Grey Squirrels - just as native as we are

"Save our native red squirrels and kill the alien greys", is the
message being churned out by so-called conservationists in a cynical
and concerted hate campaign aimed at gaining public approval for the
mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of these harmless, amusing,
friendly and social animals.

So what's behind all this and is it justified? Of course it's not!

It is beyond dispute that the grey squirrel species in this country
originated from America but it is also beyond dispute that individual
greys born here are natives of this country. The very meaning of the
word "native" is to be born, and it is grey squirrels born here and
native to this country that are being mercilessly slaughtered.

When a grey squirrel is shot or poisoned it is not the "species" that
is being killed - it's the native individual.

By the same token, individual red squirrels are also native to this
country but it is questionable whether the ancestors of the current
population in Scotland were any less "alien" than the ancestors of the
greys. Around the mid 1800s red squirrels were considered extinct in
Scotland and were introduced from a variety of sources. The population
increased successfully, only to be killed in large numbers by
landowners who considered them as pests. Ironically this is what's
happening to greys now.

The idea that the pox virus is transmitted from greys to reds is far
from proven. Indeed, it has been suggested the same virus might well
have caused a previous population decline in reds, long before grey
squirrels existed in the UK. Furthermore, the government's Joint
Nature Conservation Website states the following:

· The origin of squirrel poxvirus in red squirrels is unknown
· Research shows that the antibodies to the virus are common
in some grey squirrel populations but only one case of disease has
been found in a grey squirrel, whilst very few red squirrels carry the
antibodies to the virus.
· It is therefore possible that grey squirrels act as a
reservoir host (carrier) for the virus whilst the majority of red
squirrels affected with poxvirus appear to die within a week of
becoming infected.

A policy of slaughter meted out to grey squirrels based on unknowns
and possibilities is as outrageous as it is unfair.

This policy against grey squirrels is one of intolerance and
discrimination and has an almost exact parallel to that of pre-war
Germany where the same venom and hate was directed at people deemed
not to be genetically pure, of ethnic origin or in numbers that were
considered to be a threat to the Aryan population. This led to
millions of innocent people being slaughtered in the following years.
It's worth bearing in mind that intolerance of animals is only one
step away from intolerance of humans.

Saving the red squirrel population is desirable but not to the extent
of slaughtering greys. Improving the reds habitat, which could include
planting appropriate tree species such as Scots pine, larch, Norway
spruce, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, yew, hawthorn and even the North
American Sitca spruce are all measures that can favour red squirrels.
Other native and non-native species can be planted to act as barriers
to greys in areas inhabited by reds. These solutions are well known to
conservationists but intensely disliked because it goes against their
obsession for all things native.

So the next time you see a grey squirrel remember it was born here
and is as "native" as we are - and forget the nonsense that
conservation fanatics want you to believe, that it is some form of
alien being.

Indeed, if there are any "aliens" among us, it's the conservationists;
not the grey squirrels.


Angus Macmillan
www.killhunting.org.uk

March 2006.


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

<amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:o7in8213cea9i4525daisl5g3ji9su2r2t [at] 4ax.com...
> Grey Squirrels - just as native as we are
<lots of stuff deleted>

Sustitute "aboriginies" for "red squirrel" and "white man" for "grey
squirrel" and you've got Australia.

Or use as an example any ethnic group now native in a region where that
group didn't originate, and you've got pretty much anywhere.

There's nothing new in the world, after all.

In article <4f27lpF1h2g9sU1 [at] individual.net>,
"Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoniker [at] hotmail.co.uk> writes:
|> <amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
|> news:o7in8213cea9i4525daisl5g3ji9su2r2t [at] 4ax.com...
|> > Grey Squirrels - just as native as we are
|> <lots of stuff deleted>
|>
|> Sustitute "aboriginies" for "red squirrel" and "white man" for "grey
|> squirrel" and you've got Australia.
|>
|> Or use as an example any ethnic group now native in a region where that
|> group didn't originate, and you've got pretty much anywhere.
|>
|> There's nothing new in the world, after all.

Well, yes - but Angus the troll doesn't manage to be entirely wrong
all of the time, despite his best attempts.

Almost all of the nonsense posted about the British Isles' ecology misses
the point that it has been in continually, human-modified change for the
past 11,000 years. Humans were here before (probably) 95% of the plant
species and probably 90% of the bird and animal ones, and we simply
do not have a clue which were introduced with human help and which came
on their own. The classification of "native species" in the UK is near-
complete crap.

That is entirely unlike Australia or, indeed, almost anywhere else on
earth.

