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

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:59:51 +0000,
wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:05:02 -0000, "Christina Websell"
wrote:


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 game birds
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?

Tina



Nothing brave about being stupid.


Angus I said I wouldn't reply to your cut and pastes however this isn't
cut and paste.

It is clearly the kind of post I was referring to. Abuse for the sake
of abuse. You may as well have not replied.

I think it is rather stupid and very little to do with bravery.

I think Tina's trying to let you down lightly.

I though you had just said in a post "I won't reply to your until I get
your reply".

Seems you couldn't resist. Seems you couldn't resist your habitual
abuse either. I will post my reply but I suspect from this post it will
be a waste of time.
--
Malcolm Kane

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:25:01 +0000,
wrote:

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.


Back to your old nonsense already.

Read about it yourself.




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.


You're on a manic hook you can't get off - unless I let you off 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.


I'm not particularily interested in your replies so I pass you on to
my responses to Dr Thick.




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.


I certainly didn't snip anything.


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.


I'm frequently called "ignorant" by Dr Thick. Why shouldn't I
respond?

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


Perhaps Dr Thick should.



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.

I don't consider "thick" being any more abusive than "ignorant".


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.


But I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say so I refer
you to the main opponent. I suppose you consider it abusive if I say
that IMO you're only a side show. So I don't have time to respond to
your multiple posts.


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.


I give back what I get.

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


But it's not your job to regulate it between others.



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.


Possibly because you're the sock puppet?

Would you care if someone abused me?

So why don't you object to Dr Thick's posts?

But don't worry about me, I can look after myself.




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.


I've covered this.



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.

It's not abuse when it's true.

I'm perfectly prepared to discuss any of the points I have pasted
regarding my conclusion that Malcolm well deserves the label Dr Thick.

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 don't killfile anyone.




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.


Not against me it would seem :-))



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.


See what I've written above.




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.

But you're not the only one who reads them. They're not exclusively
yours to decide. If you don't want to read the killfile me.


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


That's why I give back what I get.


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?


You do act as a sock puppet for Dr Thick.

You're too touchy.




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).

Good, you're getting there.


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.


I'm not carrying on a vendetta against you.

I just not prepared to waste my time answering endless silly
questions. That's why I am polite enough to respond rather than ignore
you, but then refer you to my responses to Dr Thick.

It's really very simple.




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.


But I'm not particularly interested in your points. I think it's
quite in order to refer you to the main line of discussion.




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.


That is your opinion.

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.

It can't be abusive if it's earned.


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.


Why should I be upset?

I thought it was a disgraceful slur on kids leaving school with one "O
Grade", and I still do.


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.


The fact you don't see it shows how gullible you can be.

Ad that's not an abusive remark.


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.

Which you have identified as "stupid".


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.

I never have.


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)

So you're the self appointed regulator on this ng :-))


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.

But I'm not interested in addressing your points.

Have I not made that clear?


If
they aren't expect me to draw it to your attention probably in the way
that this started..

I'll tell you what. I'll let you off this stupidly manic hook by not
copying the current crop of nonsense first, if you do the same.

But if you post numerous messages that I haven't the time or the
inclination to answer I'll refer you to my responses to Dr Thick.

I'm giving you the opportunity to get out of this silly loop.



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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:25:01 +0000,
wrote:

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.


Back to your old nonsense already.

Read about it yourself.

I could say the same for you Angus.

In a debate/discussion it is reasonable to expect the person making a
point to be able to back it up.

Having worked with calves in the past I feel I know enough about
"transit fever" and translocation.

If you wish to try to undermine the points I make by claiming what I say
isn't so you need to back it up by references.





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.


You're on a manic hook you can't get off - unless I let you off it
:-))

Merely your opinion. If you wish to keep posting as you do you are as
much on the hook as you think I am.





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.


I'm not particularily interested in your replies so I pass you on to
my responses to Dr Thick.

I see you are still locked into the abuse situation.

Abuse the last refuge of the coward and the bully.

If you aren't interested in my replies don't respond to them. Simple.

