In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| I understood a 'troll' was generally held to be a person who deliberately
| posted derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intention of provoking
| 'flaming' responses. Angus Macmillan is conducting an anti conservation (as
| we know it) publicity campaign, not deliberately 'trolling' newsgroups
| merely for effect.

He is a borderline case, but a lot of his posts ARE trolling.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| I understood a 'troll' was generally held to be a person who
deliberately
| posted derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intention of
provoking
| 'flaming' responses. Angus Macmillan is conducting an anti conservation
(as
| we know it) publicity campaign, not deliberately 'trolling' newsgroups
| merely for effect.

He is a borderline case, but a lot of his posts ARE trolling.


I would agree he sometimes sets out to bait individuals with whom he has
been conducting a feud. As they do him.

Organization: University of Cambridge, England
Keywords:


In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| I would agree he sometimes sets out to bait individuals with whom he has
| been conducting a feud. As they do him.

Mea culpa :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

BAC wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote...
The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:
The perpetrator of this thread has made u.e.c unusable. Mind
you, some of the blame for this is shared by the small group of posters
there who continue to have dealings with him.

Your second sentence is the clue to the real problem; those bona fide
regular users who continue to respond to obvious trolls when they know,
from long experience, the negative effect the troll habitually inflicts
on a group.

Angus Macmillan is conducting an anti conservation (as
we know it) publicity campaign, not deliberately 'trolling' newsgroups
merely for effect.

And I bet he goes off to bed each and every night basking in
the glow of the knowledge of another good job, well done. Free
publicity, more than almost anyone could hope to get, from a
few people who will not stop spoon-feeding him help by the
bucketful. The destruction of u.e.c is purely incidental.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote...
The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:
The perpetrator of this thread has made u.e.c unusable. Mind
you, some of the blame for this is shared by the small group of posters
there who continue to have dealings with him.

Your second sentence is the clue to the real problem; those bona fide
regular users who continue to respond to obvious trolls when they know,
from long experience, the negative effect the troll habitually inflicts
on a group.

Angus Macmillan is conducting an anti conservation (as
we know it) publicity campaign, not deliberately 'trolling' newsgroups
merely for effect.

And I bet he goes off to bed each and every night basking in
the glow of the knowledge of another good job, well done. Free
publicity, more than almost anyone could hope to get, from a
few people who will not stop spoon-feeding him help by the
bucketful. The destruction of u.e.c is purely incidental.

Angus has been successful in making his opinions known - not only on u.e.c,
and other newsgroups, but also via his websites, the correspondence columns
of various newspapers, at public meetings, and, I understand, from a towed
'stall' at some open air events.

But has he succeeded in his underlying aims? The RSPB continues from
strength to strength; the WT continues to plant trees and to allow public
access to most of them; people continue to visit Nature Reserves in their
motor cars; charities still operate visitor centres and employ volunteer
labour; National Parks have yet to be disbanded; wild animals continue to be
culled as part of conservation land management; glyphosate is still used in
conservation land management - and so on.

If the former regulars of u.e.c had been more tolerant of dissenting
opinions, I doubt it would have experienced the unpleasantness which has
come to dominate its threads.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:57:40 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:


"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote...
The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:
The perpetrator of this thread has made u.e.c unusable. Mind
you, some of the blame for this is shared by the small group of posters
there who continue to have dealings with him.

Your second sentence is the clue to the real problem; those bona fide
regular users who continue to respond to obvious trolls when they know,
from long experience, the negative effect the troll habitually inflicts
on a group.

Angus Macmillan is conducting an anti conservation (as
we know it) publicity campaign, not deliberately 'trolling' newsgroups
merely for effect.

And I bet he goes off to bed each and every night basking in
the glow of the knowledge of another good job, well done. Free
publicity, more than almost anyone could hope to get, from a
few people who will not stop spoon-feeding him help by the
bucketful. The destruction of u.e.c is purely incidental.

