"Gloria" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:13:54 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , BAC
writes

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Malcolm wrote:

If final proof of your lack of understanding were required, then you
have kindly provided it above with your reaction to my asking you
whether had the total of red squirrels on Anglesey been published in
that report as being 1,000, you would have expected that figure, too,
to
be accurate to the nearest one squirrel. Your answer sums up your
state
of ignorance and incomprehension perfectly.

TBH I think we all know that Angus has very little understanding of
anything scientific.

I think it is pointless arguing with him really as his opposition to
conservation and access to every place, is axiomatic.

Conservation is wrong in his eyes, whereas anti-conservation is right.
Whatever example.


Dissecting Angus's 'Anglesey' posts and arguing about the largely
insignificant minutiae detracts attention from the main point, i.e. that
red
squirrels on Anglesey are reported to have been succumbing to a fatal and
difficult to detect disease which seems unlikely to have been introduced
by
grey squirrels.

Who really cares whether the population was estimated at 200, or what
means
were involved in the estimation, or whether there may have been an
element
of panic involved in the decision to disinfect boxes?


What I care about, Brian,

Is obviously pedantry, pedantry and more pedantry. Your obsessive
stalking of Angus and others is giving rise to grave concern. You
clearly need medical help.

I think it necessary to try and correct him.

By constant pedantry, bullying, stalking and guilty of being a
terrible BORE! There are more adult ways even for a pro hunt old soak
like you!

Perhaps you would like to take your turn

Desperation of the highest order. The fact is Ogilvie most of us think
you're a terrible bore, and your demented rantings are hardly
something we could show support for even if it was justified, which it
clearly is not!



Then why are you bothering?

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:56:15 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
wrote:

"Gloria" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:13:54 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , BAC
writes

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Malcolm wrote:

If final proof of your lack of understanding were required, then you
have kindly provided it above with your reaction to my asking you
whether had the total of red squirrels on Anglesey been published in
that report as being 1,000, you would have expected that figure, too,
to
be accurate to the nearest one squirrel. Your answer sums up your
state
of ignorance and incomprehension perfectly.

TBH I think we all know that Angus has very little understanding of
anything scientific.

I think it is pointless arguing with him really as his opposition to
conservation and access to every place, is axiomatic.

Conservation is wrong in his eyes, whereas anti-conservation is right.
Whatever example.


Dissecting Angus's 'Anglesey' posts and arguing about the largely
insignificant minutiae detracts attention from the main point, i.e. that
red
squirrels on Anglesey are reported to have been succumbing to a fatal and
difficult to detect disease which seems unlikely to have been introduced
by
grey squirrels.

Who really cares whether the population was estimated at 200, or what
means
were involved in the estimation, or whether there may have been an
element
of panic involved in the decision to disinfect boxes?


What I care about, Brian,

Is obviously pedantry, pedantry and more pedantry. Your obsessive
stalking of Angus and others is giving rise to grave concern. You
clearly need medical help.

I think it necessary to try and correct him.

By constant pedantry, bullying, stalking and guilty of being a
terrible BORE! There are more adult ways even for a pro hunt old soak
like you!

Perhaps you would like to take your turn

Desperation of the highest order. The fact is Ogilvie most of us think
you're a terrible bore, and your demented rantings are hardly
something we could show support for even if it was justified, which it
clearly is not!



Then why are you bothering?

Call it a poke in the eye. Kick up the arse.........











pam the SPAMMERS send an email to

On Nov 13, 12:07 pm, Gloria wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:56:15 -0000, "Robert Peffers"



wrote:
"Gloria" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:13:54 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:

In article , BAC
writes

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Malcolm wrote:

If final proof of your lack of understanding were required, then you
have kindly provided it above with your reaction to my asking you
whether had the total of red squirrels on Anglesey been published in
that report as being 1,000, you would have expected that figure, too,
to
be accurate to the nearest one squirrel. Your answer sums up your
state
of ignorance and incomprehension perfectly.

TBH I think we all know that Angus has very little understanding of
anything scientific.

I think it is pointless arguing with him really as his opposition to
conservation and access to every place, is axiomatic.

Conservation is wrong in his eyes, whereas anti-conservation is right.
Whatever example.

Dissecting Angus's 'Anglesey' posts and arguing about the largely
insignificant minutiae detracts attention from the main point, i.e. that
red
squirrels on Anglesey are reported to have been succumbing to a fatal and
difficult to detect disease which seems unlikely to have been introduced
by
grey squirrels.

Who really cares whether the population was estimated at 200, or what
means
were involved in the estimation, or whether there may have been an
element
of panic involved in the decision to disinfect boxes?

What I care about, Brian,

Is obviously pedantry, pedantry and more pedantry. Your obsessive
stalking of Angus and others is giving rise to grave concern. You
clearly need medical help.

I think it necessary to try and correct him.

By constant pedantry, bullying, stalking and guilty of being a
terrible BORE! There are more adult ways even for a pro hunt old soak
like you!

Perhaps you would like to take your turn

Desperation of the highest order. The fact is Ogilvie most of us think
you're a terrible bore, and your demented rantings are hardly
something we could show support for even if it was justified, which it
clearly is not!

Then why are you bothering?

Call it a poke in the eye. Kick up the arse.........

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to

pinch of a titty?