Otherwise if you refer me to other peoples posts then you need to ensure
those posts reply to the points.





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.


I certainly didn't snip anything.

Can you account for my point above then?



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.


I'm frequently called "ignorant" by Dr Thick. Why shouldn't I
respond?

Ignorance isn't abuse it is merely a state of learning.

People begin ignorant of a subject and lose the ignorance as they learn.

I for example am totally ignorant of Mandarin Chinese.


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


Perhaps Dr Thick should.

If you refer to the "ignorant" post don't be so thin skinned it is as I
said a state of knowledge.




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.

I don't consider "thick" being any more abusive than "ignorant".

Ignorant is a state of learning yet to be developed thick particularly
when applied to those who clearly aren't is intended as abuse.



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.


But I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say so I refer
you to the main opponent.

If you aren't interested don't waste time reading them. You continually
use lack of time as an excuse. Kill file me.

To refer me to other replies when you don't address the points is just
another way of telling lies IMO.

I suppose you consider it abusive if I say
that IMO you're only a side show.

Not at all. However you don't act as if I am a side show. You take the
time and trouble to open my posts and cut and paste a reply.

I take that as a compliment.

So I don't have time to respond to
your multiple posts.

That is the point you unfailingly do respond. Even if merely with cut
and pasted abuse.



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.


I give back what I get.

Fine I will start counting and periodically post a number for each side.
:-)))))


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


But it's not your job to regulate it between others.

I'm not I am merely replying to your posts as I feel fit. That is after
all allowed in usenet just like snipping is.




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.


Possibly because you're the sock puppet?

Would you care if someone abused me?

Angus as you should have seen from my posts above I don't like abuse
from anyone. However you appear to start a lot of it. Threads which
begin by you using abuse in the title for example.

As I said I will do a count and see if I feel that you are unjustly
treated or if you give more than you take.


So why don't you object to Dr Thick's posts?

I haven't noticed the amount of abuse from anyone else as I see from
you.


But don't worry about me, I can look after myself.

Angus I have never worried about you. Your a big boy and I am sure
quite capable of survival in a debate if you choose to.





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.


I've covered this.



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.

It's not abuse when it's true.

However it patently isn't true as the individual you abuse has plenty of
qualifications to prove conventionally he isn't thick and plenty of good
factual posts to prove it as well.

It is intended by you as abuse.


I'm perfectly prepared to discuss any of the points I have pasted
regarding my conclusion that Malcolm well deserves the label Dr Thick.

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 don't killfile anyone.

Why not? It would ensure you didn't waste your valuable time cutting
and pasting pointless replies to me.





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.


Not against me it would seem :-))

See above.




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.


See what I've written above.

Nothing above covers the fact that you tell me to look at other replies
and find you haven't addressed the points.

Don't hide behind a pretence either don't reply or you will find I point
out your omissions.





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.

But you're not the only one who reads them. They're not exclusively
yours to decide. If you don't want to read the killfile me.

I would suggest you take your own advice :-))))))

There is no need for the abuse and I will continue to try to oppose it.



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


That's why I give back what I get.

Fine we will wait and see what the "score" is that will show the
validity of the statement.



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?


You do act as a sock puppet for Dr Thick.

You're too touchy.

Angus I have never met Dr Ogilvie unfortunately. I post what I feel is
a suitable response to other peoples posts.

If you find Malcolm and I say the same thing them it means that we both
independently feel or know the same thing.

I am sorry if this is a problem for you but there it is.

My point above was that I haven't used abuse. Malcolm hasn't for a few
days and yet you can't help yourself in comes the abuse.

Then you claim you only give what you get.





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).

Good, you're getting there.

:-) note that is by your point of view.



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.


I'm not carrying on a vendetta against you.

I just not prepared to waste my time answering endless silly
questions. That's why I am polite enough to respond rather than ignore
you, but then refer you to my responses to Dr Thick.

Angus you are using the abuse again. You really can't avoid it can you.
Good job I haven't started counting yet isn't it.

Be impolite ignore me if you have nothing better to say than to abuse
somebody.