Angus has been successful in making his opinions known - not only on u.e.c,
and other newsgroups, but also via his websites, the correspondence columns
of various newspapers, at public meetings, and, I understand, from a towed
'stall' at some open air events.

But has he succeeded in his underlying aims? The RSPB continues from
strength to strength; the WT continues to plant trees and to allow public
access to most of them; people continue to visit Nature Reserves in their
motor cars; charities still operate visitor centres and employ volunteer
labour; National Parks have yet to be disbanded; wild animals continue to be
culled as part of conservation land management; glyphosate is still used in
conservation land management - and so on.

I don't think success can be gauged in terms of stopping all the above
practices in a one. I chip away at the credibility of the fake
conservationists just as I would consider knocking down an impregnable
stone wall - one chip at a time. I have no doubt whatsoever that in
the not too distant future the conservation of today will be seen and
proved to be fake and that government will withdraw its funding which
will spell the death-knell of these organisations as they are today.
The combination of an inevitable downturn in the western economies and
a realisation that climate change overshadows what the fakes are doing
will probably trigger such an event.

If I have contributed to this in the smallest possible way I will
consider my efforts a success.


If the former regulars of u.e.c had been more tolerant of dissenting
opinions, I doubt it would have experienced the unpleasantness which has
come to dominate its threads.


The problem, as I see it, is that the regulars were unable to counter
my arguments effectively, so resorted to attacking me as an individual
- as they still do - which in turn led me to respond in kind.

However, what they say to or about me is of little consequence as I
have a pretty thick skin.

And I have never told anyone to f*** off - yet :-))

Poor Dr Thick; he gets most upset.





Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:57:40 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:


"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote...
The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:
The perpetrator of this thread has made u.e.c unusable. Mind
you, some of the blame for this is shared by the small group of
posters
there who continue to have dealings with him.

Your second sentence is the clue to the real problem; those bona
fide
regular users who continue to respond to obvious trolls when they
know,
from long experience, the negative effect the troll habitually
inflicts
on a group.

Angus Macmillan is conducting an anti conservation (as
we know it) publicity campaign, not deliberately 'trolling'
newsgroups
merely for effect.

And I bet he goes off to bed each and every night basking in
the glow of the knowledge of another good job, well done. Free
publicity, more than almost anyone could hope to get, from a
few people who will not stop spoon-feeding him help by the
bucketful. The destruction of u.e.c is purely incidental.

Angus has been successful in making his opinions known - not only on
u.e.c,
and other newsgroups, but also via his websites, the correspondence
columns
of various newspapers, at public meetings, and, I understand, from a
towed
'stall' at some open air events.

But has he succeeded in his underlying aims? The RSPB continues from
strength to strength; the WT continues to plant trees and to allow public
access to most of them; people continue to visit Nature Reserves in their
motor cars; charities still operate visitor centres and employ volunteer
labour; National Parks have yet to be disbanded; wild animals continue to
be
culled as part of conservation land management; glyphosate is still used
in
conservation land management - and so on.

I don't think success can be gauged in terms of stopping all the above
practices in a one. I chip away at the credibility of the fake
conservationists just as I would consider knocking down an impregnable
stone wall - one chip at a time. I have no doubt whatsoever that in
the not too distant future the conservation of today will be seen and
proved to be fake and that government will withdraw its funding which
will spell the death-knell of these organisations as they are today.
The combination of an inevitable downturn in the western economies and
a realisation that climate change overshadows what the fakes are doing
will probably trigger such an event.

If I have contributed to this in the smallest possible way I will
consider my efforts a success.

Fair enough. No-one can doubt your perserverance.



If the former regulars of u.e.c had been more tolerant of dissenting
opinions, I doubt it would have experienced the unpleasantness which has
come to dominate its threads.


The problem, as I see it, is that the regulars were unable to counter
my arguments effectively, so resorted to attacking me as an individual
- as they still do - which in turn led me to respond in kind.

And so on ad infinitum, it seems.

On 14 Jun 2006 07:49:15 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
writes:
|
| The problem, as I see it, is that the regulars were unable to counter
| my arguments effectively, so resorted to attacking me as an individual
| - as they still do - which in turn led me to respond in kind.