What we need is more diversity, not less - such as beech martens. The
RSPB would scream, but there Angus also manages to be correct (the only
other aspect where he does, as far as I know). The RSPB is not an
ecologically responsible organisation, which is why it is so harmful.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

<amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:o7in8213cea9i4525daisl5g3ji9su2r2t [at] 4ax.com...
> Grey Squirrels - just as native as we are
>
> "Save our native red squirrels and kill the alien greys", is the
> message being churned out by so-called conservationists in a cynical
> and concerted hate campaign aimed at gaining public approval for the
> mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of these harmless, amusing,
> friendly and social animals.

It's not just 'so-called conservationists' who are calling for the demise of
the tree rats, it's people like me who wish to eat some of the produce I
grow for my own consumption, and I happen to like seeing birds in my garden,
but both of these simple pleasures are stopped by the tree rats.

Alan

On 11 Jun 2006 10:24:14 GMT, nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>
>In article <4f27lpF1h2g9sU1 [at] individual.net>,
>"Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoniker [at] hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>|> <amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>|> news:o7in8213cea9i4525daisl5g3ji9su2r2t [at] 4ax.com...
>|> > Grey Squirrels - just as native as we are
>|> <lots of stuff deleted>
>|>
>|> Sustitute "aboriginies" for "red squirrel" and "white man" for "grey
>|> squirrel" and you've got Australia.
>|>
>|> Or use as an example any ethnic group now native in a region where that
>|> group didn't originate, and you've got pretty much anywhere.
>|>
>|> There's nothing new in the world, after all.
>
>Well, yes - but Angus the troll doesn't manage to be entirely wrong
>all of the time, despite his best attempts.
>
>Almost all of the nonsense posted about the British Isles' ecology misses
>the point that it has been in continually, human-modified change for the
>past 11,000 years. Humans were here before (probably) 95% of the plant
>species and probably 90% of the bird and animal ones, and we simply
>do not have a clue which were introduced with human help and which came
>on their own. The classification of "native species" in the UK is near-
>complete crap.
>
>That is entirely unlike Australia or, indeed, almost anywhere else on
>earth.
>
>What we need is more diversity, not less - such as beech martens. The
>RSPB would scream, but there Angus also manages to be correct (the only
>other aspect where he does, as far as I know). The RSPB is not an
>ecologically responsible organisation, which is why it is so harmful.
>
>
>Regards,
>Nick Maclaren.


You're too kind, Nick.

But I agree with what you say 100%

Does that make you an accessory to the troll?


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

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:50:58 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
<alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> wrote:

>
><amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>news:o7in8213cea9i4525daisl5g3ji9su2r2t [at] 4ax.com...
>> Grey Squirrels - just as native as we are
>>
>> "Save our native red squirrels and kill the alien greys", is the
>> message being churned out by so-called conservationists in a cynical
>> and concerted hate campaign aimed at gaining public approval for the
>> mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of these harmless, amusing,
>> friendly and social animals.
>
>It's not just 'so-called conservationists' who are calling for the demise of
>the tree rats, it's people like me who wish to eat some of the produce I
>grow for my own consumption, and I happen to like seeing birds in my garden,
>but both of these simple pleasures are stopped by the tree rats.
>
>Alan
>

Your anthropocentric outlook is really quite pathetic. Why shouldn't
wildlife eat out of your garden?

And don't forget that Red Squirrels were also called "tree rats" by
those who wished to demonise them in the past.


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

<amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:h5uo821h1tjn6lh7kisi8vfcnf1eitvtoq [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:50:58 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
> <alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:o7in8213cea9i4525daisl5g3ji9su2r2t [at] 4ax.com...
>>> Grey Squirrels - just as native as we are
>>>
>>> "Save our native red squirrels and kill the alien greys", is the
>>> message being churned out by so-called conservationists in a cynical
>>> and concerted hate campaign aimed at gaining public approval for the
>>> mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of these harmless, amusing,
>>> friendly and social animals.
>>
>>It's not just 'so-called conservationists' who are calling for the demise
>>of
>>the tree rats, it's people like me who wish to eat some of the produce I
>>grow for my own consumption, and I happen to like seeing birds in my
>>garden,
>>but both of these simple pleasures are stopped by the tree rats.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>
> Your anthropocentric outlook is really quite pathetic. Why shouldn't
> wildlife eat out of your garden?

If the grey tree rats were to do the planting, watering and generally
looking after the stuff I try to grow, then they would be welcome to share
it with me.

