I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat to China. China being impressed
by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
> I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
> to China. China being impressed
> by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
> Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
Pat always says "follow the money". For once he just might be right.:-)
-- Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:47:41 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
<knightstemp...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat to >China. China being impressed
>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
We need to separate two things out.
Britain has indeed been exporting breeding stock to China and
elsewhere, with others, and in huge numbers.
It is no secret that I'm against the movement of live beasts in these
numbers across the world. I have no objection to careful live exports
under very tight controls.
Live beasts carrying disease is a disaster, realised in the case of
Britain as an importer in 1999 -2000, and potential to those importing
today.
Live export from (and imports to) Britain happens under the signature
of British veterinarians certifying health.
As you know, I would not trust a British veterinary signature under
any circumstances. They are a national disgrace, letting the rest of
us down.
Britain used to have an unrivaled reputation worldwide for trading
integrity. That a gang of bent vets on the make should destroy and
impune our high standards is a terrible indictment on our agricultural
and veterinary institutions.
Britain, after a decade of trying, has managed to secure permission
from the Chinese Government to export pig meat to China (effectively
the so-called 5th quarter). British farmers paid for the efforts.
Maybe some meat will actually move. Although within days of signing
the protocol, the Chinese also signed up for Brazilian exports.
I'm not so troubled about meat, it is not the disease risk that
Britain's corrupt vetocracy claimed during CSF and FMD 2000.
However, I doubt that any farmers will see any return for a decade of
investment through a compulsory levy.
Live exports from a country with sick pigs is ridiculous, and
Britain's pigs are sick producing roughly 20 percent less pig meat per
sow than the Danes and the Dutch.
Those are official figures and impossible to explain other than by the
state of the national pig herd.
>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>, >buddenbrooks <knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat >>to China. China being impressed
>>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
Let's get back to a safer subject. You can see how your opposition to
the Islay High Health Pig Project might well impact on your energy
aspirations.
If you are going to play in the big league, you have to keep out of
every dispute going and drop the stalking for good.
Promoters floating a new venture have to play it by the book, not
Facebook either.
> >In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
> >buddenbrooks <knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
> >>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
> >>to China. China being impressed
> >>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
> >>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
> >A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
> Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
> Let's get back to a safer subject. You can see how your opposition to
> the Islay High Health Pig Project might well impact on your energy
> aspirations.
> If you are going to play in the big league, you have to keep out of
> every dispute going and drop the stalking for good.
> Promoters floating a new venture have to play it by the book, not
> Facebook either.
I wonder if Pat and you all have read the news that appeared in the
NPA's News this week?
Minister hears British success story
"Whilst he was in China to promote the sale of British pork products
and British pig genetics, food and farming minister Jim Paice met
Stefan Derks, of Rattlerow Seghers, to learn about Rattlerow's success
in contributing over 65,000 breeding pigs to China last year." I
hadn't seen anything about such a sale before this. 65,000 is no
small business deal when it comes to shipping live breeding stock,
That's roughly equivalent to 50 Boeing 747 planeloads of pigs. And
several million British Pounds.
>In article <kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>buddenbrooks <knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>>>>to China. China being impressed
>>>>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive >imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense. >Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of >their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an >exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time, he created the hoax?
>>Let's get back to a safer subject. You can see how your opposition to
>>the Islay High Health Pig Project might well impact on your energy
>>aspirations.
>Yawnnnnnn. You stupid obsession continues to expose your total ignorance >of Islay, of pigs, of running a business involving pigs and, above all, >of pig welfare.
Usual contantless abuse.
>>If you are going to play in the big league, you have to keep out of
>>every dispute going and drop the stalking for good.
>And now back to libel. You have never been "stalked" here, Pat, by me or >anyone else. It is time you accepted that your abject failure to achieve >anything by your postings here over the last 11+ years has nothing to do >with anybody else and is solely due to your own total lack of >credibility.
You are going to have to realise that if you try to enter the big
league, even at your age you are going to have your past examined very
closely.
Evasive answers and abuse is not going to deflect those getting
involved from carefully examining every one of the various allegations
made over the years during your constant spats on the WWW.
>>Promoters floating a new venture have to play it by the book, not
>>Facebook either.
>But you're not promoting a "new venture", you are pretending that there >will be jobs when the reality is that there won't be. Some people might >call this deception. Others might begin to think that the word "fraud" >might be more appropriate.
The Islay High Health Pg Farm project does not need your assistance.
I was referring to your energy proposals for Islay. You are the
Vice-Chairman. You will have to concentrate more.
Your ideas might turn out to be realistic. Then your problems really
start. All the while it is just hot air, nothing will happen. If and
when it becomes serious, interest will swith to those promoting the
scheme.
>> >In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>> >buddenbrooks <knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>> >>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>> >>to China. China being impressed
>> >>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>> >>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>> >A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>> Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>> Let's get back to a safer subject. You can see how your opposition to
>> the Islay High Health Pig Project might well impact on your energy
>> aspirations.
>> If you are going to play in the big league, you have to keep out of
>> every dispute going and drop the stalking for good.
>> Promoters floating a new venture have to play it by the book, not
>> Facebook either.
>I wonder if Pat and you all have read the news that appeared in the
>NPA's News this week?
>Minister hears British success story
>"Whilst he was in China to promote the sale of British pork products
>and British pig genetics, food and farming minister Jim Paice met
>Stefan Derks, of Rattlerow Seghers, to learn about Rattlerow's success
>in contributing over 65,000 breeding pigs to China last year." I
>hadn't seen anything about such a sale before this. 65,000 is no
>small business deal when it comes to shipping live breeding stock,
>That's roughly equivalent to 50 Boeing 747 planeloads of pigs. And
>several million British Pounds.
Yes, thanks.
The story was carried everywhere. If the industry spent as much on pig
health as they do on PR, advertising puff, and telling the farmers how
lucky they are to have such wonderful support, the world would be a
happier and safer place.
However, that's down to the NFU et al , if they will get into bed with
these badly run government organisations, they can't then criticise
them, beyond ritualistic bawling from the rooftops.
Malcolm knows Rattlerow. He paid for their evidence to Parliament in
2000. Goodness knows why. Maybe he circulated that too?
>In article <q361s7leoobgqvdr4s4kj3gm75dqj6j...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>Malcolm knows Rattlerow.
>No, I don't. Your overheated imagination is yet again leading you to >making stupid remarks for which you haven't the slightest bit of >evidence. This is why you have no credibility, Pat. Nothing you say or >claim can be taken as being true.
I suppose you have deleted the post as usual.
Anyway, I don't think they will appreciate your interest in them or me
referring to it, so we will leave the subject.
If people can give evidence to Parliament without them failing to
publish but selling the information to stalkers, we have come to a
pretty pass.
Thy have obviously been taking lessons from the DVLA on earning a bob
or two on the side by flogging the data to undesirables.
>In article <kk51s7p12lem454j34k7vqejtrii7lr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>buddenbrooks <knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>>>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>>>>>>to China. China being impressed
>>>>>>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>>>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>>>A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>>>Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>>>The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>>>imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>>>Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>>>their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>>>exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
>>Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time,
>Yes.
>>he created the hoax?
>No, he didn't. He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it.
How do you know he did not create it?
>>>>Let's get back to a safer subject. You can see how your opposition to
>>>>the Islay High Health Pig Project might well impact on your energy
>>>>aspirations.
>>>Yawnnnnnn. You stupid obsession continues to expose your total ignorance
>>>of Islay, of pigs, of running a business involving pigs and, above all,
>>>of pig welfare.
>>>>If you are going to play in the big league, you have to keep out of
>>>>every dispute going and drop the stalking for good.
>>>And now back to libel. You have never been "stalked" here, Pat, by me or
>>>anyone else. It is time you accepted that your abject failure to achieve
>>>anything by your postings here over the last 11+ years has nothing to do
>>>with anybody else and is solely due to your own total lack of
>>>credibility.
>>You are going to have to realise that if you try to enter the big
>>league, even at your age you are going to have your past examined very
>>closely.
>Yawnnnn. More nonsense from the master of it.
No, I would have thought that an entirely sensible warning. You have
been involved in quite a number of spats with a number of people on
the WWW. Whether true or otherwise, they have made allegations.
Take it from me, if I was still running businesses or had any
ambitions in that direction, I would not be here. It is far too
dangerous. An unwise word, written in anger or frustration in reply to
abuse, and you could bring a company down.
>>Evasive answers and abuse is not going to deflect those getting
>>involved from carefully examining every one of the various allegations
>>made over the years during your constant spats on the WWW.
>You are also the master of "evasive answers and abuse". You have >indulged in it ever since you started posting your libels, lies and >evidenceless claims here.
I'm not vice chair of what looks to be a major new energy operation.
Stalkers and usabusers might create serious problems, but there is no
career to be wrecked.
>And as no-one is "getting involved", no-one will be fulfilling your >silly claim.
I can't follow that. I suppose you have snipped something. I don't
know why you bother when you delete everything anyway after 6 days.
>>>>Promoters floating a new venture have to play it by the book, not
>>>>Facebook either.
>>>But you're not promoting a "new venture", you are pretending that there
>>>will be jobs when the reality is that there won't be. Some people might
>>>call this deception. Others might begin to think that the word "fraud"
>>>might be more appropriate.
>>The Islay High Health Pg Farm project does not need your assistance.
>There is no "project" to assist, Pat. It is merely the pathetic >ramblings of a sad little obsessive living in Norfolk who has >demonstrated over and over again that he continues to be totally >ignorant of Islay, of pigs, of running a business involving pigs and, >above all, of pig welfare. And this is compounded by your promising >non-existent jobs which some might call deception while others might >begin to think that the word "fraud" might be more appropriate. You're >not a fraudster, are you, Pat Gardiner?