It's really very simple.




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.


But I'm not particularly interested in your points. I think it's
quite in order to refer you to the main line of discussion.

Not if the main line of the discussion doesn't address the point.

Not if you do it by abusing another group member.





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.


That is your opinion.

True however I am able to accept that having checked his points and find
the rest of the world disagrees with me I am wrong.

That is what makes me feel his posts are factual and correct.

Some it appears can't accept that they can be wrong.


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.

It can't be abusive if it's earned.

With Malcolm's qualifications and knowledge it can't be earned.
Disagreeing with you isn't a sing of "thickness" it is merely
disagreeing with you and often showing why you are wrong.



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.


Why should I be upset?

I thought it was a disgraceful slur on kids leaving school with one "O
Grade", and I still do.

But you don't think it is disgraceful to slur somebody with higher
qualifications. As I said a strange 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.


The fact you don't see it shows how gullible you can be.

Not at all. I think if you check back I started before he did. So all
I am doing is continuing my7 tactic.


Ad that's not an abusive remark.

I didn't think it was however there are times when I think abuse is so
much part of your style that you wouldn't know. (and that isn't an
abusive remark either.)



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.

Which you have identified as "stupid".

NO Angus re-read what I said. It is you who classified it as stupid I
merely agreed for the point I was trying to make.



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.

I never have.

So your threads urging me not to waste my time weren't an attempt to
stop me posting :-))))))



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)

So you're the self appointed regulator on this ng :-))

Not at all just telling you what I will do if you respond to me with cut
and paste.



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.

But I'm not interested in addressing your points.

SO have the honesty to not refer me to none existent posts. I don't
mind if you find you can't cope with the points but I do mind if you
pretend to have addressed the points by referring me elsewhere. I will
point out to you when this happens.


Have I not made that clear?

Your words try to the actions don't. If yo aren't interested in my
posts don't open them and don't reply.

I am forced to assume that if you open the post you were interested but
couldn't address the point.

However if you didn't reply I would know you weren't interested.



If
they aren't expect me to draw it to your attention probably in the way
that this started..

I'll tell you what. I'll let you off this stupidly manic hook by not
copying the current crop of nonsense first, if you do the same.

Angus I am not on any hook. If you reply by cut and paste then so will
I.


But if you post numerous messages that I haven't the time or the
inclination to answer I'll refer you to my responses to Dr Thick.
No! NO! NO! Angus save the time and don't open them. If you reply by
referring me to posts which do not address the point this will all start
over again.


I'm giving you the opportunity to get out of this silly loop.

I'm giving you the opportunity to get out of this silly loop ;-)))))
--
Malcolm Kane

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:59:45 +0000,
wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:25:01 +0000,
wrote:

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.


Back to your old nonsense already.

Read about it yourself.

I could say the same for you Angus.

In a debate/discussion it is reasonable to expect the person making a
point to be able to back it up.

Having worked with calves in the past I feel I know enough about
"transit fever" and translocation.

If you wish to try to undermine the points I make by claiming what I say
isn't so you need to back it up by references.





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.


You're on a manic hook you can't get off - unless I let you off it
:-))

Merely your opinion. If you wish to keep posting as you do you are as
much on the hook as you think I am.





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.


I'm not particularily interested in your replies so I pass you on to
my responses to Dr Thick.

I see you are still locked into the abuse situation.

Abuse the last refuge of the coward and the bully.

If you aren't interested in my replies don't respond to them. Simple.

Otherwise if you refer me to other peoples posts then you need to ensure
those posts reply to the points.





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.


I certainly didn't snip anything.

Can you account for my point above then?



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.


I'm frequently called "ignorant" by Dr Thick. Why shouldn't I
respond?

Ignorance isn't abuse it is merely a state of learning.

People begin ignorant of a subject and lose the ignorance as they learn.

I for example am totally ignorant of Mandarin Chinese.


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


Perhaps Dr Thick should.

If you refer to the "ignorant" post don't be so thin skinned it is as I
said a state of knowledge.




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.

