http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp

wrote in message 
news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>

If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these 
creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its 
support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the 
Uists for fear of such problems.

In article , BAC 
 writes
>
> wrote in message
>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>
>
>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these
>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the
>Uists for fear of such problems.
>
>
It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll 
is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on 
what is discovered from the trial.

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , BAC 
> writes
>>
>> wrote in message
>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>
>>
>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these
>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the
>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>
>>
>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll 
>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on 
>what is discovered from the trial.

But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
animals is disregarded.

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article , BAC
>> writes
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>
>>>
>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these
>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the
>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>
>>>
>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll
>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>what is discovered from the trial.
>
>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>animals is disregarded.
>
I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things 
might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside 
your mind), your comment is irrelevant.

-- 
Malcolm

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:18:47 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article , BAC
>>> writes
>>>>
>>>> wrote in message
>>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these
>>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the
>>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll
>>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>>what is discovered from the trial.
>>
>>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>>animals is disregarded.
>>
>I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things 
>might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside 
>your mind), your comment is irrelevant.


Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem with me calling conservation
organisations "fakes" because he doesn't have an argument against it
and it is amusing to see his only response is that "the fakes are in
my mind".    

So let me spell it out in the hope that it might educate him. 

The reason why so-called conservation organisations are fakes is that
they say they are conserving the natural environment but in reality
they are indulging in and encouraging environmentally damaging
activities which make them attractive to the general public and pulls
in their favourite commodity - money.   They also pump out masses of
junk mail and publications which are environmentally damaging in their
production, distribution and disposal and con the public into thinking
these are environmentally friendly by printing "100% recycled paper".
What a bunch of crooks these people really are!

But it doesn't stop there.

The whole conservation industry is a con from top to bottom!

The Kyoto Protocol scam got over 100 countries including the UK to
sign up to reducing emissions but excluded the emerging economies from
such limitations.  Despite signing the commitment and making great
claims about it, the UK is importing masses of produce from countries
of the emerging economies, so all that's happening is that we are
"exporting" our environmental so-called responsibilities to  the likes
of China.  Indeed, in Canada a last minute agreement was manufactured
to keep the scam going.

Another example of fake conservation was the RSPB's news release of
February 2005 in which they said "cooking our planet will disrupt and
devastate all life and giving this process the cosy name global
warming only makes it easier for all of us, especially politicians, to
ignore the consequences", yet at the same time they were accepting
pages of world wide travel advertisements in their Birds magazine.  Is
there any reason I should not call into question the honesty of these
people and call them fakes?  That's exactly what they are!

So Malcolm, wise up to the fact that the whole conservation industry
is bent from the top down and I've yet to see an exception.

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:18:47 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article , BAC
>>>> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these
>>>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the
>>>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll
>>>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>>>what is discovered from the trial.
>>>
>>>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>>>animals is disregarded.
>>>
>>I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things
>>might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside
>>your mind), your comment is irrelevant.
>
>
>Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem

I have no problems whatsoever with you or anyone else who disagrees with 
conservation. Though possibly well-meaning, you are entirely 
wrong-headed and are also biassed beyond belief which makes you come out 
with completely unsupported claims for which you can't produce any 
evidence. If asked, you resort to "look it up for yourself" comments and 
other indications that there is no evidence.

Snip rest of repetitious wrong-headedness.

-- 
Malcolm

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:28:37 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:18:47 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article , BAC
>>>>> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these
>>>>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the
>>>>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll
>>>>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>>>>what is discovered from the trial.
>>>>
>>>>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>>>>animals is disregarded.
>>>>
>>>I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things
>>>might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside
>>>your mind), your comment is irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem

Of course you do.  If conservationists were genunie they wouldn't be
encouraging people to engage in environmentally damaging activities
and doing so themselves.

The reason why so-called conservation organisations are fakes is that
they say they are conserving the natural environment but in reality
they are indulging in and encouraging environmentally damaging
activities which make them attractive to the general public and pulls
in their favourite commodity - money.   They also pump out masses of
junk mail and publications which are environmentally damaging in their
production, distribution and disposal and con the public into thinking
these are environmentally friendly by printing "100% recycled paper".
What a bunch of crooks these people really are!

>
>I have no problems whatsoever with you or anyone else who disagrees with 
>conservation. 

I don't disagree with conservation.  I oppose the fakes.

>Though possibly well-meaning, you are entirely 
>wrong-headed and are also biassed beyond belief which makes you come out 
>with completely unsupported claims for which you can't produce any 
>evidence. 