>>I was referring to your energy proposals for Islay. You are the
>>Vice-Chairman. You will have to concentrate more.
>You haven't a clue about my "energy proposals for Islay". The last time >you brought this subject up, you merely exposed your total ignorance, >yet again.
Well part of your role as Vice Chaiman is to explain the project. I
don't suppose you are capable of such a positive act, stalking and
abuse is more your line
>>Your ideas might turn out to be realistic. Then your problems really
>>start. All the while it is just hot air, nothing will happen. If and
>>when it becomes serious, interest will swith to those promoting the
>>scheme.
>Thank you for further exposing your total ignorance. If it wasn't so >pathetic, it would be hilarious to see you floundering around pretending >that you are making some relevant comment when all the time you are so >far off target as to cast real doubt on your ability to understand >anything you read. Still, if you want to continue to demonstrate how >easy it is for you to make a fool of yourself, do carry on.
Yes, well we all know your line in abuse.
Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
Rhombopteryx hoax and how you know that the allegations against Sir
Peter Scott were ill-founded.
Now there is a scandal we can all have a hand in discovering.
>In article <kh81s7trkfg2vhcf0k6oi8mlk7ho78r...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <q361s7leoobgqvdr4s4kj3gm75dqj6j...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>Malcolm knows Rattlerow.
>>>No, I don't. Your overheated imagination is yet again leading you to
>>>making stupid remarks for which you haven't the slightest bit of
>>>evidence. This is why you have no credibility, Pat. Nothing you say or
>>>claim can be taken as being true.
>>I suppose you have deleted the post as usual.
>Obsession alert!
Well that confirms it. You have deleted the post. I will have it
available in case of need.
>>Anyway, I don't think they will appreciate your interest in them or me
>>referring to it, so we will leave the subject.
>Translation: Pat realises he has made a fool of himself (again) by >bringing up the subject in the first place and hopes that this can now >be forgotten.
No, you claimed to have obtained Rattlerows unpublished evidence to
Parliament and, since you had paid to obtain mine to the same session
and circulated it without permission, I assumed that you knew them or
had some interest.
You say you do not, which leaves us all wondering about the nature of
your interest. I suggest you leave Rattlerow in peace.
>>If people can give evidence to Parliament without them failing to
>>publish but selling the information to stalkers, we have come to a
>>pretty pass.
>More complete and utter claptrap. You really, really do like to make >yourself look a fool, don't you?
>No information has been *sold*. Anyone in the world was (and still is) >at liberty to write to the HoL library and request copies of the same >unpublished memoranda. They will be asked for a small handling and >postage fee - in my case it was £3.77. Only a completely braindead idiot >would claim that this is "selling". On the other hand, if you are happy >to believe that your green ink letter, and the other unpublished >memoranda, were valued by the library staff at just £3.77, then perhaps >you have a point. It follows that everything you have posted here ever >since has no value whatsoever. You have, after all, not achieved >anything in all that time, except to confirm, with post after post, that >you have no credibility whatsoever because of your persistent libelling, >lying and abuse.
Well, you have said all that about three thousand times and it rings
no more true with repetition.
>>Thy have obviously been taking lessons from the DVLA on earning a bob
>>or two on the side by flogging the data to undesirables.
>More bizaare lies.
I think not. Many are very upset with the DVLA's strange practices
with data.
Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
Rhombopteryx hoax.
>In article <00a1s7hdj26r7ihu6jn41ahd4j2c4gv...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <kk51s7p12lem454j34k7vqejtrii7lr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In article <kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>buddenbrooks <knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>>>>>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>>>>>>>>to China. China being impressed
>>>>>>>>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>>>>>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>>>>>A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>>>>>Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>>>>>The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>>>>>imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>>>>>Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>>>>>their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>>>>>exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
I see you are trying to involve others. They did not delete all their
posts and are highly unlikely to want to become involved.
I kept telling you that removing the evidence was not a smart move.
The civil service do that if they think they can get away with it, but
they have crown immunity.
>>>>Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time,
>>>Yes.
>>>>he created the hoax?
>>>No, he didn't. He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it.
>>How do you know he did not create it?
>Because I knew the person who did, of course. You really don't ever >think before you write, do you?
As I thought. Fascinating. So Malcolm knows who was behind the
Nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax
>>Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
>>Rhombopteryx hoax and how you know that the allegations against Sir
>>Peter Scott were ill-founded.
>What "allegations"? What on earth are you on about?
>>Now there is a scandal we can all have a hand in discovering.
>You really, really, are pathetic, aren't you?
>What "scandal"?
>Here is what Wikipedia says:
>"In the early 1970s, a group of people led by Robert H. Rines obtained >some underwater photographs. Two were rather vague images, perhaps of a >rhomboid flipper (though others have dismissed the image as air bubbles >or a fish fin). The alleged flipper was photographed in different >positions, indicating movement. On the basis of these photographs, >British naturalist Peter Scott announced in 1975 that the scientific >name of the monster would henceforth be Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Greek >for "The Ness monster with diamond-shaped fin"). Scott intended that >this would enable Nessie to be added to a British register of officially >protected wildlife. Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn pointed out >that the name was an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S"."
>Peter did not think up the name himself, but was delighted with it when >it was proposed to him by the person who did, who was someone I knew.
>Have you got that into your little head, or are you going to indulge >further in one of favourite pastimes - making a fool of yourself?
I seem to have upset you for some reason.
Don't worry, I do not take Wikipedia or any source as necessarily
reliable
Fascinating. Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax? It was a very
big story at the time and, in its way, a classic, with links to
encouraging tourism to remoter parts of Scotland.
I can see from your wording that you do not intend to tell us who was
the perpetrator of the hoax or the inventor of the anagram or whether
they are one and the same person?
How well do you know the hoaxer?
You often seem to be about when hoaxes arise. You must be quite
expert by now.
I'm thinking of the time when the American military thought your next
door neighbour was making biological weapons and, as you pointed out,
that became a boost to whisky sales and tourism.
A distillery manager has told of his amazement after learning that US
spies hunting weapons of mass destruction had been monitoring his
whisky plant.
Bruichladdich Distillery on the island of Islay was contacted by the
Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), after an agent clicked on to
the distillery's website.
The woman revealed the organisation's interest in the whisky plant
after alerting the distillery to the fact that one of its webcams was
faulty.
Cameras had been installed by the company to show off its traditional
distilling techniques.
Metal machinery
The distillery's managing director Mark Reynier said all was revealed
when he replied to the contact thanking her for pointing out the
problem.
"We replied by e-mail thanking her very much for bringing it to our
attention," said Mr Reynier, 41.
"When I got a reply saying: 'We really do enjoy looking at your
distillery,' it was then I noticed the sign-off at the bottom with the
initials DTRA.
"I replied back saying I couldn't help noticing your address, and
finally the reply came back giving a fantastic explanation about how
the agency's work was all to do with the anti-terrorist threat to
American security....
Unquote
This is getting really interesting. Have you ever talked to the media
about these strange events?
>In article <6mf1s75j9jesd1lsucf5ogd3ffahlm6...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:07:26 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <00a1s7hdj26r7ihu6jn41ahd4j2c4gv...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In article <kk51s7p12lem454j34k7vqejtrii7lr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>>>buddenbrooks <knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>>>>>>>>>>to China. China being impressed
>>>>>>>>>>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>>>>>>>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>>>>>>>A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>>>>>>>Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>>>>>>>The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>>>>>>>imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>>>>>>>Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>>>>>>>their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>>>>>>>exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
>>I see you are trying to involve others.
>No, Pat, I'm not. I'm telling you that a number of obsessives have >wasted years of their lives obsessing about something that doesn't >exist.
I'm sure that is right, stalking is just such an obsession.
>An exact parallel with you.
I don't think so.
>>They did not delete all their
>>posts and are highly unlikely to want to become involved.
I think you have been snipping again.
>Perhaps that's because they have mostly died or given up. The peak >period for the obsessives was in the 1970s.
Really, I had not noticed, being too busy then, with my head down
working.
Didn't the nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax take place in the 70s, when
you were working for Sir Peter Scott?
>>I kept telling you that removing the evidence was not a smart move.
>>The civil service do that if they think they can get away with it, but
>>they have crown immunity.
>I couldn't care less what you have "kept telling me", because it is a >load of complete claptrap.
Well, let's get back to discussing hoaxes and hoaxers. This is fun.
>>>>>>Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time,
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>>he created the hoax?
>>>>>No, he didn't. He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it.
>>>>How do you know he did not create it?
>>>Because I knew the person who did, of course. You really don't ever
>>>think before you write, do you?
>>As I thought. Fascinating. So Malcolm knows who was behind the
>>Nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax
>As do thousands if not millions of people.
Well, as an intimate of Sir Peter Scott you can confirm your opinion
of the identity of the culprit (s) of the related hoaxes.
Why not? Or is your opinion a big secret?
>So what's your next stupid remark going to be?
Never mind the abuse. We are now investigating a number of hoaxes,
underpinning Scottish tourism publicity, that occurred at a time when
you were active near the people involved.
You could well be in for a bob or two, if you play your cards right.
>>>snip<
>>>>Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
>>>>Rhombopteryx hoax and how you know that the allegations against Sir
>>>>Peter Scott were ill-founded.
>>>What "allegations"? What on earth are you on about?
>No answer, I see. So just another claim you can't support.
There were a number of allegations. I'm not operating to your
instructions. You are the one that will obviously need to make a
public explanation of any involvement.
