Quality Pigs to China

[buddenbrooks]

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?

[Old Codger]

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]

[Pat Gardiner]

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.

Thank you for raising the issue.
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA, C.Diff and Hepatitis E now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

[Pat Gardiner]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLS...@brightview.co.uk>,
>buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> writes

>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.

[Burkie]

On May 25, 4:23 pm, Pat Gardiner <pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk>
wrote:

> 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!
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Regards
> Pat Gardiner
> Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
> for MRSA, C.Diff and Hepatitis E now!www.go-self-sufficient.com andhttp://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

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.

Burkie

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgp...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes

>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLS...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>buddenbrooks <knights...@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.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:43:55 -0700 (PDT), Burkie <Burk...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

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?

--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs

for MRSA, C.Diff and Hepatitis E now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
>

>Burkie

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <q361s7leoobgqvdr4...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@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.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <kk51s7p12lem454j3...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner

><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgp...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLS...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>buddenbrooks <knights...@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.
>>
>>Usual contantless abuse.
>

>As usual, you are unable to accept the truth.

As usual content less 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.

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.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:44:53 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <kh81s7trkfg2vhcf0...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner

><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <q361s7leoobgqvdr4...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@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.

I don't want to put a stalker on their tail.

>
>>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.

Now that sounds like good clean fun.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:07:26 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <00a1s7hdj26r7ihu6...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner

><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:26:02 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <kk51s7p12lem454j3...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgp...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <S6adnYeQSegiWCLS...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>>>>>buddenbrooks <knights...@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
>
>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?

>
>
>>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.

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3144980.stm

Saturday, 27 September, 2003, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK

US spies monitor whisky plant

The distillery was contacted by e-mail

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?

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:45:54 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <6mf1s75j9jesd1lsu...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner

>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..

>
>>Quote
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3144980.stm
>>
>>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.

I was checking on Nessiteras rhombopteryx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/11/newsid_3166000/3166741.stm

and was surprised elsewhere, how wide the interest even in non English
sources.

It;s a bit different from grebes, isn't it?

[maus]

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"


--
maus
.
.
...

[Old Codger]

On 26/05/2012 10:41, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article<q361s7leoobgqvdr4...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.ga...@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]

On 26/05/2012 12:04, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:44:53 +0100, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article<kh81s7trkfg2vhcf0...@4ax.com>, Pat
>> Gardiner <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article<q361s7leoobgqvdr4...@4ax.com>, Pat
>>>> Gardiner <pat.ga...@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 Ł3.77. 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 Ł3.77, 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]

On 26/05/2012 09:46, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 08:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article<kntvr7d2pd2p3vfgp...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:36:56 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article<S6adnYeQSegiWCLS...@brightview.co.uk>,
>>>> buddenbrooks<knights...@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]

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]

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.

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.
>
> Quote
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3144980.stm
>
> Saturday, 27 September, 2003, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK

9 year old news Pat? About right for you though.

Why should he Pat? Nothing to do with him.

But then you are just trolling aren't you Pat?

[Old Codger]

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.

So you do agree, you posted complete claptrap?

>>>>>>> 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.

So you know of no allegations Pat?

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.

Really?

>>> 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..
>>
>>> Quote
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3144980.stm
>>>
>>> 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.

That is your speciality Pat.

> This is the inevitable result.

Indeed

> Those arguments about your doctorate were ridiculous. You seemed to
> deliberately fuel the accusations

You created the "mystery" in your own mind Pat. Lack of comprehension
again.

>> 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.

I very much doubt that Pat. You are just confirming Malcolm's point:

"Nothing you say or claim can be taken as being true"

> 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.
>
> I was checking on Nessiteras rhombopteryx
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/11/newsid_3166000/3166741.stm
>
> and was surprised elsewhere, how wide the interest even in non English
> sources.
>
> It;s a bit different from grebes, isn't it?

More total nonsense from that well known troll Pat Gardiner.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:20:21 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <c3l1s7pn5qveqjmfk...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner

>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.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>

>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.

>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.

There were many vessels engaged in pinging the loch for weeks on end.

They did not come cheap.

>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>

>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 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.

If that's an explanation it is even more obscure than the last. You
seem to be suggesting that the famous Sir Peter Scott, now claimed to
be your colleague rather than your boss, was involved in the hoax from
the begining?

If you are serious, I think you should call the newspapers and BBC
now.

>
>>There will be interest on both sides of the Atlantic.
>

>Balderdash. You really, really do like to make a total fool of yourself,
>don't you?