Wrong.  The RSPB is responsible for encouraging thousands of people to
Islay.  That's not conservation that's tourism.


>If asked, you resort to "look it up for yourself" comments and 
>other indications that there is no evidence.

That's not an indication there's no evidence.  It's an indication that
I'm not going to do your work for you.

>
>Snip rest of repetitious wrong-headedness.

Like?

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:28:37 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:18:47 +0100, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article , BAC
>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these
>>>>>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>>>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the
>>>>>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll
>>>>>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>>>>>what is discovered from the trial.
>>>>>
>>>>>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>>>>>animals is disregarded.
>>>>>
>>>>I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things
>>>>might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside
>>>>your mind), your comment is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>>Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem
>
>Of course you do.

No, it is you that has a problem, because despite your bleating on and 
on about "fake" conservation, genuine conservation continues apace.

>>
>>I have no problems whatsoever with you or anyone else who disagrees with
>>conservation.
>
>I don't disagree with conservation.  I oppose the fakes.
>
But you regard everything as "fake" thus defeating your own object.

>>Though possibly well-meaning, you are entirely
>>wrong-headed and are also biassed beyond belief which makes you come out
>>with completely unsupported claims for which you can't produce any
>>evidence.
>
>Wrong.  The RSPB is responsible for encouraging thousands of people to
>Islay.  That's not conservation that's tourism.
>
There's nothing wrong with combining conservation with tourism. 
Combining the two has done a great deal of good for conservation right 
across the world, as you have been told many times and as you have 
refused to accept, simply because the of the blinkers you choose to 
wear.
>
>>If asked, you resort to "look it up for yourself" comments and
>>other indications that there is no evidence.
>
>That's not an indication there's no evidence.  It's an indication that
>I'm not going to do your work for you.
>
No, it is an indication that the evidence doesn't exist.

>>
>>Snip rest of repetitious wrong-headedness.
>
>Like?
>
Like all your recent cut-and-pastes, like your continued bleating about 
non-existent "fake" conservation, like all your failed campaigns, etc., 
etc., etc.

-- 
Malcolm

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:21:47 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:28:37 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:18:47 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article , BAC
>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding of these
>>>>>>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>>>>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs from the
>>>>>>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll
>>>>>>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>>>>>>what is discovered from the trial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>>>>>>animals is disregarded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things
>>>>>might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside
>>>>>your mind), your comment is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem
>>
>>Of course you do.
>
>No, it is you that has a problem, because despite your bleating on and 
>on about "fake" conservation, genuine conservation continues apace.
>

Well give me an example of genuine conservation.


>>
>>>I have no problems whatsoever with you or anyone else who disagrees with
>>>conservation.
>>
>>I don't disagree with conservation.  I oppose the fakes.
>>
>But you regard everything as "fake" thus defeating your own object.

See above.

>
>>>Though possibly well-meaning, you are entirely
>>>wrong-headed and are also biassed beyond belief which makes you come out
>>>with completely unsupported claims for which you can't produce any
>>>evidence.
>>
>>Wrong.  The RSPB is responsible for encouraging thousands of people to
>>Islay.  That's not conservation that's tourism.
>>
>There's nothing wrong with combining conservation with tourism. 

Of course there is.  Using finite resources for tourism undermines the
long term existence of those the fakes say they're conserving.

>Combining the two has done a great deal of good for conservation right 
>across the world, as you have been told many times and as you have 
>refused to accept, simply because the of the blinkers you choose to 
>wear.

Rubbish, for the reason above.

>>
>>>If asked, you resort to "look it up for yourself" comments and
>>>other indications that there is no evidence.
>>
>>That's not an indication there's no evidence.  It's an indication that
>>I'm not going to do your work for you.
>>
>No, it is an indication that the evidence doesn't exist.
>

Not at all.  See above.

>>>
>>>Snip rest of repetitious wrong-headedness.
>>
>>Like?
>>
>Like all your recent cut-and-pastes, like your continued bleating about 
>non-existent "fake" conservation, like all your failed campaigns, etc., 
>etc., etc.

More like the failing campaigns of the fake conservationists.

Merseyside for one.