>>>>Now there is a scandal we can all have a hand in discovering.
>>>You really, really, are pathetic, aren't you?
>>>What "scandal"?
>>>Here is what Wikipedia says:
>>>"In the early 1970s, a group of people led by Robert H. Rines obtained
>>>some underwater photographs. Two were rather vague images, perhaps of a
>>>rhomboid flipper (though others have dismissed the image as air bubbles
>>>or a fish fin). The alleged flipper was photographed in different
>>>positions, indicating movement. On the basis of these photographs,
>>>British naturalist Peter Scott announced in 1975 that the scientific
>>>name of the monster would henceforth be Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Greek
>>>for "The Ness monster with diamond-shaped fin"). Scott intended that
>>>this would enable Nessie to be added to a British register of officially
>>>protected wildlife. Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn pointed out
>>>that the name was an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S"."
>>>Peter did not think up the name himself, but was delighted with it when
>>>it was proposed to him by the person who did, who was someone I knew.
>>>Have you got that into your little head, or are you going to indulge
>>>further in one of favourite pastimes - making a fool of yourself?
>>I seem to have upset you for some reason.
>No, you never upset me. You mentioned the word "scandal"and, as usual, >haven't been able to back it up with anything sensible, but then you >never do.
The recent Loch Ness Hoaxes were a scandal. They cost of lot of
gullible people a great deal of money. Hoaxers never see the damage
they cause.
>>Don't worry, I do not take Wikipedia or any source as necessarily
>>reliable
>No, you don't when it is obviously giving you the facts. You don't deal >in facts, do you? Only lies, libels, assumptions and inventions.
Well, you now have the chance to publicly explain your role in the
creation of nessiteras rhombopteryx.
There will be interest on both sides of the Atlantic.
>>Fascinating. Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax? It was a very
>>big story at the time and, in its way, a classic, with links to
>>encouraging tourism to remoter parts of Scotland.
>Duh!
>Read what I wrote and make at least *some* attempt to understand it. >What part of "He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it." do you not >understand?
The question is clear, abuse will not put me off. Now answer the
question:
Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax?
to prevent further prevarication I will add "at any time"
" Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax at any time?"
>>I can see from your wording that you do not intend to tell us who was
>>the perpetrator of the hoax or the inventor of the anagram or whether
>>they are one and the same person?
>>How well do you know the hoaxer?
>I no longer know him. He died 20 years ago.
How well did you know him? and the identity please?
Did he confess to you?
>>You often seem to be about when hoaxes arise. You must be quite
>>expert by now.
>>I'm thinking of the time when the American military thought your next
>>door neighbour was making biological weapons and, as you pointed out,
>>that became a boost to whisky sales and tourism.
>You posted about this a few months ago, obviously not able to realise >that it was a years old story without any of the conspiracy theory >implications you tried to attach to it and certainly no kind of a hoax. >The webcams were genuine and indeed still are..
>>Saturday, 27 September, 2003, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK
>Note the date of this report, 27 September 2003
>Now note the date - 11 November 2011 - when you "discovered" the story >as you tried to find out something about Islay having belatedly realised >just how ignorant you were about the island.
>A perfect summing up of your abilities. All you post is out-of-date and >irrelevant, but you'll still try and concoct a conspiracy theory about >it anyway.
Ignoring the abuse: hoaxes and disputes over the facts about your
life, seem to follow you about. You seem to love to create an air of
mystery about yourself.
This is the inevitable result.
Those arguments about your doctorate were ridiculous. You seemed to
deliberately fuel the accusations
>snip
>>This is getting really interesting. Have you ever talked to the media
>>about these strange events?
>There were no "strange events" to talk about. Your imagination is >overheating again.
Oh, I think after a few more days of this and the media will be
crawling all over you.
To make the best of it, I would get an agent organised. Max Clifford
likes colourful stories. If you think even the Politburo will hold off
tipping off their favourite journalist, I doubt that.
You have more than one American reading. They won't miss the
ridiculous BBC distillery story. It reads rather badly on the American
defense people, and any suggestion that somebody close to one of the
world's great hoaxes, lives in the immediate vicinity, will set their
adrenaline running. They will need to have their story ready for when
this goes viral and they have to provide explanations to the White
House.
> On May 25, 4:23 pm, Pat Gardiner <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk>
> wrote:
> Minister hears British success story
> "Whilst he was in China to promote the sale of British pork products
> and British pig genetics, food and farming minister Jim Paice met
> Stefan Derks, of Rattlerow Seghers, to learn about Rattlerow's success
> in contributing over 65,000 breeding pigs to China last year." I
> hadn't seen anything about such a sale before this. 65,000 is no
> small business deal when it comes to shipping live breeding stock,
> That's roughly equivalent to 50 Boeing 747 planeloads of pigs. And
> several million British Pounds.
China is one of the formost agricultural countries, the fact that it
uses most of its own production makes people forget that. There is a
market there for real `quality assured' food (not just paperwork) is
an oppertunity for other places. Friend of mine drove several loads of
pigs to somewhere in Central Russia, had great stories of corruption
and incompetence that he met there.
"The police car in front pulled onto the side of the road and stopped,
so I went up to see what was wrong, the driver and passenger had passed
out with vodka"
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Malcolm
> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article<q361s7leoobgqvdr4s4kj3gm75dqj6j...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> Malcolm knows Rattlerow.
>> No, I don't. Your overheated imagination is yet again leading you to
>> making stupid remarks for which you haven't the slightest bit of
>> evidence. This is why you have no credibility, Pat. Nothing you say or
>> claim can be taken as being true.
> I suppose you have deleted the post as usual.
Wrong, as usual. Proves Malcolm's point: "Nothing you say or
claim can be taken as being true".
> Anyway, I don't think they will appreciate your interest in them or me
> referring to it, so we will leave the subject.
Realised you are wronmg yet again Pat?
> If people can give evidence to Parliament without them failing to
> publish but selling the information to stalkers, we have come to a
> pretty pass.
Now reverting to gobbledygook?
> Thy have obviously been taking lessons from the DVLA on earning a bob
> or two on the side by flogging the data to undesirables.
I thought you were the one who did that Pat.
-- Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:44:53 +0100, Malcolm
> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article<kh81s7trkfg2vhcf0k6oi8mlk7ho78r...@4ax.com>, Pat
>> Gardiner <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article<q361s7leoobgqvdr4s4kj3gm75dqj6j...@4ax.com>, Pat
>>>> Gardiner <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>> Malcolm knows Rattlerow.
>>>> No, I don't. Your overheated imagination is yet again leading
>>>> you to making stupid remarks for which you haven't the
>>>> slightest bit of evidence. This is why you have no credibility,
>>>> Pat. Nothing you say or claim can be taken as being true.
>>> I suppose you have deleted the post as usual.
>> Obsession alert!
> Well that confirms it. You have deleted the post. I will have it
> available in case of need.
Very good of you Pat but totally unnecessary because as usual you are
wrong and proving Malcolm's point: "Nothing you say or claim can be taken as being true".
>>> Anyway, I don't think they will appreciate your interest in them
>>> or me referring to it, so we will leave the subject.
>> Translation: Pat realises he has made a fool of himself (again) by
>> bringing up the subject in the first place and hopes that this can
>> now be forgotten.
> No, you claimed to have obtained Rattlerows unpublished evidence to
> Parliament and, since you had paid to obtain mine to the same
> session and circulated it without permission, I assumed that you knew
> them or had some interest.
Good at assuming aren't you Pat? Invariably you are wrong though. Proves Malcolm's point: "Nothing you say or claim can be taken as being true"
> You say you do not, which leaves us all wondering about the nature
> of your interest. I suggest you leave Rattlerow in peace.
Who is this "all" Pat? You are the only one so lacking in comprehension that you "wonder".
> I don't want to put a stalker on their tail.
You do seem to have an obsession with stalkers don't you Pat? If you are so flush with stalkers just resist the temptation Pat.
>>> If people can give evidence to Parliament without them failing
>>> to publish but selling the information to stalkers, we have come
>>> to a pretty pass.
>> More complete and utter claptrap. You really, really do like to
>> make yourself look a fool, don't you?
>> No information has been *sold*. Anyone in the world was (and still
>> is) at liberty to write to the HoL library and request copies of
>> the same unpublished memoranda. They will be asked for a small
>> handling and postage fee - in my case it was £3.77. Only a
>> completely braindead idiot would claim that this is "selling". On
>> the other hand, if you are happy to believe that your green ink
>> letter, and the other unpublished memoranda, were valued by the
>> library staff at just £3.77, then perhaps you have a point. It
>> follows that everything you have posted here ever since has no
>> value whatsoever. You have, after all, not achieved anything in all
>> that time, except to confirm, with post after post, that you have
>> no credibility whatsoever because of your persistent libelling,
>> lying and abuse.
> Well, you have said all that about three thousand times and it rings
> no more true with repetition.
For once you are right Pat. It was treue when malcolm first posted it so it cannot get any more true.
>>> Thy have obviously been taking lessons from the DVLA on earning a
>>> bob or two on the side by flogging the data to undesirables.
>> More bizaare lies.
> I think not. Many are very upset with the DVLA's strange practices
> with data.
Who is this "many" Pat? What evidence do you have for "thinking not"?
> Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
> Rhombopteryx hoax.
> Now that sounds like good clean fun.
Except that we were never there so cannot go back to it.
-- Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article<kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article<S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>> buddenbrooks<knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>> I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>>>>> to China. China being impressed
>>>>> by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>> Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>> A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>> Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>> The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>> imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>> Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>> their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>> exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
> Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time, he created the hoax?