It is true that your arguments are unanswerable, but that is because
they are based on false premises. I.e. your postings are near-complete
claptrap, because almost all of what you assume and claim is true is in
fact the converse of the truth.

How do you work all that out? What of my postings is claptrap?

Let's get into specifics.


| However, what they say to or about me is of little consequence as I
| have a pretty thick skin.

That is obvious. It is not the thickness of your skin that causes your
postings to be such nonsense.


You have just confirmed what I said above. "The problem, as I see it,
is that the regulars were unable to counter my arguments effectively,
so resorted to attacking me as an individual" - as they still do -
which in turn led me to respond in kind.

On this occasion I'll refrain from responding in kind.
..
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

In article ,
writes:
|
| How do you work all that out? What of my postings is claptrap?
|
| Let's get into specifics.

Because I have some knowledge of biology, ecology and economics. And
they all are, in toto, with (as far as I have been able to tell) the
two exceptional points I referred to earlier.

I have given you enough time, so shall not respond further.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 14 Jun 2006 08:23:27 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
writes:
|
| How do you work all that out? What of my postings is claptrap?
|
| Let's get into specifics.

Because I have some knowledge of biology, ecology and economics. And
they all are, in toto, with (as far as I have been able to tell) the
two exceptional points I referred to earlier.

I have given you enough time, so shall not respond further.


I see. So you say my posts are claptrap but when asked to explain why,
you can't.

This is typical of the response of those who support fake conservation
but when asked to be specific can't come up with the goods.

I suppose it's a lot easier to shoot the messenger than argue the
points. So far everyone has missed :-))



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:10:00 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:57:40 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:


"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote...
The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:
The perpetrator of this thread has made u.e.c unusable. Mind
you, some of the blame for this is shared by the small group of
posters
there who continue to have dealings with him.

Your second sentence is the clue to the real problem; those bona
fide
regular users who continue to respond to obvious trolls when they
know,
from long experience, the negative effect the troll habitually
inflicts
on a group.

Angus Macmillan is conducting an anti conservation (as
we know it) publicity campaign, not deliberately 'trolling'
newsgroups
merely for effect.

And I bet he goes off to bed each and every night basking in
the glow of the knowledge of another good job, well done. Free
publicity, more than almost anyone could hope to get, from a
few people who will not stop spoon-feeding him help by the
bucketful. The destruction of u.e.c is purely incidental.

Angus has been successful in making his opinions known - not only on
u.e.c,
and other newsgroups, but also via his websites, the correspondence
columns
of various newspapers, at public meetings, and, I understand, from a
towed
'stall' at some open air events.

But has he succeeded in his underlying aims? The RSPB continues from
strength to strength; the WT continues to plant trees and to allow public
access to most of them; people continue to visit Nature Reserves in their
motor cars; charities still operate visitor centres and employ volunteer
labour; National Parks have yet to be disbanded; wild animals continue to
be
culled as part of conservation land management; glyphosate is still used
in
conservation land management - and so on.

I don't think success can be gauged in terms of stopping all the above
practices in a one. I chip away at the credibility of the fake
conservationists just as I would consider knocking down an impregnable
stone wall - one chip at a time. I have no doubt whatsoever that in
the not too distant future the conservation of today will be seen and
proved to be fake and that government will withdraw its funding which
will spell the death-knell of these organisations as they are today.
The combination of an inevitable downturn in the western economies and
a realisation that climate change overshadows what the fakes are doing
will probably trigger such an event.

If I have contributed to this in the smallest possible way I will
consider my efforts a success.

Fair enough. No-one can doubt your perserverance.



If the former regulars of u.e.c had been more tolerant of dissenting
opinions, I doubt it would have experienced the unpleasantness which has
come to dominate its threads.


The problem, as I see it, is that the regulars were unable to counter
my arguments effectively, so resorted to attacking me as an individual
- as they still do - which in turn led me to respond in kind.

And so on ad infinitum, it seems.