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:21:47 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:28:37 +0100, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:18:47 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article , BAC
>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>>>>>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll
>>>>>>>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>>>>>>>what is discovered from the trial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>>>>>>>animals is disregarded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things
>>>>>>might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside
>>>>>>your mind), your comment is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem
>>>
>>>Of course you do.
>>
>>No, it is you that has a problem, because despite your bleating on and
>>on about "fake" conservation, genuine conservation continues apace.
>>
>
>Well give me an example of genuine conservation.
>
The work of conservation agencies and organisations.
>
>>>
>>>>I have no problems whatsoever with you or anyone else who disagrees with
>>>>conservation.
>>>
>>>I don't disagree with conservation.  I oppose the fakes.
>>>
>>But you regard everything as "fake" thus defeating your own object.
>
>See above.
>
>>
>>>>Though possibly well-meaning, you are entirely
>>>>wrong-headed and are also biassed beyond belief which makes you come out
>>>>with completely unsupported claims for which you can't produce any
>>>>evidence.
>>>
>>>Wrong.  The RSPB is responsible for encouraging thousands of people to
>>>Islay.  That's not conservation that's tourism.
>>>
>>There's nothing wrong with combining conservation with tourism.
>
>Of course there is.  Using finite resources for tourism undermines the
>long term existence of those the fakes say they're conserving.
>
I'm really not interested in what your fantasy "fakes" get up to. 
Genuine conservation and tourism can and do work hand in hand to their 
joint benefit.

>>Combining the two has done a great deal of good for conservation right
>>across the world, as you have been told many times and as you have
>>refused to accept, simply because the of the blinkers you choose to
>>wear.
>
>Rubbish, for the reason above.
>
See above.

>>>
>>>>If asked, you resort to "look it up for yourself" comments and
>>>>other indications that there is no evidence.
>>>
>>>That's not an indication there's no evidence.  It's an indication that
>>>I'm not going to do your work for you.
>>>
>>No, it is an indication that the evidence doesn't exist.
>>
>
>Not at all.  See above.
>
Yawn.

>>>>
>>>>Snip rest of repetitious wrong-headedness.
>>>
>>>Like?
>>>
>>Like all your recent cut-and-pastes, like your continued bleating about
>>non-existent "fake" conservation, like all your failed campaigns, etc.,
>>etc., etc.
>
>More like the failing campaigns of the fake conservationists.
>
>Merseyside for one.
>
More fantasy nonsense about "fakes".

-- 
Malcolm

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:52:59 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:21:47 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:28:37 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:18:47 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article , BAC
>>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>>>>>>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers in Argyll
>>>>>>>>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>>>>>>>>what is discovered from the trial.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>>>>>>>>animals is disregarded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things
>>>>>>>might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside
>>>>>>>your mind), your comment is irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem
>>>>
>>>>Of course you do.
>>>
>>>No, it is you that has a problem, because despite your bleating on and
>>>on about "fake" conservation, genuine conservation continues apace.
>>>
>>
>>Well give me an example of genuine conservation.
>>
>The work of conservation agencies and organisations.

That's not an example; that's a fudge.

So you can't give me a single example?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have no problems whatsoever with you or anyone else who disagrees with
>>>>>conservation.
>>>>
>>>>I don't disagree with conservation.  I oppose the fakes.
>>>>
>>>But you regard everything as "fake" thus defeating your own object.
>>
>>See above.
>>
>>>
>>>>>Though possibly well-meaning, you are entirely
>>>>>wrong-headed and are also biassed beyond belief which makes you come out
>>>>>with completely unsupported claims for which you can't produce any
>>>>>evidence.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong.  The RSPB is responsible for encouraging thousands of people to
>>>>Islay.  That's not conservation that's tourism.
>>>>
>>>There's nothing wrong with combining conservation with tourism.
>>
>>Of course there is.  Using finite resources for tourism undermines the
>>long term existence of those the fakes say they're conserving.
>>
>I'm really not interested in what your fantasy "fakes" get up to. 
>Genuine conservation and tourism can and do work hand in hand to their 
>joint benefit.
>

Give me an example that isn't undermining the long term existence of
those the fakes say they're conserving.


>>>Combining the two has done a great deal of good for conservation right
>>>across the world, as you have been told many times and as you have
>>>refused to accept, simply because the of the blinkers you choose to
>>>wear.
>>
>>Rubbish, for the reason above.
>>
>See above.
>
>>>>
>>>>>If asked, you resort to "look it up for yourself" comments and
>>>>>other indications that there is no evidence.
>>>>
>>>>That's not an indication there's no evidence.  It's an indication that
>>>>I'm not going to do your work for you.
>>>>
>>>No, it is an indication that the evidence doesn't exist.
>>>
>>
>>Not at all.  See above.
>>
>Yawn.
>

If you're tired, go to sleep and do some good.