I don't consider "thick" being any more abusive than "ignorant".

Ignorant is a state of learning yet to be developed thick particularly
when applied to those who clearly aren't is intended as abuse.



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.


But I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say so I refer
you to the main opponent.

If you aren't interested don't waste time reading them. You continually
use lack of time as an excuse. Kill file me.

To refer me to other replies when you don't address the points is just
another way of telling lies IMO.

I suppose you consider it abusive if I say
that IMO you're only a side show.

Not at all. However you don't act as if I am a side show. You take the
time and trouble to open my posts and cut and paste a reply.

I take that as a compliment.

So I don't have time to respond to
your multiple posts.

That is the point you unfailingly do respond. Even if merely with cut
and pasted abuse.



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.


I give back what I get.

Fine I will start counting and periodically post a number for each side.
:-)))))


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


But it's not your job to regulate it between others.

I'm not I am merely replying to your posts as I feel fit. That is after
all allowed in usenet just like snipping is.




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.


Possibly because you're the sock puppet?

Would you care if someone abused me?

Angus as you should have seen from my posts above I don't like abuse
from anyone. However you appear to start a lot of it. Threads which
begin by you using abuse in the title for example.

As I said I will do a count and see if I feel that you are unjustly
treated or if you give more than you take.


So why don't you object to Dr Thick's posts?

I haven't noticed the amount of abuse from anyone else as I see from
you.


But don't worry about me, I can look after myself.

Angus I have never worried about you. Your a big boy and I am sure
quite capable of survival in a debate if you choose to.





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.


I've covered this.



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.

It's not abuse when it's true.

However it patently isn't true as the individual you abuse has plenty of
qualifications to prove conventionally he isn't thick and plenty of good
factual posts to prove it as well.

It is intended by you as abuse.


I'm perfectly prepared to discuss any of the points I have pasted
regarding my conclusion that Malcolm well deserves the label Dr Thick.

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 don't killfile anyone.

Why not? It would ensure you didn't waste your valuable time cutting
and pasting pointless replies to me.





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.


Not against me it would seem :-))

See above.




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.


See what I've written above.

Nothing above covers the fact that you tell me to look at other replies
and find you haven't addressed the points.

Don't hide behind a pretence either don't reply or you will find I point
out your omissions.





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.

But you're not the only one who reads them. They're not exclusively
yours to decide. If you don't want to read the killfile me.

I would suggest you take your own advice :-))))))

There is no need for the abuse and I will continue to try to oppose it.



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


That's why I give back what I get.

Fine we will wait and see what the "score" is that will show the
validity of the statement.



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?


You do act as a sock puppet for Dr Thick.

You're too touchy.

Angus I have never met Dr Ogilvie unfortunately. I post what I feel is
a suitable response to other peoples posts.

If you find Malcolm and I say the same thing them it means that we both
independently feel or know the same thing.

I am sorry if this is a problem for you but there it is.

My point above was that I haven't used abuse. Malcolm hasn't for a few
days and yet you can't help yourself in comes the abuse.

Then you claim you only give what you get.





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).

Good, you're getting there.

:-) note that is by your point of view.



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.


I'm not carrying on a vendetta against you.

I just not prepared to waste my time answering endless silly
questions. That's why I am polite enough to respond rather than ignore
you, but then refer you to my responses to Dr Thick.

Angus you are using the abuse again. You really can't avoid it can you.
Good job I haven't started counting yet isn't it.

Be impolite ignore me if you have nothing better to say than to abuse
somebody.


It's really very simple.




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.


But I'm not particularly interested in your points. I think it's
quite in order to refer you to the main line of discussion.

Not if the main line of the discussion doesn't address the point.

Not if you do it by abusing another group member.





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.


That is your opinion.

True however I am able to accept that having checked his points and find
the rest of the world disagrees with me I am wrong.

That is what makes me feel his posts are factual and correct.

Some it appears can't accept that they can be wrong.


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.

It can't be abusive if it's earned.