Oh, I think you underestimate your claims. It is a story and a half.
Add to that the extraordinary story of the American military
monitoring your next door neighbours and you move into the realms of
several books and some serialisation

>
>>>
>>>>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?
>>
>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?

Evasive answer noted. You will have to do better if Paxman gets hold
of you.

>
>>to prevent further prevarication I will add "at any time"
>>
>>" Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax at any time?"
>>

>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?

Meat for a good investigative journalist, obviously.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>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?
>

>Well enough. You can find out his identity by a little bit of googling.
>I realise that you have very poor skills in that direction, but it will
>give you something to do while you ponder on the fact that in the last
>11+ years you have achieved absolutely nothing by your thousands of
>posts here.

Why don't you want to tell us? Ah, I see, you are holding out for the
best offer from the newspapers.

>
>>Did he confess to you?
>

>There was nothing to "confess", you blithering idiot.

So, you now don't know for sure who was 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.
>>>>
>>>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..
>>>
>

>Pat realises, at last, that he made a fool of himself.

No, I think someone made fools of the Pentagon. Not something I would
want to become involved in.

They will want whoever was involved to make a visit to the USA

>
>>>>Quote
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3144980.stm
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>

>No, Pat, I don't. You, on the other hand, like to invent conspiracy
>theories about everything that you read.

No, I just read what I see. To be frank until recently I saw a
stalker, a bit odd, very aggressive arrogant and rude, but probably
harmless.

Not any more. Hoaxing on this scale can get you into real trouble

>
>>This is the inevitable result.
>>

>In your case, it does appear to be inevitable. People who live in a
>world where everything involves conspiracy theories are generally
>lacking enough intelligence to realise that they are making fools of
>themselves.

I think I have brought new information on a longstanding hoax into the
public domain.

You are going to be very important. can I have your autograph?

>
>>Those arguments about your doctorate were ridiculous. You seemed to
>>deliberately fuel the accusations
>

>The only "accusations" came from that well-known liar and libeller
>"Pete", because he didn't like being contradicted when he made wild and
>unsupported claims. You and he are alike in that respect.

There were others.

Pete was well respected in the United States and was reported on in
Time Magazine as a private detective in a double page spread.

He is known to have been allowed to give evidence in camera in US
Courts. Draw your own conclusions.

Then I find out about the extraordinary antics on Islay, next door to
you.

Phew! You really are a person of interest.
>
>He, and you, and everyone else can, with a handful of clicks, find my
>PhD thesis in the library of the university concerned. When this was
>pointed out to "Pete", he changed the subject. He was, like you, a
>coward who couldn't produce proof of his claims.

Then be a big man. You tell me how I can find it. Nobody else could

>
>>>>
>>>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.
>>

>Prediction alert! Indeed, very, very, stupid prediction alert!

Manners, Malcolm.

>
>>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.
>>

>Crap.

I think even Max Clifford might find you a bit too much of a prima
donna to handle.

>
>>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.
>>

>More complete crap. It happened in 2003, you complete goon.

Manners Malcolm

>Everyone,
>but everyone, with the single exception of you who managed to be so deaf
>and blind that it passed you by, had their say then. If you think that
>8-year-old news that was fully dealt with at the time will be of
>interest to anyone now merely confirms your total ignorance of the
>media. Hmm, delete the words "of the media".

Yes, I was the one that recognised the significance and now, of the
odd fact of someone involved with hoaxers living next door.
>
>What's your IQ, Pat? Is it in double figures?

99.5 percentile IIRC, but I think it has been worn down by you
recently.

What's yours? or is it the usual secret?

Actually, I regard all IQ's as misleading, dyslexics are over
estimated, so I don't mind telling you.

>
>>I was checking on Nessiteras rhombopteryx
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/11/newsid_31660
>>00/3166741.stm
>>

>Gosh, were you? How did you discover how to do that?

>
>>and was surprised elsewhere, how wide the interest even in non English
>>sources.
>>

>Thank you for confirming your naivety.

>
>>It;s a bit different from grebes, isn't it?
>>

>I've no idea what you are talking about.

Don't tell me you have abandoned the grebes? I thought you had
published a controversial book on the subject as one of your claims to
fame.

It takes a lot to make grebes controversial but you managed it.

This is lot more fun that being the target of stalking.

[Old Codger]

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.

All your fantasies were they not 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.

Pathetic loon!

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

It would as you lack comprehension Pat.

Translation: Pat can't produce any evidence to support his claim, as usual.

> There were many vessels engaged in pinging the loch for weeks on end.
>
> They did not come cheap.