Looks like it.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article ,
writes
On 14 Jun 2006 08:23:27 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
writes:
|
| How do you work all that out? What of my postings is claptrap?
|
| Let's get into specifics.

Because I have some knowledge of biology, ecology and economics. And
they all are, in toto, with (as far as I have been able to tell) the
two exceptional points I referred to earlier.

I have given you enough time, so shall not respond further.


I see. So you say my posts are claptrap but when asked to explain why,
you can't.

This is typical of the response of those who support fake conservation
but when asked to be specific can't come up with the goods.

I suppose it's a lot easier to shoot the messenger than argue the
points. So far everyone has missed :-))

A good example of your claptrap was your response to the recent report
of an insect discovered on Cairngorm which was new to science.

Your comment was: "How do they know it's a "native" species?"

That was claptrap based on total ignorance - a common occurrence in your
postings.


I can't remember - did you actually answer Angus's question about the newly
identified species?

Nick Maclaren wrote:
writes:
|
| The problem, as I see it, is that the regulars were unable to counter
| my arguments effectively, so resorted to attacking me as an individual
| - as they still do - which in turn led me to respond in kind.

It is true that your arguments are unanswerable, but that is because
they are based on false premises. I.e. your postings are near-complete
claptrap, because almost all of what you assume and claim is true is in
fact the converse of the truth.

Bloody *hell*. Here we go again, on u.r.g, this time. Read your
paragraph above. He's done flippin' well to tie certain people
up in knots for *years*, hasn't he. If his posts are clap-trap,
then why do fools keep satisfy him again, and again, and again!

That's enough for me, anyway. There's none deaf...

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:54:07 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On 14 Jun 2006 08:23:27 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
writes:
|
| How do you work all that out? What of my postings is claptrap?
|
| Let's get into specifics.

Because I have some knowledge of biology, ecology and economics. And
they all are, in toto, with (as far as I have been able to tell) the
two exceptional points I referred to earlier.

I have given you enough time, so shall not respond further.


I see. So you say my posts are claptrap but when asked to explain why,
you can't.

This is typical of the response of those who support fake conservation
but when asked to be specific can't come up with the goods.

I suppose it's a lot easier to shoot the messenger than argue the
points. So far everyone has missed :-))

A good example of your claptrap was your response to the recent report
of an insect discovered on Cairngorm which was new to science.

Your comment was: "How do they know it's a "native" species?"

That was claptrap based on total ignorance - a common occurrence in your
postings.

No Malcolm, just an awkward question.

This insect could have been brought into this country by any manner of
means. The fact it hasn't been discovered in this country before
doesn't mean it hasn't come from somewhere else. Of course if it was
born here it would be native anyway. So why worry.

Who cares anyway except the fake conservationists.

Is this where you tell me to f*** off?

:-)


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , BAC
writes

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article ,
writes
On 14 Jun 2006 08:23:27 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
writes:
|
| How do you work all that out? What of my postings is claptrap?
|
| Let's get into specifics.

Because I have some knowledge of biology, ecology and economics. And
they all are, in toto, with (as far as I have been able to tell) the
two exceptional points I referred to earlier.

I have given you enough time, so shall not respond further.


I see. So you say my posts are claptrap but when asked to explain why,
you can't.

This is typical of the response of those who support fake conservation
but when asked to be specific can't come up with the goods.

I suppose it's a lot easier to shoot the messenger than argue the
points. So far everyone has missed :-))

A good example of your claptrap was your response to the recent report
of an insect discovered on Cairngorm which was new to science.

Your comment was: "How do they know it's a "native" species?"

That was claptrap based on total ignorance - a common occurrence in
your
postings.


I can't remember - did you actually answer Angus's question about the
newly
identified species?

It doesn't need an answer. Think about it for a moment, something Angus
clearly hasn't done.


I don't need to think about it, but then, I didn't ask the question. If you
believe the question was founded in ignorance, it would perhaps have been
helpful to explain why, and to attempt to dispel the ignorance, by answering
the question.