With Malcolm's qualifications and knowledge it can't be earned.
Disagreeing with you isn't a sing of "thickness" it is merely
disagreeing with you and often showing why you are wrong.



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.


Why should I be upset?

I thought it was a disgraceful slur on kids leaving school with one "O
Grade", and I still do.

But you don't think it is disgraceful to slur somebody with higher
qualifications. As I said a strange 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.


The fact you don't see it shows how gullible you can be.

Not at all. I think if you check back I started before he did. So all
I am doing is continuing my7 tactic.


Ad that's not an abusive remark.

I didn't think it was however there are times when I think abuse is so
much part of your style that you wouldn't know. (and that isn't an
abusive remark either.)



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.

Which you have identified as "stupid".

NO Angus re-read what I said. It is you who classified it as stupid I
merely agreed for the point I was trying to make.



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.

I never have.

So your threads urging me not to waste my time weren't an attempt to
stop me posting :-))))))



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)

So you're the self appointed regulator on this ng :-))

Not at all just telling you what I will do if you respond to me with cut
and paste.



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.

But I'm not interested in addressing your points.

SO have the honesty to not refer me to none existent posts. I don't
mind if you find you can't cope with the points but I do mind if you
pretend to have addressed the points by referring me elsewhere. I will
point out to you when this happens.


Have I not made that clear?

Your words try to the actions don't. If yo aren't interested in my
posts don't open them and don't reply.

I am forced to assume that if you open the post you were interested but
couldn't address the point.

However if you didn't reply I would know you weren't interested.



If
they aren't expect me to draw it to your attention probably in the way
that this started..

I'll tell you what. I'll let you off this stupidly manic hook by not
copying the current crop of nonsense first, if you do the same.

Angus I am not on any hook. If you reply by cut and paste then so will
I.


But if you post numerous messages that I haven't the time or the
inclination to answer I'll refer you to my responses to Dr Thick.
No! NO! NO! Angus save the time and don't open them. If you reply by
referring me to posts which do not address the point this will all start
over again.


I'm giving you the opportunity to get out of this silly loop.

I'm giving you the opportunity to get out of this silly loop ;-)))))


Malcolm. I'm not going to indulge you in responding to this nonsense
on a line by line basis. Truth is, I'm just not interested in what
you have to say.

In the years you have been contributing to this ng, I cannot recall
you ever posting anything of any value on your own account. All you
do, like Mabbett, is pick a sentence of mine and post a response which
is often, if not usually, out of context.

So the problem I have is that I'm not interested in what you have to
say but I'm not going to let you away with derogatory comments without
responding. Whether I do so by referring you to current posts to Dr
Thick is, quite frankly, none of your business. I don't say what you
put in your posts and you shouldn't dictate what I put in mine. That's
the very bullying you're condensing me for.

It is quite clear from the opinion of others that they are sick to
death of this stupid behaviour, so take your own advice and stop
responding to my posts.

For the sake of all the others (I don't know who cross posted this in
the first place) I am breaking this loop and shall not respond to any
more of your posts in the current thread.

But I do reserve the right to call Malcolm Ogilvie whatever I fee is
justified without your interference.

I hope you've got this loud and clear.



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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message ,
writes

All you do, like Mabbett, is pick a sentence of mine and post a
response which is often, if not usually, out of context.

You're lying, again.

--
Andy Mabbett
* Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: http://www.no2id.net/
* Free Our Data: http://www.freeourdata.org.uk
* Are you using Microformats, yet: http://microformats.org/ ?

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:05:02 -0000, "Christina Websell"
wrote:


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 game birds
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?

Tina


Funny how the pro hunt nuts stick together, especially those of you
trying to pretend not to be pro hunt nuts!

I doubt you have anyone fooled, only yourselves!
#

--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:28:06 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

Please stop posting all this to uk.rec.gardening.
We are gardeners, not hunters and this cross posting does your cause more
harm than good, IMO, because all it does is annoy people.

Bit like your post. Sod off!


--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.

"Christina Websell" wrote in message
...

snip


I really do appreciate how you take him on so bravely.

'Bravely'? Obsessively, more like it.