Scientific research Pat. It does not come cheap.

>>>>> 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.
>>>
>> 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.

Don't you like being called a "pathetic little man" Pat? You are of
course a pathetic little man and a troll to boot.

>> 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.
>
> If that's an explanation it is even more obscure than the last. You
> seem to be suggesting that the famous Sir Peter Scott, now claimed to
> be your colleague rather than your boss, was involved in the hoax from
> the begining?
>
> If you are serious, I think you should call the newspapers and BBC
> now.

You trolling pathetic little man Pat.

>>> There will be interest on both sides of the Atlantic.
>>
>> Balderdash. You really, really do like to make a total fool of yourself,
>> don't you?
>
> Oh, I think you underestimate your claims. It is a story and a half.
> Add to that the extraordinary story of the American military
> monitoring your next door neighbours and you move into the realms of
> several books and some serialisation

You trolling pathetic little man 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>> 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?
>
> Evasive answer noted. You will have to do better if Paxman gets hold
> of you.
>>
>>> to prevent further prevarication I will add "at any time"
>>>
>>> " Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax at any time?"
>>>
>> 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?
>
> Meat for a good investigative journalist, obviously.

I don't think journalists are at all interested in a loony, trolling
pathetic little man who lacks all comprehension 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?
>>
>> Well enough. You can find out his identity by a little bit of googling.
>> I realise that you have very poor skills in that direction, but it will
>> give you something to do while you ponder on the fact that in the last
>> 11+ years you have achieved absolutely nothing by your thousands of
>> posts here.
>
> Why don't you want to tell us? Ah, I see, you are holding out for the
> best offer from the newspapers.

You trolling pathetic little man Pat.

>>> Did he confess to you?
>>
>> There was nothing to "confess", you blithering idiot.
>
> So, you now don't know for sure who was the hoaxer.

You obviously don't do 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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..
>>>>
>>
>> Pat realises, at last, that he made a fool of himself.
>
> No, I think someone made fools of the Pentagon. Not something I would
> want to become involved in.
>
> They will want whoever was involved to make a visit to the USA

Another of your predictions Pat? It is already 9 years after it was
reported so you are almost certainly wrong yet again proving Malcolm's
point: "Nothing you say or claim can be taken as being true".

>>>>> Quote
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3144980.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>> No, Pat, I don't. You, on the other hand, like to invent conspiracy
>> theories about everything that you read.
>
> No, I just read what I see. To be frank until recently I saw a
> stalker, a bit odd, very aggressive arrogant and rude, but probably
> harmless.
>
> Not any more. Hoaxing on this scale can get you into real trouble

You pathetic little moron Pat. You are proving once again Malcolm's
point: "Nothing you say or claim can be taken as being true".

>>> This is the inevitable result.
>>>
>> In your case, it does appear to be inevitable. People who live in a
>> world where everything involves conspiracy theories are generally
>> lacking enough intelligence to realise that they are making fools of
>> themselves.
>
> I think I have brought new information on a longstanding hoax into the
> public domain.

Rubbish Pat. That story is what over 40 years old years old and you
have brought nothing that has not been reported since then.

> You are going to be very important. can I have your autograph?

What a pathetic, trolling, little man lacking all comprehension.

>>> Those arguments about your doctorate were ridiculous. You seemed to
>>> deliberately fuel the accusations
>>
>> The only "accusations" came from that well-known liar and libeller
>> "Pete", because he didn't like being contradicted when he made wild and
>> unsupported claims. You and he are alike in that respect.
>
> There were others.

Evidence Pat?

> Pete was well respected in the United States and was reported on in
> Time Magazine as a private detective in a double page spread.
>
> He is known to have been allowed to give evidence in camera in US
> Courts. Draw your own conclusions.

If you believe that Pat you will believe anything. But then, you are
only trolling.

> Then I find out about the extraordinary antics on Islay, next door to
> you.
>
> Phew! You really are a person of interest.

This from trolling, pathetic idiot of a man.

>> He, and you, and everyone else can, with a handful of clicks, find my
>> PhD thesis in the library of the university concerned. When this was
>> pointed out to "Pete", he changed the subject. He was, like you, a
>> coward who couldn't produce proof of his claims.
>
> Then be a big man. You tell me how I can find it. Nobody else could

Why should he make life easy for you Pat just because you will not
accept the truth.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>> Prediction alert! Indeed, very, very, stupid prediction alert!
>
> Manners, Malcolm.

Factual Pat.