Evidence for Peter Scott creating that hoax Pat?
>>> Let's get back to a safer subject. You can see how your opposition to
>>> the Islay High Health Pig Project might well impact on your energy
>>> aspirations.
>> Yawnnnnnn. You stupid obsession continues to expose your total ignorance
>> of Islay, of pigs, of running a business involving pigs and, above all,
>> of pig welfare.
> Usual contantless abuse.
Wrong, as usual Pat. Proves Malcolm's point: "Nothing you say or
claim can be taken as being true". The response from Malcolm was true and factual.
>>> If you are going to play in the big league, you have to keep out of
>>> every dispute going and drop the stalking for good.
>> And now back to libel. You have never been "stalked" here, Pat, by me or
>> anyone else. It is time you accepted that your abject failure to achieve
>> anything by your postings here over the last 11+ years has nothing to do
>> with anybody else and is solely due to your own total lack of
>> credibility.
> You are going to have to realise that if you try to enter the big
> league, even at your age you are going to have your past examined very
> closely.
Is that another part of your problem Pat? Did your past get examined a little too closely for your liking?
> Evasive answers and abuse is not going to deflect those getting
> involved from carefully examining every one of the various allegations
> made over the years during your constant spats on the WWW.
You are the expert who posts in all those areas Pat.
>>> Promoters floating a new venture have to play it by the book, not
>>> Facebook either.
>> But you're not promoting a "new venture", you are pretending that there
>> will be jobs when the reality is that there won't be. Some people might
>> call this deception. Others might begin to think that the word "fraud"
>> might be more appropriate.
> The Islay High Health Pg Farm project does not need your assistance.
Correct Pat, unusual for you, because it does not exist.
> I was referring to your energy proposals for Islay. You are the
> Vice-Chairman. You will have to concentrate more.
> Your ideas might turn out to be realistic. Then your problems really
> start. All the while it is just hot air, nothing will happen. If and
> when it becomes serious, interest will swith to those promoting the
> scheme.
Sounds like that project, with lots of jobs on Islay, you keep claiming to have invented Pat.
-- Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article<kk51s7p12lem454j34k7vqejtrii7lr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article<kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In article<S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>> buddenbrooks<knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>>>> I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>>>>>>> to China. China being impressed
>>>>>>> by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>>>> Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>>>> A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>>>> Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>>>> The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>>>> imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>>>> Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>>>> their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>>>> exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
>>> Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time,
>> Yes.
>>> he created the hoax?
>> No, he didn't. He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it.
> How do you know he did not create it?
Because you said he did and we all know that whatever you claim is untrue.
>>>>> Let's get back to a safer subject. You can see how your opposition to
>>>>> the Islay High Health Pig Project might well impact on your energy
>>>>> aspirations.
>>>> Yawnnnnnn. You stupid obsession continues to expose your total ignorance
>>>> of Islay, of pigs, of running a business involving pigs and, above all,
>>>> of pig welfare.
>>> Usual contantless abuse.
>> As usual, you are unable to accept the truth.
> As usual content less abuse
Wrong, as usual, Pat. Proves Malcolm's point: "Nothing you say or
claim can be taken as being true".
Malcolm's response was factually correct so had content and was not abuse.
>>>>> If you are going to play in the big league, you have to keep out of
>>>>> every dispute going and drop the stalking for good.
>>>> And now back to libel. You have never been "stalked" here, Pat, by me or
>>>> anyone else. It is time you accepted that your abject failure to achieve
>>>> anything by your postings here over the last 11+ years has nothing to do
>>>> with anybody else and is solely due to your own total lack of
>>>> credibility.
>>> You are going to have to realise that if you try to enter the big
>>> league, even at your age you are going to have your past examined very
>>> closely.
>> Yawnnnn. More nonsense from the master of it.
> No, I would have thought that an entirely sensible warning. You have
> been involved in quite a number of spats with a number of people on
> the WWW. Whether true or otherwise, they have made allegations.
Evidence Pat?
> Take it from me, if I was still running businesses or had any
> ambitions in that direction, I would not be here. It is far too
> dangerous. An unwise word, written in anger or frustration in reply to
> abuse, and you could bring a company down.
Take it from me nobody who successfully ran a serious business would make the posts you make. Plenty of successful business men do post to newsnet and even tweet, having many followers.
>>> Evasive answers and abuse is not going to deflect those getting
>>> involved from carefully examining every one of the various allegations
>>> made over the years during your constant spats on the WWW.
>> You are also the master of "evasive answers and abuse". You have
>> indulged in it ever since you started posting your libels, lies and
>> evidenceless claims here.
> I'm not vice chair of what looks to be a major new energy operation.
> Stalkers and usabusers might create serious problems, but there is no
> career to be wrecked.
The evidence from your posts suggests there never was Pat.
>> And as no-one is "getting involved", no-one will be fulfilling your
>> silly claim.
> I can't follow that. I suppose you have snipped something. I don't
> know why you bother when you delete everything anyway after 6 days.
Malcolm has snipped nothing. Your lack of comprehension is showing yet again Pat.
>>>>> Promoters floating a new venture have to play it by the book, not
>>>>> Facebook either.
>>>> But you're not promoting a "new venture", you are pretending that there
>>>> will be jobs when the reality is that there won't be. Some people might
>>>> call this deception. Others might begin to think that the word "fraud"
>>>> might be more appropriate.
>>> The Islay High Health Pg Farm project does not need your assistance.
>> There is no "project" to assist, Pat. It is merely the pathetic
>> ramblings of a sad little obsessive living in Norfolk who has
>> demonstrated over and over again that he continues to be totally
>> ignorant of Islay, of pigs, of running a business involving pigs and,
>> above all, of pig welfare. And this is compounded by your promising
>> non-existent jobs which some might call deception while others might
>> begin to think that the word "fraud" might be more appropriate. You're
>> not a fraudster, are you, Pat Gardiner?
>>> I was referring to your energy proposals for Islay. You are the
>>> Vice-Chairman. You will have to concentrate more.
>> You haven't a clue about my "energy proposals for Islay". The last time
>> you brought this subject up, you merely exposed your total ignorance,
>> yet again.
> Well part of your role as Vice Chaiman is to explain the project. I
> don't suppose you are capable of such a positive act, stalking and
> abuse is more your line
Well, that is a "content less" post or, to be fair, almost content less. It's sole content comprises abuse and libel. Your stock intrade isn't it Pat?
>>> Your ideas might turn out to be realistic. Then your problems really
>>> start. All the while it is just hot air, nothing will happen. If and
>>> when it becomes serious, interest will swith to those promoting the
>>> scheme.
>> Thank you for further exposing your total ignorance. If it wasn't so
>> pathetic, it would be hilarious to see you floundering around pretending
>> that you are making some relevant comment when all the time you are so
>> far off target as to cast real doubt on your ability to understand
>> anything you read. Still, if you want to continue to demonstrate how
>> easy it is for you to make a fool of yourself, do carry on.
> Yes, well we all know your line in abuse.
Don't try to align the rest of us with yourself Pat. You are the one who constantly posts abuse and libels.
> Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
> Rhombopteryx hoax and how you know that the allegations against Sir
> Peter Scott were ill-founded.
> Now there is a scandal we can all have a hand in discovering.
Not if you are involved in any way Pat. We all know you are incapable of seeing the truth.
-- Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:07:26 +0100, Malcolm
> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article<00a1s7hdj26r7ihu6jn41ahd4j2c4gv...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article<kk51s7p12lem454j34k7vqejtrii7lr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In article<kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>> buddenbrooks<knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>>>>>> I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>>>>>>>>> to China. China being impressed
>>>>>>>>> by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>>>>>> Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>>>>>> A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>>>>>> Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>>>>>> The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>>>>>> imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>>>>>> Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>>>>>> their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>>>>>> exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
> I see you are trying to involve others. They did not delete all their
> posts and are highly unlikely to want to become involved.
Which "others" is that Pat?
How can anyone delete posts after they have posted tham on the internet Pat?
> I kept telling you that removing the evidence was not a smart move.
> The civil service do that if they think they can get away with it, but
> they have crown immunity.
We keep telling you that you are posting crap Pat.
>>>>> Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time,
>>>> Yes.
>>>>> he created the hoax?
>>>> No, he didn't. He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it.
>>> How do you know he did not create it?
>> Because I knew the person who did, of course. You really don't ever
>> think before you write, do you?
> As I thought. Fascinating. So Malcolm knows who was behind the
> Nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax
I doubt it is a secret Pat. Perhaps, if you are that interested, you should try doing some real research. You might actually learn something.
>>> Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
>>> Rhombopteryx hoax and how you know that the allegations against Sir
>>> Peter Scott were ill-founded.
>> What "allegations"? What on earth are you on about?
>>> Now there is a scandal we can all have a hand in discovering.
>> You really, really, are pathetic, aren't you?
>> What "scandal"?
>> Here is what Wikipedia says:
>> "In the early 1970s, a group of people led by Robert H. Rines obtained
>> some underwater photographs. Two were rather vague images, perhaps of a
>> rhomboid flipper (though others have dismissed the image as air bubbles
>> or a fish fin). The alleged flipper was photographed in different
>> positions, indicating movement. On the basis of these photographs,
>> British naturalist Peter Scott announced in 1975 that the scientific
>> name of the monster would henceforth be Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Greek
>> for "The Ness monster with diamond-shaped fin"). Scott intended that
>> this would enable Nessie to be added to a British register of officially
>> protected wildlife. Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn pointed out
>> that the name was an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S"."
>> Peter did not think up the name himself, but was delighted with it when
>> it was proposed to him by the person who did, who was someone I knew.