Alan

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:24:15 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
<alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> wrote:

>
><amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>news:h5uo821h1tjn6lh7kisi8vfcnf1eitvtoq [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:50:58 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
>> <alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o7in8213cea9i4525daisl5g3ji9su2r2t [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> Grey Squirrels - just as native as we are
>>>>
>>>> "Save our native red squirrels and kill the alien greys", is the
>>>> message being churned out by so-called conservationists in a cynical
>>>> and concerted hate campaign aimed at gaining public approval for the
>>>> mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of these harmless, amusing,
>>>> friendly and social animals.
>>>
>>>It's not just 'so-called conservationists' who are calling for the demise
>>>of
>>>the tree rats, it's people like me who wish to eat some of the produce I
>>>grow for my own consumption, and I happen to like seeing birds in my
>>>garden,
>>>but both of these simple pleasures are stopped by the tree rats.
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>
>>
>> Your anthropocentric outlook is really quite pathetic. Why shouldn't
>> wildlife eat out of your garden?
>
>If the grey tree rats were to do the planting, watering and generally
>looking after the stuff I try to grow, then they would be welcome to share
>it with me.
>
>Alan
>
>

You cannot expect to have the world exclusively to yourself. We all
face competition on a daily basis in many forms.


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

<amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:kvuq825gmjcc7s74ljrl7p032g7apuj89t [at] 4ax.com...
>
> You cannot expect to have the world exclusively to yourself. We all
> face competition on a daily basis in many forms.
>

I've decided to confine you to the killfile!

PLONK!

In article <mYfjg.19011$lQ.2978 [at] newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
"Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> writes:
|>
|> I've decided to confine you to the killfile!
|>
|> PLONK!

Troll and squirrel casserole, anyone?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> "Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> writes:
> |>
> |> I've decided to confine you to the killfile!
> |>
> |> PLONK!
>
> Troll and squirrel casserole, anyone?

'bout time. 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.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:43:14 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
<alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> wrote:

>
><amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>news:kvuq825gmjcc7s74ljrl7p032g7apuj89t [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>> You cannot expect to have the world exclusively to yourself. We all
>> face competition on a daily basis in many forms.
>>
>
>I've decided to confine you to the killfile!
>
>PLONK!
>

Typical of those who know they're wrong but aren't big enough to admit
it :-(


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

On 12 Jun 2006 18:26:44 +0200, Chris Bacon <chrispbacon [at] thai.com>
wrote:

>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> "Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> writes:
>> |>
>> |> I've decided to confine you to the killfile!
>> |>
>> |> PLONK!
>>
>> Troll and squirrel casserole, anyone?
>
>'bout time. 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.


What the fakes in uk.e.c don't get away with now is peddling the
dishonesty they call conservation.


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

The message <448d95c4 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org>
from Chris Bacon <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> 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.


Janet

--
Isle of Arran Open Gardens weekend 21,22,23 July 2006
5 UKP three-day adult ticket (funds go to island charities) buys entry
to 26 private gardens

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303039303239448DB96F11 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <448d95c4 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org>
> from Chris Bacon <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> 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.
>
>

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.

In article <1150138703.29744.0 [at] proxy00.news.clara.net>,
"BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> 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.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e6kerp$e2u$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <1150138703.29744.0 [at] proxy00.news.clara.net>,
> "BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> 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 <1150190013.33769.3 [at] demeter.uk.clara.net>,
"BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> 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" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
news:448ebe54$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
> 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"
<casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Chris Bacon" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
>news:448ebe54$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> 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

In article <mdgu82dbmo9o824neafe9irgkrl5sd5mgh [at] 4ax.com>,
amacmil304 [at] aol.com 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.

|> 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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 14 Jun 2006 07:49:15 GMT, nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>
>In article <mdgu82dbmo9o824neafe9irgkrl5sd5mgh [at] 4ax.com>,
>amacmil304 [at] aol.com 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

<amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:mdgu82dbmo9o824neafe9irgkrl5sd5mgh [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:57:40 +0100, "BAC"
> <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Bacon" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
> >news:448ebe54$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
> >> 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.

In article <6ugv82hqchgfoohiqcaeq9du7riuanf935 [at] 4ax.com>,
amacmil304 [at] aol.com 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, nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>
>In article <6ugv82hqchgfoohiqcaeq9du7riuanf935 [at] 4ax.com>,
>amacmil304 [at] aol.com 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"
<casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:

>
><amacmil304 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
>news:mdgu82dbmo9o824neafe9irgkrl5sd5mgh [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:57:40 +0100, "BAC"
>> <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Chris Bacon" <chrispbacon [at] thai.com> wrote in message
>> >news:448ebe54$2 [at] newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> >> 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