>>> 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.
>>>
>> Crap.
>
> I think even Max Clifford might find you a bit too much of a prima
> donna to handle.

I think you are a pathetic trolling little idiot of a man Pat.

>>> 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.
>>>
>> More complete crap. It happened in 2003, you complete goon.
>
> Manners Malcolm

I is more complete crap that happened in 2003. You are a complete goon Pat.

>> Everyone,
>> but everyone, with the single exception of you who managed to be so deaf
>> and blind that it passed you by, had their say then. If you think that
>> 8-year-old news that was fully dealt with at the time will be of
>> interest to anyone now merely confirms your total ignorance of the
>> media. Hmm, delete the words "of the media".
>
> Yes, I was the one that recognised the significance and now, of the
> odd fact of someone involved with hoaxers living next door.

So which paper do you think will buy it from you Pat?

>> What's your IQ, Pat? Is it in double figures?
>
> 99.5 percentile IIRC, but I think it has been worn down by you
> recently.

99 percentile on the idiot scale you mean Pat.

> What's yours? or is it the usual secret?

Much higher than your I would think Pat.

> Actually, I regard all IQ's as misleading, dyslexics are over
> estimated, so I don't mind telling you.

You mean you are an even bigger idiot.

>>> I was checking on Nessiteras rhombopteryx
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/11/newsid_31660
>>> 00/3166741.stm
>>>
>> Gosh, were you? How did you discover how to do that?
>>
>>> and was surprised elsewhere, how wide the interest even in non English
>>> sources.
>>>
>> Thank you for confirming your naivety.
>>
>>> It;s a bit different from grebes, isn't it?
>>>
>> I've no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Don't tell me you have abandoned the grebes? I thought you had
> published a controversial book on the subject as one of your claims to
> fame.
>
> It takes a lot to make grebes controversial but you managed it.
>
> This is lot more fun that being the target of stalking.

All this from a excessive compulsive troll.

The man, Pat, really is an idiot with a very high opinion of himself.
Shows how poor care in the community is.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 08:13:11 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <f9h2s7d91j7h47vii...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner

><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:20:21 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <c3l1s7pn5qveqjmfk...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@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.

>
>>>>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.
>

>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 scandal clearly found fertile ground in you.

>
>>>>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.

Perhaps you are just showing off?

>
>>>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.
>>
>>If that's an explanation it is even more obscure than the last. You
>>seem to be suggesting that the famous Sir Peter Scott, now claimed to
>>be your colleague rather than your boss, was involved in the hoax from
>>the begining?
>

>You know, Pat, if you work really hard on your comprehension skills, you
>might, after a few years, actually be able to read a sentence and
>understand it the first time, instead of requiring it to be repeated
>over and over again before you even begin to grasp what it means.

Oh I manage alright with those who use language to communicate, the
problems come with those who use it to deceive.

The media are going to love you. It would be a challenge!

>>
>>If you are serious, I think you should call the newspapers and BBC
>>now.
>

>Perhaps you would like to give a single reason why anyone would be
>interested in something which took place 37 years ago and was written up
>in detail at the time.

I find it amazing, but you recall that a put forward a "Gardiner
Hypothesis" to deal with pig health and the criminal activities of
Britain's government veterinarians. You can find it on my blog.

To my surprise, there was already a "Gardiner Hypothesis" dealing with
another famous hoax: Piltdown.

Long exposed, it remains a whodunit, that will be the subject of
books, plays and films for centuries.

Hoaxes last, even after their perpetrators have long gone.

Perhaps that is the attraction. Something for nonentities troubled by
obscurity to leave behind.

>
>>>
>>>>There will be interest on both sides of the Atlantic.
>>>
>>>Balderdash. You really, really do like to make a total fool of yourself,
>>>don't you?
>>
>>Oh, I think you underestimate your claims. It is a story and a half.
>

>It was a story 37 years ago, Pat. Can't your two brain cells (I'm being
>generous here) grasp that simple fact?

>
>>Add to that the extraordinary story of the American military
>>monitoring your next door neighbours and you move into the realms of
>>several books and some serialisation
>

>That was nearly 9 years ago, Pat. Can't your one brain cell grasp that
>simple fact?

One again you rely on the passing of time for protection.

>
>>>>The question is clear, abuse will not put me off. Now answer the
>>>>question:
>>>>
>>>> Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax?
>>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>Evasive answer noted. You will have to do better if Paxman gets hold
>>of you.
>

>More gibberish, following total incomprehension of: What part of "He was

>aware of it, but he didn't "create" it." do you not understand?

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.