>> Have you got that into your little head, or are you going to indulge
>> further in one of favourite pastimes - making a fool of yourself?
> I seem to have upset you for some reason.
Fantasising again Pat?
> Don't worry, I do not take Wikipedia or any source as necessarily
> reliable
Always more reliable than you Pat.
> Fascinating. Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax? It was a very
> big story at the time and, in its way, a classic, with links to
> encouraging tourism to remoter parts of Scotland.
> I can see from your wording that you do not intend to tell us who was
> the perpetrator of the hoax or the inventor of the anagram or whether
> they are one and the same person?
> How well do you know the hoaxer?
For someone who always refuses to answer questions, even to support a claim you are making and expecting others to accept, you do ask a lot of questions don't you Pat?
> You often seem to be about when hoaxes arise. You must be quite
> expert by now.
> I'm thinking of the time when the American military thought your next
> door neighbour was making biological weapons and, as you pointed out,
> that became a boost to whisky sales and tourism.
> A distillery manager has told of his amazement after learning that US
> spies hunting weapons of mass destruction had been monitoring his
> whisky plant.
> Bruichladdich Distillery on the island of Islay was contacted by the
> Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), after an agent clicked on to
> the distillery's website.
> The woman revealed the organisation's interest in the whisky plant
> after alerting the distillery to the fact that one of its webcams was
> faulty.
> Cameras had been installed by the company to show off its traditional
> distilling techniques.
> Metal machinery
> The distillery's managing director Mark Reynier said all was revealed
> when he replied to the contact thanking her for pointing out the
> problem.
> "We replied by e-mail thanking her very much for bringing it to our
> attention," said Mr Reynier, 41.
> "When I got a reply saying: 'We really do enjoy looking at your
> distillery,' it was then I noticed the sign-off at the bottom with the
> initials DTRA.
> "I replied back saying I couldn't help noticing your address, and
> finally the reply came back giving a fantastic explanation about how
> the agency's work was all to do with the anti-terrorist threat to
> American security....
> Unquote
> This is getting really interesting. Have you ever talked to the media
> about these strange events?
Why should he Pat? Nothing to do with him.
But then you are just trolling aren't you Pat?
-- Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:45:54 +0100, Malcolm
> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article<6mf1s75j9jesd1lsucf5ogd3ffahlm6...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:07:26 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article<00a1s7hdj26r7ihu6jn41ahd4j2c4gv...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In article<kk51s7p12lem454j34k7vqejtrii7lr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article<S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>>>> buddenbrooks<knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>> I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in exporting pig meat
>>>>>>>>>>> to China. China being impressed
>>>>>>>>>>> by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>>>>>>>> A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>>>>>>>> Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>>>>>>>> The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>>>>>>>> imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>>>>>>>> Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>>>>>>>> their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>>>>>>>> exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
>>> I see you are trying to involve others.
>> No, Pat, I'm not. I'm telling you that a number of obsessives have
>> wasted years of their lives obsessing about something that doesn't
>> exist.
> I'm sure that is right, stalking is just such an obsession.
You certainly seem to have an obsession about it Pat. Do you do it a lot?
>> An exact parallel with you.
> I don't think so.
Really?
>>> They did not delete all their
>>> posts and are highly unlikely to want to become involved.
> I think you have been snipping again.
Wrong again Pat. Proves Malcolm's point: "Nothing you say or
claim can be taken as being true"
>> Perhaps that's because they have mostly died or given up. The peak
>> period for the obsessives was in the 1970s.
> Really, I had not noticed, being too busy then, with my head down
> working.
Really?
> Didn't the nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax take place in the 70s, when
> you were working for Sir Peter Scott?
Relevance Pat?
>>> I kept telling you that removing the evidence was not a smart move.
>>> The civil service do that if they think they can get away with it, but
>>> they have crown immunity.
>> I couldn't care less what you have "kept telling me", because it is a
>> load of complete claptrap.
> Well, let's get back to discussing hoaxes and hoaxers. This is fun.
>>>>>>> Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time,
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>> he created the hoax?
>>>>>> No, he didn't. He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it.
>>>>> How do you know he did not create it?
>>>> Because I knew the person who did, of course. You really don't ever
>>>> think before you write, do you?
>>> As I thought. Fascinating. So Malcolm knows who was behind the
>>> Nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax
>> As do thousands if not millions of people.
> Well, as an intimate of Sir Peter Scott you can confirm your opinion
> of the identity of the culprit (s) of the related hoaxes.
> Why not? Or is your opinion a big secret?
I doubt it is as big a secret as all the questions you always refuse to answer Pat?
>> So what's your next stupid remark going to be?
> Never mind the abuse. We are now investigating a number of hoaxes,
> underpinning Scottish tourism publicity, that occurred at a time when
> you were active near the people involved.
No abuse Pat. A question, why don't you just answer it?
> You could well be in for a bob or two, if you play your cards right.
Is that advice from a big business man Pat?
>>>> snip<
>>>>> Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
>>>>> Rhombopteryx hoax and how you know that the allegations against Sir
>>>>> Peter Scott were ill-founded.
>>>> What "allegations"? What on earth are you on about?
>> No answer, I see. So just another claim you can't support.
> There were a number of allegations. I'm not operating to your
> instructions. You are the one that will obviously need to make a
> public explanation of any involvement.
>>>>> Now there is a scandal we can all have a hand in discovering.
>>>> You really, really, are pathetic, aren't you?
>>>> What "scandal"?
>>>> Here is what Wikipedia says:
>>>> "In the early 1970s, a group of people led by Robert H. Rines obtained
>>>> some underwater photographs. Two were rather vague images, perhaps of a
>>>> rhomboid flipper (though others have dismissed the image as air bubbles
>>>> or a fish fin). The alleged flipper was photographed in different
>>>> positions, indicating movement. On the basis of these photographs,
>>>> British naturalist Peter Scott announced in 1975 that the scientific
>>>> name of the monster would henceforth be Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Greek
>>>> for "The Ness monster with diamond-shaped fin"). Scott intended that
>>>> this would enable Nessie to be added to a British register of officially
>>>> protected wildlife. Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn pointed out
>>>> that the name was an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S"."
>>>> Peter did not think up the name himself, but was delighted with it when
>>>> it was proposed to him by the person who did, who was someone I knew.
>>>> Have you got that into your little head, or are you going to indulge
>>>> further in one of favourite pastimes - making a fool of yourself?
>>> I seem to have upset you for some reason.
>> No, you never upset me. You mentioned the word "scandal"and, as usual,
>> haven't been able to back it up with anything sensible, but then you
>> never do.
> The recent Loch Ness Hoaxes were a scandal. They cost of lot of
> gullible people a great deal of money. Hoaxers never see the damage
> they cause.
Haven't noticed that papers full of allegations of scandal Pat.
>>> Don't worry, I do not take Wikipedia or any source as necessarily
>>> reliable
>> No, you don't when it is obviously giving you the facts. You don't deal
>> in facts, do you? Only lies, libels, assumptions and inventions.
> Well, you now have the chance to publicly explain your role in the
> creation of nessiteras rhombopteryx.
Why should he Pat?
> There will be interest on both sides of the Atlantic.
>>> Fascinating. Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax? It was a very
>>> big story at the time and, in its way, a classic, with links to
>>> encouraging tourism to remoter parts of Scotland.
>> Duh!
>> Read what I wrote and make at least *some* attempt to understand it.
>> What part of "He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it." do you not
>> understand?
> The question is clear, abuse will not put me off. Now answer the
> question:
> Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax?
> to prevent further prevarication I will add "at any time"
> " Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax at any time?"
Malcolm's posts indicate to me that Peter Scott was never "taken in by the hoax at any time". Your lack of comprehension is holding you back Pat.
>>> I can see from your wording that you do not intend to tell us who was
>>> the perpetrator of the hoax or the inventor of the anagram or whether
>>> they are one and the same person?
>>> How well do you know the hoaxer?
>> I no longer know him. He died 20 years ago.
> How well did you know him? and the identity please?
> Did he confess to you?
Why should Malcolm, or any one else for that matter, answer any of your questions Pat?
>>> You often seem to be about when hoaxes arise. You must be quite
>>> expert by now.
>>> I'm thinking of the time when the American military thought your next
>>> door neighbour was making biological weapons and, as you pointed out,
>>> that became a boost to whisky sales and tourism.
>> You posted about this a few months ago, obviously not able to realise
>> that it was a years old story without any of the conspiracy theory
>> implications you tried to attach to it and certainly no kind of a hoax.
>> The webcams were genuine and indeed still are..
>>> Saturday, 27 September, 2003, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK
>> Note the date of this report, 27 September 2003
>> Now note the date - 11 November 2011 - when you "discovered" the story
>> as you tried to find out something about Islay having belatedly realised
>> just how ignorant you were about the island.
>> A perfect summing up of your abilities. All you post is out-of-date and
>> irrelevant, but you'll still try and concoct a conspiracy theory about
>> it anyway.
>In article <c3l1s7pn5qveqjmfk41t818h34hi15e...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:45:54 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <6mf1s75j9jesd1lsucf5ogd3ffahlm6...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:07:26 +0100, Malcolm
>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In article <00a1s7hdj26r7ihu6jn41ahd4j2c4gv...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <kk51s7p12lem454j34k7vqejtrii7lr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In article <kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>>>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>>>>>buddenbrooks <knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in >>>>>>>>>>>>exporting pig meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>to China. China being impressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>>>>>>>>>A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>>>>>>>>>Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>>>>>>>>>The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>>>>>>>>>imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>>>>>>>>>Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>>>>>>>>>their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>>>>>>>>>exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
>>>>I see you are trying to involve others.