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

"Malcolm" <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8u51PK4v8DkEFw+l [at] indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <s9lv821k2unadb6u8tna6al1kb5debv2qd [at] 4ax.com>,
> amacmil304 [at] aol.com writes
> >On 14 Jun 2006 08:23:27 GMT, nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>In article <6ugv82hqchgfoohiqcaeq9du7riuanf935 [at] 4ax.com>,
> >>amacmil304 [at] aol.com 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:
> amacmil304 [at] aol.com 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
<Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <s9lv821k2unadb6u8tna6al1kb5debv2qd [at] 4ax.com>,
>amacmil304 [at] aol.com writes
>>On 14 Jun 2006 08:23:27 GMT, nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <6ugv82hqchgfoohiqcaeq9du7riuanf935 [at] 4ax.com>,
>>>amacmil304 [at] aol.com 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

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

"Malcolm" <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2zfno$92rPkEFwfy [at] indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <1150319886.19208.0 [at] damia.uk.clara.net>, BAC
> <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Malcolm" <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:8u51PK4v8DkEFw+l [at] indaal.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> In article <s9lv821k2unadb6u8tna6al1kb5debv2qd [at] 4ax.com>,
> >> amacmil304 [at] aol.com writes
> >> >On 14 Jun 2006 08:23:27 GMT, nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>In article <6ugv82hqchgfoohiqcaeq9du7riuanf935 [at] 4ax.com>,
> >> >>amacmil304 [at] aol.com 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.

In article <1150358099.548.0 [at] proxy02.news.clara.net>,
"BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes:
|> "Malcolm" <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
|> news:2zfno$92rPkEFwfy [at] indaal.demon.co.uk...
|> >
|> > >> 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.

Agreed, but remember who DID ask the question. If you feel capable of
dispelling Angus's ignorance, please go ahead. I have tried too often
before, with no success.

Actually, I should be vaguely interested in the answer, but could easily
enough find out if I chase up what SORT of an insect it is and where its
nearest relatives are located. But, as I have said, the classification
of "native" in a UK context is pretty meaningless, unless it is covered
by a caveat saying precisely what meaning it has been given in that
particular context.

Note that, as an answer to Angus, the above paragraph could be rephrased
as "That is not a question." I.e. in strict logic, a question is well-
formed only if all preciates it includes are true and well-defined; the
term "native" is not, therefore it is not a question.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article <e6r792$nm3$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
|>
|> formed only if all preciates it includes are true and well-defined; the
predicates


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e6r792$nm3$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <1150358099.548.0 [at] proxy02.news.clara.net>,
> "BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes:
> |> "Malcolm" <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> |> news:2zfno$92rPkEFwfy [at] indaal.demon.co.uk...
> |> >
> |> > >> 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.
>
> Agreed, but remember who DID ask the question. If you feel capable of
> dispelling Angus's ignorance, please go ahead. I have tried too often
> before, with no success.

Perhaps you have, but it was Malcolm O's reluctance to address the alleged
ignorance I was questioning. The point I was hinting at was that Angus and
Malcolm rarely debate or discuss with each other, they duel, verbally.

>
> Actually, I should be vaguely interested in the answer, but could easily
> enough find out if I chase up what SORT of an insect it is and where its
> nearest relatives are located. But, as I have said, the classification
> of "native" in a UK context is pretty meaningless, unless it is covered
> by a caveat saying precisely what meaning it has been given in that
> particular context.

Interesting point - if speciation of an 'alien' species occurs in the UK,
would the 'new' species be regarded as 'native' to the UK (or rather to that
part of the UK where the speciation occurred). And are phenotypes of
'aliens', specific to the UK, 'native' or 'alien'?

>
> Note that, as an answer to Angus, the above paragraph could be rephrased
> as "That is not a question." I.e. in strict logic, a question is well-
> formed only if all preciates it includes are true and well-defined; the
> term "native" is not, therefore it is not a question.
>
>

It is a question, even if it may not be 'well formed'. I agree 'nativeness'
of species is merely an arbitrary classification. As is 'species' itself,
come to think of it.

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e6r88e$ppb$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <e6r792$nm3$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
> |>
> |> formed only if all preciates it includes are true and well-defined; the
> predicates
>
>

Thanks - I assumed that was what was intended :-)

In article <1150364174.18716.0 [at] iris.uk.clara.net>,
"BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> Interesting point - if speciation of an 'alien' species occurs in the UK,
|> would the 'new' species be regarded as 'native' to the UK (or rather to that
|> part of the UK where the speciation occurred). And are phenotypes of
|> 'aliens', specific to the UK, 'native' or 'alien'?

A damn good question, considering that both exist! I have asked the former
before to people who were blithering on about nativeness (and, no, I don't
mean the BNP), but they evaded the question.

One good example of the latter is the common or garden rabbit.

|> It is a question, even if it may not be 'well formed'.

Only to a linguist - not to a logician :-)

|> I agree 'nativeness'
|> of species is merely an arbitrary classification. As is 'species' itself,
|> come to think of it.

Yup.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)