>
>>>
>>>>to prevent further prevarication I will add "at any time"
>>>>
>>>>" Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax at any time?"
>>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>Meat for a good investigative journalist, obviously.
>

>How long would an "investigative journalist" have a job if he decided to
>investigate a 37-year-old story which was thoroughly written up at the
>time?

If it was you being interviewed probably for ever. They would have to
opt for serialisation.

>
>>>>How well did you know him? and the identity please?
>>>
>>>Well enough. You can find out his identity by a little bit of googling.
>>>I realise that you have very poor skills in that direction, but it will
>>>give you something to do while you ponder on the fact that in the last
>>>11+ years you have achieved absolutely nothing by your thousands of
>>>posts here.
>>
>>Why don't you want to tell us? Ah, I see, you are holding out for the
>>best offer from the newspapers.
>

>Duh!
>
>Do some googling and don't be lazy.

You have already admitted that your Wikipedia entry has two
unidentified mistakes for which you are not responsible but decline to
put right.

If you had anything to do with Nessiteras rhombopteryx, it will be
riddled with errors and obscurity.

I'm going to leave the enquires to the media and anyone else with an
interest in the case.

I've done my bit in identifying your proximity to the hoax.

>
>>>
>>>>Did he confess to you?
>>>
>>>There was nothing to "confess", you blithering idiot.
>>
>>So, you now don't know for sure who was the hoaxer.
>

>Is that what you understand from my last comment?
>
>You can ignore my suggestion that you try and improve your comprehension
>skills, as that would clearly be completely beyond you. Just accept that
>fact that you're very dim.

Manners, Malcolm.

>
>>>
>>>Pat realises, at last, that he made a fool of himself.
>>
>>No, I think someone made fools of the Pentagon. Not something I would
>>want to become involved in.
>>

>Then why, 9 years after it took place, have you raised it again? You're
>drawing dangerous attention to yourself :-)

Well, as you know, I only found it by chance in the last couple of
years and was genuinely astonished by the BBC running such a stupid
story. There had to be more to it, and that something may well have
been your proximity.

Bear in mind that both the hoaxes discussed involved cameras.

>
>>They will want whoever was involved to make a visit to the USA
>

>Stupid prediction alert! This took place nearly 9 years ago, Pat. It
>was reported in newspapers across the world, at the time.

Once again, you take comfort in the passing of time.

>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>No, Pat, I don't. You, on the other hand, like to invent conspiracy
>>>theories about everything that you read.
>>
>>No, I just read what I see. To be frank until recently I saw a
>>stalker, a bit odd, very aggressive arrogant and rude, but probably
>>harmless.
>>
>>Not any more. Hoaxing on this scale can get you into real trouble
>

>You're a fool, Pat, a very unintelligent fool.

Manners, Malcolm.

>
>>>
>>>>This is the inevitable result.
>>>>
>>>In your case, it does appear to be inevitable. People who live in a
>>>world where everything involves conspiracy theories are generally
>>>lacking enough intelligence to realise that they are making fools of
>>>themselves.
>>
>>I think I have brought new information on a longstanding hoax into the
>>public domain.
>>

>What "new information", Pat? Bear in mind that this took place 37 years
>ago and that you clearly missed it at the time and therefore you haven't
>a clue what was said then. Thus your claim about "new information" is as
>stupid and evidenceless as all your other claims on this ng.

New information? Your record since and your proximity to Sir Peter
Scott, I thought as an employee, but now it seems as an equal.

>
>>>>Those arguments about your doctorate were ridiculous. You seemed to
>>>>deliberately fuel the accusations
>>>
>>>The only "accusations" came from that well-known liar and libeller
>>>"Pete", because he didn't like being contradicted when he made wild and
>>>unsupported claims. You and he are alike in that respect.
>>
>>There were others.
>>
>>Pete was well respected in the United States and was reported on in
>>Time Magazine as a private detective in a double page spread.
>>

>Please produce your evidence that the person who featured in Time
>magazine was the same as the deliberately disruptive libelling liar who
>used to post in this and other uk newsgroups.

Manners, Malcolm.

He said goodbye from Heathrow. Did you miss that?

>
>>He is known to have been allowed to give evidence in camera in US
>>Courts. Draw your own conclusions.
>>
>>Then I find out about the extraordinary antics on Islay, next door to
>>you.
>>

>Gosh, Pat, in November 2011 you found out something which took place in
>September 2003 and which was reported around the world at the time.
>That's one hell of an achievement, Pat. You should call yourself an
>"investigative journalist" on the basis of that fantastic scoop.