>>>No, Pat, I'm not. I'm telling you that a number of obsessives have
>>>wasted years of their lives obsessing about something that doesn't
>>>exist.
>>I'm sure that is right, stalking is just such an obsession.
>No, you are obsessed that you are being stalked, when you are not. >Classic symptoms of the persecuted, looking for an excuse as to why your >11+ years of posting here have been a total failure.
The record that you have attempted to destroy speaks for itself. You
live in a country that has tightened the law on such activities.
>>>An exact parallel with you.
>>I don't think so.
>No-one cares what you think, Pat. Hadn't you noticed over the last 11+ >years that no-one takes the slightest notice of your claims?
Are you claiming credit for that?
>>>>They did not delete all their
>>>>posts and are highly unlikely to want to become involved.
>>I think you have been snipping again.
>Please produce your evidence for that "I think", bearing in mind that >thinking is something you aren't good at.
I don't answer to you or take instructions from you. Your megalomania
is showing again.
>>>Perhaps that's because they have mostly died or given up. The peak
>>>period for the obsessives was in the 1970s.
>>Really, I had not noticed, being too busy then, with my head down
>>working.
>If you call posting endless copy and paste here "working", then you have >clearly redefined the word.
We are talking about the 1970s before the WWW was invented. The stress
of all this is causing you to lose track.
>>Didn't the nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax take place in the 70s, when
>>you were working for Sir Peter Scott?
>I never worked "for" him. I did work with him.
Right. Sir Peter Scott was of equivalent rank in joint ventures. We
get the message.
>>>>I kept telling you that removing the evidence was not a smart move.
>>>>The civil service do that if they think they can get away with it, but
>>>>they have crown immunity.
>>>I couldn't care less what you have "kept telling me", because it is a
>>>load of complete claptrap.
>>Well, let's get back to discussing hoaxes and hoaxers. This is fun.
>Tiny things please tiny minds.
Hoaxes seem to play a big part in this whole affair. Long ago I was
warned that uk.business.agriculture had a taste for role playing, and
I have not forgotten the abortive search for St. Patrick's birthplace,
the missing money and the criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>>>Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time,
>>>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>>>>he created the hoax?
>>>>>>>No, he didn't. He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it.
>>>>>>How do you know he did not create it?
>>>>>Because I knew the person who did, of course. You really don't ever
>>>>>think before you write, do you?
>>>>As I thought. Fascinating. So Malcolm knows who was behind the
>>>>Nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax
>>>As do thousands if not millions of people.
>>Well, as an intimate of Sir Peter Scott you can confirm your opinion
>>of the identity of the culprit (s) of the related hoaxes.
>>Why not? Or is your opinion a big secret?
>There was no "culprit". How can there have been?
I see, a hoax is public entertainment. It is a view. Who should we
thank for the affair?
>>>So what's your next stupid remark going to be?
>>Never mind the abuse. We are now investigating a number of hoaxes,
>>underpinning Scottish tourism publicity, that occurred at a time when
>>you were active near the people involved.
>No,we aren't. You're floudering again, based on a total lack of >knowledge, as usual.
Well. I'm investigating them, as will be the American military after
the fiasco next door to you. They have custard all over them and will
be looking for the instigator. Hoaxers and their intimates will be top
of the list for turning over.
Congratulations! if that is appropriate to your world view.
>>You could well be in for a bob or two, if you play your cards right.
>Pathetic loon.
Manners Malcolm.
You have been taking all the risk, you are entitled to some of the
rewards if it goes well for you. It is one hell of a story.
>>>>>>Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
>>>>>>Rhombopteryx hoax and how you know that the allegations against Sir
>>>>>>Peter Scott were ill-founded.
>>>>>What "allegations"? What on earth are you on about?
>>>No answer, I see. So just another claim you can't support.
>>There were a number of allegations.
>Name one.
Too numerous to mention, and I'm not an expert. I went back to the end
of the last century on the usenet, and I was quite amazed at some of
the discussions in which you were being questioned about your
background and activities.
>> I'm not operating to your
>>instructions.
>Translation: Pat can't produce any evidence to support his claim, as >usual.
No. I don't wan't to become involved with you and certainly not to act
on your instigation. You are a danger to yourself and anyone getting
involved with you.
>> You are the one that will obviously need to make a
>>public explanation of any involvement.
>No, I won't, you daft git.
Manners, malcolm
>There is nothing to explain. Intelligent >people grasped the anagram straightaway. The less intelligent had to >have it pointed out to them. You fall into a class below the latter.
Hoaxing the public and bragging about it in an anagram seems a funny
kind of hobby to me.
>>>>>>Now there is a scandal we can all have a hand in discovering.
>>>>>You really, really, are pathetic, aren't you?
>>>>>What "scandal"?
>>>>>Here is what Wikipedia says:
>>>>>"In the early 1970s, a group of people led by Robert H. Rines obtained
>>>>>some underwater photographs. Two were rather vague images, perhaps of a
>>>>>rhomboid flipper (though others have dismissed the image as air bubbles
>>>>>or a fish fin). The alleged flipper was photographed in different
>>>>>positions, indicating movement. On the basis of these photographs,
>>>>>British naturalist Peter Scott announced in 1975 that the scientific
>>>>>name of the monster would henceforth be Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Greek
>>>>>for "The Ness monster with diamond-shaped fin"). Scott intended that
>>>>>this would enable Nessie to be added to a British register of officially
>>>>>protected wildlife. Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn pointed out
>>>>>that the name was an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S"."
>>>>>Peter did not think up the name himself, but was delighted with it when
>>>>>it was proposed to him by the person who did, who was someone I knew.
>>>>>Have you got that into your little head, or are you going to indulge
>>>>>further in one of favourite pastimes - making a fool of yourself?
>>>>I seem to have upset you for some reason.
>>>No, you never upset me. You mentioned the word "scandal"and, as usual,
>>>haven't been able to back it up with anything sensible, but then you
>>>never do.
>>The recent Loch Ness Hoaxes were a scandal. They cost of lot of
>>gullible people a great deal of money. Hoaxers never see the damage
>>they cause.
>Please produce your evidence that "they cost a lot of gullible people a >lot of money". No avoidance tactics, no changing the subject, no >pretending that you have the evidence but can't tell me, just be
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:20:21 +0100, Malcolm
> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article<c3l1s7pn5qveqjmfk41t818h34hi15e...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:45:54 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article<6mf1s75j9jesd1lsucf5ogd3ffahlm6...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:07:26 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In article<00a1s7hdj26r7ihu6jn41ahd4j2c4gv...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<kk51s7p12lem454j34k7vqejtrii7lr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article<kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgpsk0orss8fqh1pb...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>>>>>>> <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>>>> <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article<S6adnYeQSegiWCLSnZ2dnUVZ8l2dn...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> buddenbrooks<knightstemp...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see in the news that Britain is being succesful in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exporting pig meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to China. China being impressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the strict hygine and health of British Pigs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do I believe Pat or those willing to part with real money?
>>>>>>>>>>>> A no brainer. Pat has yet to find anyone to believe him.
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, more believeable than Nessiteras rhombopteryx, eh Malcolm!
>>>>>>>>>> The Loch Ness Monster is only believed in by people with an overactive
>>>>>>>>>> imagination and a total lack of both basic knowledge and common sense.
>>>>>>>>>> Some people have even become obsessed with it and have wasted years of
>>>>>>>>>> their lives pursuing something which doesn't exist. This seems to be an
>>>>>>>>>> exact parallel with your baseless claims, lies and libels.
>>>>> I see you are trying to involve others.
>>>> No, Pat, I'm not. I'm telling you that a number of obsessives have
>>>> wasted years of their lives obsessing about something that doesn't
>>>> exist.
>>> I'm sure that is right, stalking is just such an obsession.
>> No, you are obsessed that you are being stalked, when you are not.
>> Classic symptoms of the persecuted, looking for an excuse as to why your
>> 11+ years of posting here have been a total failure.
> The record that you have attempted to destroy speaks for itself. You
> live in a country that has tightened the law on such activities.
The record??? Do you mean Malcolm's responses to your posts? If that is correct, in what way has the law been tightened. Has it now become compulsory to respond to posts? I rather doubt that. I suspect that, as usual, you are spouting nonsense and showing your ignorance.
>>>> An exact parallel with you.
>>> I don't think so.
>> No-one cares what you think, Pat. Hadn't you noticed over the last 11+
>> years that no-one takes the slightest notice of your claims?
> Are you claiming credit for that?
I think the credit for posting rubbish for over 11 years is all your Pat. I doubt anyone else would wish to claim the credit.
>>>>> They did not delete all their
>>>>> posts and are highly unlikely to want to become involved.
>>> I think you have been snipping again.
>> Please produce your evidence for that "I think", bearing in mind that
>> thinking is something you aren't good at.
> I don't answer to you or take instructions from you. Your megalomania
> is showing again.
So you agree that, once agin you were wrong? Malcolm had not snipped anything.
>>>> Perhaps that's because they have mostly died or given up. The peak
>>>> period for the obsessives was in the 1970s.
>>> Really, I had not noticed, being too busy then, with my head down
>>> working.
>> If you call posting endless copy and paste here "working", then you have
>> clearly redefined the word.
> We are talking about the 1970s before the WWW was invented.
Wrong yet again Pat. Proving Malcolm's point: "Nothing you say or claim can be taken as being true".
> The stress of all this is causing you to lose track.
Really??? You are wrong yet again Pat and again,proving Malcolm's point: "Nothing you say or claim can be taken as being true".