>>>>>
>>>>>Snip rest of repetitious wrong-headedness.
>>>>
>>>>Like?
>>>>
>>>Like all your recent cut-and-pastes, like your continued bleating about
>>>non-existent "fake" conservation, like all your failed campaigns, etc.,
>>>etc., etc.
>>
>>More like the failing campaigns of the fake conservationists.
>>
>>Merseyside for one.
>>
>More fantasy nonsense about "fakes".

Seems you can't give an example of genuine conservation.  That's the
reality of fakes.

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:52:59 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:21:47 +0100, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:28:37 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:18:47 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:29 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article , BAC
>>>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:ipa3859frvsu3ncqml45i0dfcksbec35ga@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Who-gives-a-dam.5540859.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If the trials demonstrate that the translocation and re-wilding
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>creatures is inhumane or impractical, I'm sure SNH will withdraw its
>>>>>>>>>>>support. After all, they opposed the translocation of hedgehogs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Uists for fear of such problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It has been made abundantly clear that the release of beavers 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>is a time-limited trial which could be ended or extended depending on
>>>>>>>>>>what is discovered from the trial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But like most of these fake "conservation" projects the welfare of the
>>>>>>>>>animals is disregarded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I dare say that in "fake conservation" projects, all sorts of things
>>>>>>>>might or might not happen, but as that concept doesn't exist (outside
>>>>>>>>your mind), your comment is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Malcolm Ogilvie really has a problem
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course you do.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is you that has a problem, because despite your bleating on and
>>>>on about "fake" conservation, genuine conservation continues apace.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well give me an example of genuine conservation.
>>>
>>The work of conservation agencies and organisations.
>
>That's not an example; that's a fudge.
>
>So you can't give me a single example?
>
Removing rats from Ailsa Craig, Canna, Handa, Lundy, several New Zealand 
islands, etc.

I could give you hundreds of examples, or you could look them up 
yourself on the websites of conservation agencies and organisations.

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have no problems whatsoever with you or anyone else who disagrees with
>>>>>>conservation.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't disagree with conservation.  I oppose the fakes.
>>>>>
>>>>But you regard everything as "fake" thus defeating your own object.
>>>
>>>See above.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Though possibly well-meaning, you are entirely
>>>>>>wrong-headed and are also biassed beyond belief which makes you come out
>>>>>>with completely unsupported claims for which you can't produce any
>>>>>>evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong.  The RSPB is responsible for encouraging thousands of people to
>>>>>Islay.  That's not conservation that's tourism.
>>>>>
>>>>There's nothing wrong with combining conservation with tourism.
>>>
>>>Of course there is.  Using finite resources for tourism undermines the
>>>long term existence of those the fakes say they're conserving.
>>>
>>I'm really not interested in what your fantasy "fakes" get up to.
>>Genuine conservation and tourism can and do work hand in hand to their
>>joint benefit.
>>
>
>Give me an example that isn't undermining the long term existence of
>those the fakes say they're conserving.
>
I've no idea what your fantasy "fakes" are saying. How could I when they 
exist solely in your head?

>
>>>>Combining the two has done a great deal of good for conservation right
>>>>across the world, as you have been told many times and as you have
>>>>refused to accept, simply because the of the blinkers you choose to
>>>>wear.
>>>
>>>Rubbish, for the reason above.
>>>
>>See above.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If asked, you resort to "look it up for yourself" comments and
>>>>>>other indications that there is no evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not an indication there's no evidence.  It's an indication that
>>>>>I'm not going to do your work for you.
>>>>>
>>>>No, it is an indication that the evidence doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all.  See above.
>>>
>>Yawn.
>>
>
>If you're tired, go to sleep and do some good.
>
Sleep does indeed do one good, Angus. Well done.



>>>>>>
>>>>>>Snip rest of repetitious wrong-headedness.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like?
>>>>>
>>>>Like all your recent cut-and-pastes, like your continued bleating about
>>>>non-existent "fake" conservation, like all your failed campaigns, etc.,
>>>>etc., etc.
>>>
>>>More like the failing campaigns of the fake conservationists.
>>>
>>>Merseyside for one.
>>>
>>More fantasy nonsense about "fakes".
>
>Seems you can't give an example of genuine conservation.

See above.

>  That's the
>reality of fakes.
>
Fantasy "fakes" can't have a "reality", Angus. You're confused :-)

-- 
Malcolm