Once again, you take comfort from the passing of time.

>
>>
>>>Everyone,
>>>but everyone, with the single exception of you who managed to be so deaf
>>>and blind that it passed you by, had their say then. If you think that
>>>8-year-old news that was fully dealt with at the time will be of
>>>interest to anyone now merely confirms your total ignorance of the
>>>media. Hmm, delete the words "of the media".
>>
>>Yes, I was the one that recognised the significance
>

>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.

Manners, Malcolm,

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:51:20 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <6gs3s7t1tb9j6u61t...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@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!

[buddenbrooks]

"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yU58TzFo...@indaal.demon.co.uk...

>
> 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.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:43:28 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <j524s713farhe9pta...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner

>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.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:44:29 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:

>
>"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:yU58TzFo...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
> > 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.

The first point, before I forget, is that you are still using a
knightstemplar emaill address to post. Given events in Norway you are
likely to introduce yet another line of enquiry for investigators.

I know you have used the address for years, but this is not a time to
be stubborn on the issue.

I would have thought you would have had enough sense to drop that.

>>
>
> It would be better to ignore Pat than respond. Guessing someone's mental
>health from their newsgroup ramblings
>is rather pointless.

Sensible remark. I wish he would ignore me.

>
> Pat is never going to contribute anything useful and pointing out flaws in
>his arguements will not make him change his posting.

Oh, I think you will look back and recognise that my comments on
livestock health were indeed useful, if not acted upon.

>
> 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.

It's not so much satisfaction, there is not much of that.

More a sad self-imposed duty to campaign and keep a record available
worldwide. I get no kick out of most of the material posted. It is sad
and bad.

If there had not been the loss of several other archives (not always
due to foul play either) I probably would not bother with ukba.

>
> 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.

I'm not sure I follow that. You can't usually know if personal bias is
involved.

But I have real record of unusual or strong opinions on anything much
before clashing with Britain's corrupt government veterinarians, and
no record of becoming involved with hoaxes.

I certainly would not be interested in posting to ukba were is not for
the animal health issues, and obviously struggle with the constant
offensive stalking.

I do the best I can and if I come accross something like the hoaxes, I
will flag them to persuing journalists and plough on.

Anyway, thank you for trying to get Malcolm to desist, it is in his
own best interests if he would but see sense,.

[Malcolm]

In article <un74s7da65ebqtt7r...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
<pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes

nothing of any interest, just more guff, the reading of which might
cause some people to think of the following definition.

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.

--
Malcolm

[Pat Gardiner]

It's not your copy and paste that is stuck it is your brain. Nobody
would think anything of the kind.

How could anyone distrust a mysterious controversial figure so close
to two massive hoaxes spread over so many years?

The media are going to get yards of reports and articles out of this.

Washington and the BBC both fooled.

This could outshine Leveson.

I take my hat off to you!

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:02:12 +0100, Pat Gardiner
<pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:


>
>But I have real record of unusual or strong opinions on anything much
>before clashing with Britain's corrupt government veterinarians, and
>no record of becoming involved with hoaxes.

Correction - that should have read " I hav no real record of unusual
or strong opinions..."

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:02:12 +0100, Pat Gardiner
<pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 11:11, That well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 08:13:11 +0100, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article<f9h2s7d91j7h47vii...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:20:21 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article<c3l1s7pn5qveqjmfk...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>> <pat.ga...@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.

Factual Pat, you are living in La La land.

>>>>> 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.

Lack of comprehension again Pat? The truth is that it is your rubbish
posts, and the fact that you have no evidence, that has prevented you
achieving anything with your posts. Malcolm is correct, you are a total
failure.

>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

You do have strange opinions Pat. I doubt many share them.

>>>>> 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.

Your inability to grasp the meaning of even simple sentences is noted,
yet again.

>>>>> 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.

More fantasy from that well known troll Pat Gardiner.

>>>>> 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.

Factual Pat. You were, as usual, posting gibberish.

>>>>> 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

If you wish to counter Malcolm's expression of disbelief you will have
to post some real evidence of your capability to investigate anything
and of the investigations you claim to be undertaking. You won't of
course because you are just trolling.

>>> 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."

What a load of cobblers Pat. Had "the Americans" wished to investigate
Malcolm was clearly identifiable all those years ago. Perhaps they did
talk to him and received a satisfactory explanation. Not that you
actually care because you are just trolling.

>> Perhaps you would like to explain why they have waited that long.
>
> No idea. If they invite you for questioning, you can ask them.

