GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post - SHAMEFUL ADMISSION BY SCOTLAND'S SHOOTING INDUSTRY

[email protected]

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:59:44 +0000,
wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:33:59 +0000,
wrote:

In message , Christina Websell
writes

wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:01:52 +0000,
wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:38:29 +0000,
wrote:

In message ,
writes
Press Release 19th Feb 2007

SHAMEFUL ADMISSION BY SCOTLAND'S SHOOTING INDUSTRY

LEAGUE AGAINST CRUEL SPORTS CONDEMNS TREATMENT OF GAME BIRDS

The Game Conservancy Trust has admitted the welfare of many

was jeopardised this season by transporting the birds hundreds of
miles in hot weather.

I was sure you had always held the view that translocation wasn't
harmful to animals.

Are you suggesting you were wrong?

Since you've decided not to be sensible and discontinue posting your
rubbish,

Angus I do not consider giving in to attempts to brow beat, bully or
intimidate me into silence sensible. So in your terms no I haven't
decided to be sensible - which I assumes means I haven't given in to
your attempts to silence me ;-))))

I notice however your resorting to abuse is getting greater. Surely you
realise abuse is the last refuge of the coward and the bully.

Since you've decided not to be sensible and discontinue posting your
rubbish, I

Angus I do not consider giving in to attempts to brow beat, bully or
intimidate me into silence sensible. So in your terms no I haven't
decided to be sensible - which I assumes means I haven't given in to your
attempts to silence me ;-))))

I notice however your resorting to abuse is getting greater. Surely you
realise abuse is the last refuge of the coward and the bully.

I really do appreciate how you take him on so bravely. It might be
the best
thing to do ignore completely now, yes?

I am sorry but now is not the time to ignore Angus.

At the moment he is trying to coerce/bully/intimidate me into not
posting.

I'm not trying to intimidate you Malcolm.

So you admit to the coercing and bullying :-))))))

Not at all.

You seldom post any meaningful responses and just act as a sock puppet
for Dr Thick with an endless flow of garbage such as the most recent
concerning relocation. You are comparing the relocation of hedgehogs
for their own benefit with the transport of pheasant chicks by truck
where large numbers die before they reach their destination. That is
just plain stupid.

Angus I am afraid that translocation is translocation. Calves
transported suffer sometimes from "transit fever" or shock pneumonia.

Not for their own good.

So the risk of suffering and death is acceptable if it is for their own
good?

Why the animal as being moved doesn't remove the problem. The problem
remains.

Not at all. The reason behind the removal determines whether it is a
problem or not.

Suffering and death is a problem if it is for the animals own good.
Personally I feel a quick clean death is better than the suffering
before the death.

You seem to think that because they are being moved "for their own good"
they will not suffer.

It has been shown that the hedgehogs don't.

None?

This is not so.

See above.

Reference please.

This I **WILL NOT** do.

Ok.

I am sorry for all concerned I have suggested that kill filing the pair
of us would be best as I intend to keep on for months or years rather
than be silenced.

Another stupid statement. If people do as you suggest, the effect
will be the same as not posting at all. :-))

I see you haven't answered this because you probably realise how
stupid you are being by backing yourself into a corner like this :-))

Angus I am in no corner I can and will happily spend years cutting and
pasting to your abusive and or cut and paste replies.

That is a fact take it or leave it.

As I have said in the past I have no objection to answering you posts
if they are not stupid sniping like the one above.

Angus I am not going to change usenet practice just because you don't
like it.

I'm not asking you to change usenet practice, merely to look at the
responses I've given to Dr Thick.

Firstly I don't look at posts directed by abusive replies.

Secondly as I often point out you don't address the points in your
replies to anyone.

You appear to have snipped what Christina said and find that acceptable.

No I haven't . This is a separate post

This post contains Christina's message ID and some of her words. They
didn't get there by accident.

If they hadn't been snipped all her words would be there.

And you, like
Malcolm Ogilvie are not capable of arguing your case in a coherent
manner without attacking me on a personal basis - to which I shall
respond in.kind.

What personal attack have I launched?

On many occasions you falsely attack me rather than the issue,
"intellectually challenged" springs to mind among a host of other
denigrating descriptions because I challenge the fake
conservationists.

Sorry I was merely using your own style but in less abusive terms.

I don't think intellectually challenged is an attack merely a statement
of what I feel. You MIGHT also notice I generally say words to the
effect that "you can't be so..." or "I don't believe you are..."

However if you feel it acceptable to call people thick or stupid why do
you get so touchy about their replies.

Perhaps you should set an example by refraining from such tactics.

You began the present situation by deciding that you were going to
answer all my posts with a one liner which was abusive of the person you
choose to call DR Thick.

Sure because I was responding to Dr Thick and said to you "See my
responses to Dr Thick" You're not Dr Thick's keeper or protector. I
certainly wasn't abusing you.

