  I don't have one.  All I
>>>do is expose the fakes at every opportunity which doesn't take much
>>>effort.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, you do. You have several obsessions, one of which is attempting to
>>denigrate the conservation movement and those who support it.
>
>
>No Malcolm, if they were real conservationists I wouldn't oppose them.

Which is a typically pointless remark because you have admitted that you 
aren't prepared to acknowledge that there are any "real 
conservationists", which is proof, as if any were needed, of your 
obsession.


-- 
Malcolm