More rubbish from the well known troll Pat Gardiner.

>>> 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.

But anything you are involved with Pat quickly loses any significance it
might have had and is quickly forgotten.

>>>>> 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,

Evidence Pat?

> but frankly whoever seems to have given you a doctorate is obviously not that prestigious or you would have been
> proud of their identity.

Why do you think Malcolm is not proud of the organisation that awarded
his doctorate?

> Your CV, if you ever dared produce one, would have been blanks than my
> mental dictionary

Total gibberish, but what else cane be expected of that well known troll
Pat Gardiner.

That is not most people Pat, that is a good description of you.

> The scandal clearly found fertile ground in you.

What scandal Pat?

You know Pat, your posts cast considerable doubt on your claims to have
been a business man. What they do show however is a talent for creating
a vast fairy tale out of the smallest fact. Work on comprehension, so
that you can begin to understand what you are doing and then, with the
right publisher, you might make a fortune.

>>>>> 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.
>
> Perhaps you are just showing off?

See Pat? Fairy tales out of the smallest fact.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> If that's an explanation it is even more obscure than the last. You
>>> seem to be suggesting that the famous Sir Peter Scott, now claimed to
>>> be your colleague rather than your boss, was involved in the hoax from
>>> the begining?
>>
>> You know, Pat, if you work really hard on your comprehension skills, you
>> might, after a few years, actually be able to read a sentence and
>> understand it the first time, instead of requiring it to be repeated
>> over and over again before you even begin to grasp what it means.
>
> Oh I manage alright with those who use language to communicate,

Really? Your powers of comprehension are so deficient that I find that
statement difficult to believe.

> the problems come with those who use it to deceive.

Shouldn't do since you are a master at obfuscation.

> The media are going to love you. It would be a challenge!

More fairy tales potential Pat?

>>> If you are serious, I think you should call the newspapers and BBC
>>> now.
>>
>> Perhaps you would like to give a single reason why anyone would be
>> interested in something which took place 37 years ago and was written up
>> in detail at the time.
>
> I find it amazing, but you recall that a put forward a "Gardiner
> Hypothesis" to deal with pig health and the criminal activities of
> Britain's government veterinarians. You can find it on my blog.
>
> To my surprise, there was already a "Gardiner Hypothesis" dealing with
> another famous hoax: Piltdown.
>
> Long exposed, it remains a whodunit, that will be the subject of
> books, plays and films for centuries.
>
> Hoaxes last, even after their perpetrators have long gone.
>
> Perhaps that is the attraction. Something for nonentities troubled by
> obscurity to leave behind.

See Pat, you are a natural. A vast fairy tale out of the smallest fact.

>>>>> There will be interest on both sides of the Atlantic.
>>>>
>>>> Balderdash. You really, really do like to make a total fool of yourself,
>>>> don't you?
>>>
>>> Oh, I think you underestimate your claims. It is a story and a half.
>>
>> It was a story 37 years ago, Pat. Can't your two brain cells (I'm being
>> generous here) grasp that simple fact?
>>
>>> Add to that the extraordinary story of the American military
>>> monitoring your next door neighbours and you move into the realms of
>>> several books and some serialisation
>>
>> That was nearly 9 years ago, Pat. Can't your one brain cell grasp that
>> simple fact?
>
> One again you rely on the passing of time for protection.

Comprehension Pat? It was all sorted years ago.

>>>>> The question is clear, abuse will not put me off. Now answer the
>>>>> question:
>>>>>
>>>>> Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax?
>>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Evasive answer noted. You will have to do better if Paxman gets hold
>>> of you.
>>
>> More gibberish, following total incomprehension of: What part of "He was
>> aware of it, but he didn't "create" it." do you not understand?
>
> 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.

Which "others" Pat?

Youi again posted total gibberish, following total incomprehension of:

What part of "He was aware of it, but he didn't "create" it." do you not
understand?

>>>>> to prevent further prevarication I will add "at any time"
>>>>>
>>>>> " Was Sir Peter Scott taken in by the hoax at any time?"
>>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Meat for a good investigative journalist, obviously.
>>
>> How long would an "investigative journalist" have a job if he decided to
>> investigate a 37-year-old story which was thoroughly written up at the
>> time?
>
> If it was you being interviewed probably for ever. They would have to
> opt for serialisation.

Yet another attempt to extract a vast fairy tale from little fact.