>>> Didn't the nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax take place in the 70s, when
>>> you were working for Sir Peter Scott?
>> I never worked "for" him. I did work with him.
> Right. Sir Peter Scott was of equivalent rank in joint ventures. We
> get the message.
You would not get the message even if it was burnt into your forehead Pat.
>>>>> I kept telling you that removing the evidence was not a smart move.
>>>>> The civil service do that if they think they can get away with it, but
>>>>> they have crown immunity.
>>>> I couldn't care less what you have "kept telling me", because it is a
>>>> load of complete claptrap.
>>> Well, let's get back to discussing hoaxes and hoaxers. This is fun.
>> Tiny things please tiny minds.
> Hoaxes seem to play a big part in this whole affair. Long ago I was
> warned that uk.business.agriculture had a taste for role playing, and
> I have not forgotten the abortive search for St. Patrick's birthplace,
> the missing money and the criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>>>> Weren't you working with Peter Scott at the time,
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>> he created the hoax?
>>>>>>>> No, he didn't. He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it.
>>>>>>> How do you know he did not create it?
>>>>>> Because I knew the person who did, of course. You really don't ever
>>>>>> think before you write, do you?
>>>>> As I thought. Fascinating. So Malcolm knows who was behind the
>>>>> Nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax
>>>> As do thousands if not millions of people.
>>> Well, as an intimate of Sir Peter Scott you can confirm your opinion
>>> of the identity of the culprit (s) of the related hoaxes.
>>> Why not? Or is your opinion a big secret?
>> There was no "culprit". How can there have been?
> I see, a hoax is public entertainment. It is a view. Who should we
> thank for the affair?
Certainly not you Pat.
>>>> So what's your next stupid remark going to be?
>>> Never mind the abuse. We are now investigating a number of hoaxes,
>>> underpinning Scottish tourism publicity, that occurred at a time when
>>> you were active near the people involved.
>> No,we aren't. You're floudering again, based on a total lack of
>> knowledge, as usual.
> Well. I'm investigating them, as will be the American military after
> the fiasco next door to you. They have custard all over them and will
> be looking for the instigator. Hoaxers and their intimates will be top
> of the list for turning over.
Presumably that "fiasco" is the 9 year old news you resurrected earlier? "The Americans" are working to your timetable now are they Pat. You do post tripe, but what else can one expect from a troll.
> Congratulations! if that is appropriate to your world view.
The world views you as a troll Pat.
>>> You could well be in for a bob or two, if you play your cards right.
>> Pathetic loon.
> Manners Malcolm.
Factual Pat.
> You have been taking all the risk, you are entitled to some of the
> rewards if it goes well for you. It is one hell of a story.
>>>>>>> Let's get back to you explaining what you know about the Nessiteras
>>>>>>> Rhombopteryx hoax and how you know that the allegations against Sir
>>>>>>> Peter Scott were ill-founded.
>>>>>> What "allegations"? What on earth are you on about?
>>>> No answer, I see. So just another claim you can't support.
>>> There were a number of allegations.
>> Name one.
> Too numerous to mention, and I'm not an expert. I went back to the end
> of the last century on the usenet, and I was quite amazed at some of
> the discussions in which you were being questioned about your
> background and activities.
So numerous you cannot even name one? We all get the message Pat. We all know that you are nothing but a troll
>>> I'm not operating to your
>>> instructions.
>> Translation: Pat can't produce any evidence to support his claim, as
>> usual.
> No. I don't wan't to become involved with you and certainly not to act
> on your instigation. You are a danger to yourself and anyone getting
> involved with you.
Translation: Pat can't produce any evidence to support his claim, as usual.
>>> You are the one that will obviously need to make a
>>> public explanation of any involvement.
>> No, I won't, you daft git.
> Manners, malcolm
You are not just a "daft git" Pat, you are a useless trolling daft git.
>> There is nothing to explain. Intelligent
>> people grasped the anagram straightaway. The less intelligent had to
>> have it pointed out to them. You fall into a class below the latter.
> Hoaxing the public and bragging about it in an anagram seems a funny
> kind of hobby to me.
>In article <f9h2s7d91j7h47viiuvqmqbmcqg9v1f...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:20:21 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <c3l1s7pn5qveqjmfk41t818h34hi15e...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>I'm sure that is right, stalking is just such an obsession.
>>>No, you are obsessed that you are being stalked, when you are not.
>>>Classic symptoms of the persecuted, looking for an excuse as to why your
>>>11+ years of posting here have been a total failure.
>>The record that you have attempted to destroy speaks for itself. You
>>live in a country that has tightened the law on such activities.
>You're living in la-la land.
Manners, Malcolm.
>>>>I don't think so.
>>>No-one cares what you think, Pat. Hadn't you noticed over the last 11+
>>>years that no-one takes the slightest notice of your claims?
>>Are you claiming credit for that?
>No, it is entirely your own doing, but it is interesting that you appear >to accept the truth of it.
The truth of your stalking taking its toll? Perhaps. Others may think
that.
>>>Please produce your evidence for that "I think", bearing in mind that
>>>thinking is something you aren't good at.
>>I don't answer to you or take instructions from you. Your megalomania
>>is showing again.
>ROFL! Pat tries projection again.
>>>>Really, I had not noticed, being too busy then, with my head down
>>>>working.
>>>If you call posting endless copy and paste here "working", then you have
>>>clearly redefined the word.
>>We are talking about the 1970s before the WWW was invented. The stress
>>of all this is causing you to lose track.
>What "stress" would that be, Pat?
Well it can't be much fun contemplating the results of having your
proximity to one of the world's great hoaxes being exposed after so
many years.
>>>>Didn't the nessiteras rhombopteryx hoax take place in the 70s, when
>>>>you were working for Sir Peter Scott?
>>>I never worked "for" him. I did work with him.
>>Right. Sir Peter Scott was of equivalent rank in joint ventures. We
>>get the message.
>Your inability to grasp the meaning of even simple sentences is noted, >yet again.
Manners, Malcolm.
>>>>Well, let's get back to discussing hoaxes and hoaxers. This is fun.
>>>Tiny things please tiny minds.
>>Hoaxes seem to play a big part in this whole affair. Long ago I was
>>warned that uk.business.agriculture had a taste for role playing, and
>>I have not forgotten the abortive search for St. Patrick's birthplace,
>>the missing money and the criminal prosecution.
>More gibberish, of no interest and no relevance to this discussion. But >then you do find it difficult to focus on a single topic.
Well uk.business.agriculture does seem to have more of its fair share
of strange events associated with its infamous Politburo.
>>>>Well, as an intimate of Sir Peter Scott you can confirm your opinion
>>>>of the identity of the culprit (s) of the related hoaxes.
>>>>Why not? Or is your opinion a big secret?
>>>There was no "culprit". How can there have been?
>>I see, a hoax is public entertainment. It is a view. Who should we
>>thank for the affair?
>More gibberish.
Manners, Malcolm.
>>>>Never mind the abuse. We are now investigating a number of hoaxes,
>>>>underpinning Scottish tourism publicity, that occurred at a time when
>>>>you were active near the people involved.
>>>No,we aren't. You're floudering again, based on a total lack of
>>>knowledge, as usual.
>>Well. I'm investigating them,
>Bwahahahahahaha!!!!
Manners, Malcolm
>> as will be the American military after
>>the fiasco next door to you. They have custard all over them and will
>>be looking for the instigator. Hoaxers and their intimates will be top
>>of the list for turning over.
>Are you claiming that the "American military" have waited until now to >be "looking for the instigator" of something which happened nearly 9 >years ago?
They have several people awaiting trial on matters that took place far
longer ago than that, and are looking for others they deem responsible
for events more than a decade ago.
I thought that so obvious that you would be unable to find much
comfort in the passing of time, however desperation often causes the
plaintiff cry "but it was so long ago."
>Perhaps you would like to explain why they have waited that long.
No idea. If they invite you for questioning, you can ask them.
>>Congratulations! if that is appropriate to your world view.
>More gibberish.
>>>>You could well be in for a bob or two, if you play your cards right.
>>>Pathetic loon.
>>Manners Malcolm.
>>You have been taking all the risk, you are entitled to some of the
>>rewards if it goes well for you. It is one hell of a story.
>Duh! You are, as you do so often, picking up on things which happened >years ago, had their time in the appropriate media, and are long in the >past.
Yes, indeed you are taking great comfort in the passing of time. Some
stories mature, some gain in importance.
>>>>There were a number of allegations.
>>>Name one.
>>Too numerous to mention, and I'm not an expert. I went back to the end
>>of the last century on the usenet, and I was quite amazed at some of
>>the discussions in which you were being questioned about your
>>background and activities.
>Only by your lying, libelling friend "Pete".
There were I think others, but frankly whoever seems to have given you
a doctorate is obviously not that prestigious or you would have been
proud of their identity.
Your CV, if you ever dared produce one, would have been blanks than my
mental dictionary
>>>> I'm not operating to your
>>>>instructions.
>>>Translation: Pat can't produce any evidence to support his claim, as
>>>usual.
>>No. I don't wan't to become involved with you and certainly not to act
>>on your instigation. You are a danger to yourself and anyone getting
>>involved with you.
>Translation: Pat still can't produce any evidence to support his claim, >as usual.
No. You are a very dangerous man, to yourself and to anyone involved
with you.
>>>> You are the one that will obviously need to make a
>>>>public explanation of any involvement.
>>>No, I won't, you daft git.
>>Manners, malcolm
>>>There is nothing to explain. Intelligent
>>>people grasped the anagram straightaway. The less intelligent had to
>>>have it pointed out to them. You fall into a class below the latter.