I don't think Angus that A NG is any place for such abuse of anybody.

That doesn't also alter the fact that you used your one line abusive
reply and pretended to have replied elsewhere.

You might have noticed I drew your attention to the fact when you didn't
in fact address the point elsewhere.

And Dr Thick abuses me on many occasions which you seem to ignore.

IMO he is responding to your continual style of abuse when somebody
doesn't agree with you.

As I say above I don't consider a NG as any place for such abuse.

I responded it kind.

I am quite happy that you either respond or not to my posts.

If you respond with abusive one liners etc. I will respond in kind.

But I'm not abusing you. I'm referring you to my responses to Dr
Thick.

I didn't say you were I said the response was abusive, Why should I
tolerate abuse in any reply no matter to whom it is addressed.

If you don't respond fair enough. However when I ask a question and you
don't respond it is hard to know if you have missed the post or are
trying to avoid the post.

That's why I responded.

Fair enough. Still no excuse for abuse or not answering the points in
replies to others.

Can you suggest a way in which I will know?

By seeing my response that refers you to my responses to Dr thick.

You see abuse is habitual with you. In this post I haven't attacked you
or abused you but you still can't manage to carry on a civilised
discussion without abuse.

To address your point seeing your responses to others. I read all posts
to the NG apart from the resident troll whom I have kill filed.

Don't bother to ask - you will know the individual well enough.

However this does not always address the points I make generally 50% or
less.

I am quite happy to bring all this nonsense to a close if you are
prepared to post sensibly.

Angus I feel that all I do is use usenet. You have as does anyone else
the choice of responding or not.

Which I have been doing and not abusing you.

Angus you haven't been not responding. You have been posting cut and
paste replies which are abusive to other posters on the NG.

I object to abuse of anyone.

I will respond if I feel I have a point to make or a question to ask.

So will I.

Good! However I feel that many times when the question is asked you
avoid answering by referring to other posts which as I have pointed out
only address the point about 50% of the time.

If I am met by abuse to myself OR OTHERS I will respond in kind.

So are you setting yourself up as this ng's protector?

NO I am merely trying to establish posts of a kind that I am prepared to
accept and read.

Most people eventually respond to the "do as you would be done by"
treatment.

In fact I think this discussion is as a result of such tactics.

Or just a sock puppet for Dr Thick?

As I pointed out habitual abuse.

There has been no abuse from me in this post so why is your reply
littered with it?

I am also not stupid enough to let this go on for "months or years".

Good. I however am if necessary.

So you're stupid enough?

I am prepared to accept that by your description replying as I have been
doing is stupid (why do I now expect that to pop up in some abuse in the
future). I am also prepared to carry on my vendetta/campaign call it
what you will for years if you wish to carry on your side.

Please read this carefully try to understand my point of view and then
either respond or not as you feel fit.

However I WILL NOT stop posting merely because you would like me to.

Nor me. And if I think it is fitting to refer you to my responses to
another poster.

Providing that the responses address the point. Sadly they often don't.

I am sorry that I have replied to a large number of posts before this.
That is due to the way my news reader presents them to me.

I shall not reply to any more of your cut and pastes in this session
until I see what sort of a reply ( or not ) I get to this post.

Good, so I shan't respond to your until I get an answer.

But before all this I would like you to consider the responses I have
copied and pasted about Malcolm Ogilvie.

He is a PhD and advisor for a leading government agency and yet comes
away with some amazing garbage.

I am afraid that is only your opinion. It certainly isn't mine or I
feel any others who read his posts.

I have always found his replies to be firmly based in fact and or
accepted methodology, techniques, classifications etc.

In my view that qualifies me for
calling him Dr Thick and I don't consider it abuse; it is merely a
label he has well and truly earned.

It is an abusive label earned or not. Coming from a person who got so
upset about what he perceived as a slur on school children who were only
able to achieve a single exam result it is also difficult to understand
your stance.

The one smart thing he's done in the past few days is leave you to
carry the can of repetitive posting which he sensibly abandoned after
one day :-))

I am carrying the can for nobody, merely trying to communicate with a
NG.

Do you never feel used?

No as I haven't been. What I am doing is purely my own tactic and one I
am perfectly comfortable with.

To summarise.

I post as a free agent to a NG I like.

I object to abuse of anyone particularly when I feel it unnecessary. (I
feel you dish out FAR more abuse then you receive I know you obviously
don't. Perhaps I should draw to your attention when you do.)

I will continue to post to news groups as and when I feel fit I will not
be told by anyone when I should and shouldn't post.

If you respond by huge swathes of cut and pasted abuse then expect me to
use the same tactics. (No matter who the abuse is addressed to)

If you post references for me to read other posts that is fair enough
PROVIDED the points I make are actually addressed in those posts. If
they aren't expect me to draw it to your attention probably in the way
that this started..
--
Malcolm Kane