>>Hoaxing the public and bragging about it in an anagram seems a funny
>>kind of hobby to me.
>It was indeed hilarious to anyone with any intelligence. You have just >confirmed that this clearly does not include you.
Not to most people, only to a narrow group with strange habits and
delusions and who delight in deceit.
>>>>The recent Loch Ness Hoaxes were a scandal. They cost of lot of
>>>>gullible people a great deal of money. Hoaxers never see the damage
>>>>they cause.
>>>Please produce your evidence that "they cost a lot of gullible people a
>>>lot of money". No avoidance tactics, no changing the subject, no
>>>pretending that you have the evidence but can't tell me, just be honest
>>>for once. Difficult for you, I know, but give it a go.
>>I will be generous on the strict understanding I think you a public
>>nuisance of the first order and do not follow your bizarre
>>instructions.
>ROFL!
>>There were many vessels engaged in pinging the loch for weeks on end.
>>They did not come cheap.
>No, they came courtesy of an American, Robert Rines, who came over here >using his own or his institute's money (it was his own private institute >- he styled himself "President of the Academy of Applied Science, >Boston, Massechusetts", which sounded rather better than it actually >was!) and it was he who came up with the images mentioned in Wikipedia >and which were the basis for the scientific naming. So you have, as >always, got things completely wrong when you claimed that the Loch Ness >hoax "cost a lot of gullible people a lot of money", because the vessels >(and I don't remember "many" as you claim) were surveying the loch in >1970, 1972 and 1975 BEFORE the scientific naming took place.
Well you are the expert on the hoax, not me. You quote Wikipedia but
clearly know much that is not in the public record.
Perhaps your interest and involvement was there before the naming by
Sir Peter Scott.
I'm sure the media will be brushing up on the history before
approaching you.
They are welcome to you. Hoaxing is just another form of deception,
glorying in deceit not exactly creditable in a scientist.
>>>>Well, you now have the chance to publicly explain your role in the
>>>>creation of nessiteras rhombopteryx.
>>>I didn't have "a role", you pathetic little man.
>>Manners Malcolm. The more panicked you become the ruder your demeanor.
>>Try a deep breath before replying.
>I'm not "panicked", Pat, I'm just responding to an idiot making idiotic >statements.
Well it is you making the claims of knowledge, not me. We agree that
you were in the company of Sir Peter Scott at the time. So your
involvement is plausible.
>>>I said, in response to
>>>one of your wrong assumptions, that Peter knew about the hoax from the
>>>start and that I knew the person who created it. Everything else is your
>>>overheated imagination.
>In article <6gs3s7t1tb9j6u61t0q465hvrq66kb7...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>Well it can't be much fun contemplating the results of having your
>>proximity to one of the world's great hoaxes being exposed after so
>>many years.
>>Well uk.business.agriculture does seem to have more of its fair share
>>of strange events associated with its infamous Politburo.
>>Yes, indeed you are taking great comfort in the passing of time. Some
>>stories mature, some gain in importance.
>>No. You are a very dangerous man, to yourself and to anyone involved
>>with you.
>>Not to most people, only to a narrow group with strange habits and
>>delusions and who delight in deceit.
>>I'm sure the media will be brushing up on the history before
>>approaching you.
>>They are welcome to you. Hoaxing is just another form of deception,
>>glorying in deceit not exactly creditable in a scientist.
>>Oh I manage alright with those who use language to communicate, the
>>problems come with those who use it to deceive.
>>Hoaxes last, even after their perpetrators have long gone.
>>Perhaps that is the attraction. Something for nonentities troubled by
>>obscurity to leave behind.
>>Try again. I don't find your mind games impressive or interesting
>>although I can see the similarity to certain aspects of the last great
>>Lock Ness hoax. So will others reading.
>>If it was you being interviewed probably for ever. They would have to
>>opt for serialisation.
>>I've done my bit in identifying your proximity to the hoax.
>>Bear in mind that both the hoaxes discussed involved cameras.
>Reading all the above, from which, out of kindness to you I have snipped >the complete balderdash and just left the ordinary gibberish, here's a >definition for you.
>Paranoia:
>A mental illness characterised by delusions of persecutions, unwarranted >jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance. Also a tendency to suspect and >distrust others or to believe oneself unfairly used.
>Others can decide, having read your words above, whether this definition >should be applied to you.
Manners, Malcolm.
You are surely not now attempting to deny that you were a colleague of
Sir Peter Scott at a time when he became involved with the Loch Ness
hoax and actually gave the mythical beast its infamous anagramic Latin
name of Nessiteras rhombopteryx ?
This, Sir Peter Scott, founder of the WWF, amongst many other
distinctions, and a collegue for yours for some years
You will need to practice before every journalist with an empty
notebook and a taste for whisky and remote islands turns up on your
doorstep.
Two hoaxes to investigate, one this decade fooling American homeland
security and given much publicity by the BBC, and a potential new
source to both, with a BBC TV appearance record and a doctorate to his
credit.
> Reading all the above, from which, out of kindness to you I have snipped
> the complete balderdash and just left the ordinary gibberish, here's a > definition for you.
> Paranoia:
> A mental illness characterised by delusions of persecutions, unwarranted > jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance. Also a tendency to suspect and > distrust others or to believe oneself unfairly used.
It would be better to ignore Pat than respond. Guessing someone's mental health from their newsgroup ramblings
is rather pointless.
Pat is never going to contribute anything useful and pointing out flaws in his arguements will not make him change his posting.
Clearly he gets some satisfaction by posting to the news group , anyone only reading his posts and being misled have only themselves to blaim, the internet is well known to be full of dross and people mostly understand that research using the einternet has to be broadly based.
Even those posters with well reasoned statements based on proven experience need to have thier comments condidered
in context and considering if personal bias has occured.
>In article <j524s713farhe9ptaenqkckf85o26a4...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner ><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:51:20 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <6gs3s7t1tb9j6u61t0q465hvrq66kb7...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>Well it can't be much fun contemplating the results of having your
>>>>proximity to one of the world's great hoaxes being exposed after so
>>>>many years.
>>>>Well uk.business.agriculture does seem to have more of its fair share
>>>>of strange events associated with its infamous Politburo.
>>>>Yes, indeed you are taking great comfort in the passing of time. Some
>>>>stories mature, some gain in importance.
>>>>No. You are a very dangerous man, to yourself and to anyone involved
>>>>with you.
>>>>Not to most people, only to a narrow group with strange habits and
>>>>delusions and who delight in deceit.
>>>>I'm sure the media will be brushing up on the history before
>>>>approaching you.
>>>>They are welcome to you. Hoaxing is just another form of deception,
>>>>glorying in deceit not exactly creditable in a scientist.
>>>>Oh I manage alright with those who use language to communicate, the
>>>>problems come with those who use it to deceive.
>>>>Hoaxes last, even after their perpetrators have long gone.
>>>>Perhaps that is the attraction. Something for nonentities troubled by
>>>>obscurity to leave behind.
>>>>Try again. I don't find your mind games impressive or interesting
>>>>although I can see the similarity to certain aspects of the last great
>>>>Lock Ness hoax. So will others reading.
>>>>If it was you being interviewed probably for ever. They would have to
>>>>opt for serialisation.
>>>>I've done my bit in identifying your proximity to the hoax.
>>>>Bear in mind that both the hoaxes discussed involved cameras.
>>>Reading all the above, from which, out of kindness to you I have snipped
>>>the complete balderdash and just left the ordinary gibberish, here's a
>>>definition for you.
>>>Paranoia:
>>>A mental illness characterised by delusions of persecutions, unwarranted
>>>jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance. Also a tendency to suspect and
>>>distrust others or to believe oneself unfairly used.
>>>Others can decide, having read your words above, whether this definition
>>>should be applied to you.
>>Manners, Malcolm.
>>You are surely not now attempting to deny that you were a colleague of
>>Sir Peter Scott at a time when he became involved with the Loch Ness
>>hoax and actually gave the mythical beast its infamous anagramic Latin
>>name of Nessiteras rhombopteryx ?
>>This, Sir Peter Scott, founder of the WWF, amongst many other
>>distinctions, and a collegue for yours for some years
>>You will need to practice before every journalist with an empty
>>notebook and a taste for whisky and remote islands turns up on your
>>doorstep.
>>Two hoaxes to investigate, one this decade fooling American homeland
>>security and given much publicity by the BBC, and a potential new
>>source to both, with a BBC TV appearance record and a doctorate to his
>>credit.
>>An apple ready to drop from the tree!
>Reading all the above additional guff, here's a definiton for you:
>Paranoia:
>A mental illness characterised by delusions of persecutions, unwarranted >jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance. Also a tendency to suspect and >distrust others or to believe oneself unfairly used.
>Others can decide, having read your words above, whether this definition >should be applied to you.
I think your copy and paste abuse file has got stuck again
You seem to miss the significance and the potential of all this.
It's not every day we get leads on two famous hoaxes, now there is
something to keep journalists wanting a break from Leveson and the
Olympics, busy with material of a very different kind.
The American military involvement in the Islay whisky distillery web
cam scam will keep this buzzing for decades.
You really could need additional hotel accommodation on Islay for the
media pack. Still you were always keen to promote tourism. Well Done.
Will you ask for a commission?
You might even get a free trip to New York - make sure you see the
return ticket though!
Perhaps you ought to call Max Clifford?
The Loch Ness Monster, the son of a national hero, a distillery, dodgy
photos, a touch of culture in the form of Latin and a anagram.
You could not make this up. You really are an amazing fellow.