>>>>> How well did you know him? and the identity please?
>>>>
>>>> Well enough. You can find out his identity by a little bit of googling.
>>>> I realise that you have very poor skills in that direction, but it will
>>>> give you something to do while you ponder on the fact that in the last
>>>> 11+ years you have achieved absolutely nothing by your thousands of
>>>> posts here.
>>>
>>> Why don't you want to tell us? Ah, I see, you are holding out for the
>>> best offer from the newspapers.
>>
>> Duh!
>>
>> Do some googling and don't be lazy.
>
> You have already admitted that your Wikipedia entry has two
> unidentified mistakes for which you are not responsible but decline to
> put right.
>
> If you had anything to do with Nessiteras rhombopteryx, it will be
> riddled with errors and obscurity.
>
> I'm going to leave the enquires to the media and anyone else with an
> interest in the case.
>
> I've done my bit in identifying your proximity to the hoax.

You didn't identify anything Pat. It is just another attempt to create
a vast fairy tale from minimal fact.

>>>>> Did he confess to you?
>>>>
>>>> There was nothing to "confess", you blithering idiot.
>>>
>>> So, you now don't know for sure who was the hoaxer.
>>
>> Is that what you understand from my last comment?
>>
>> You can ignore my suggestion that you try and improve your comprehension
>> skills, as that would clearly be completely beyond you. Just accept that
>> fact that you're very dim.
>
> Manners, Malcolm.

Factual Pat. You are very dim and are therefore incapable of improving
your comprehension.

>>>> Pat realises, at last, that he made a fool of himself.
>>>
>>> No, I think someone made fools of the Pentagon. Not something I would
>>> want to become involved in.
>>>
>> Then why, 9 years after it took place, have you raised it again? You're
>> drawing dangerous attention to yourself :-)
>
> Well, as you know, I only found it by chance in the last couple of
> years and was genuinely astonished by the BBC running such a stupid
> story. There had to be more to it, and that something may well have
> been your proximity.

Just shows how far behind the times you are Pat and how strange your
opinions are of you really believe that was a stupid story. At the time
it was news, now it is old hat.

> Bear in mind that both the hoaxes discussed involved cameras.

So?

>>> They will want whoever was involved to make a visit to the USA
>>
>> Stupid prediction alert! This took place nearly 9 years ago, Pat. It
>> was reported in newspapers across the world, at the time.
>
> Once again, you take comfort in the passing of time.

Once again you are reverting to fantasy Pat.

>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> No, Pat, I don't. You, on the other hand, like to invent conspiracy
>>>> theories about everything that you read.
>>>
>>> No, I just read what I see. To be frank until recently I saw a
>>> stalker, a bit odd, very aggressive arrogant and rude, but probably
>>> harmless.
>>>
>>> Not any more. Hoaxing on this scale can get you into real trouble
>>
>> You're a fool, Pat, a very unintelligent fool.
>
> Manners, Malcolm.

Factual Pat, You are a very unintelligent fool.

>>>>> This is the inevitable result.
>>>>>
>>>> In your case, it does appear to be inevitable. People who live in a
>>>> world where everything involves conspiracy theories are generally
>>>> lacking enough intelligence to realise that they are making fools of
>>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> I think I have brought new information on a longstanding hoax into the
>>> public domain.
>>>
>> What "new information", Pat? Bear in mind that this took place 37 years
>> ago and that you clearly missed it at the time and therefore you haven't
>> a clue what was said then. Thus your claim about "new information" is as
>> stupid and evidenceless as all your other claims on this ng.
>
> New information? Your record since and your proximity to Sir Peter
> Scott, I thought as an employee, but now it seems as an equal.

I doubt any of that is "new information" Pat and you even managed to get
that wrong.

>>>>> Those arguments about your doctorate were ridiculous. You seemed to
>>>>> deliberately fuel the accusations
>>>>
>>>> The only "accusations" came from that well-known liar and libeller
>>>> "Pete", because he didn't like being contradicted when he made wild and
>>>> unsupported claims. You and he are alike in that respect.
>>>
>>> There were others.
>>>
>>> Pete was well respected in the United States and was reported on in
>>> Time Magazine as a private detective in a double page spread.
>>>
>> Please produce your evidence that the person who featured in Time
>> magazine was the same as the deliberately disruptive libelling liar who
>> used to post in this and other uk newsgroups.
>
> Manners, Malcolm.

Factual Pat. Pete was a deliberately disruptive libelling liar.

> He said goodbye from Heathrow. Did you miss that?

If you believed that you will believe anything.

>>> He is known to have been allowed to give evidence in camera in US
>>> Courts. Draw your own conclusions.
>>>
>>> Then I find out about the extraordinary antics on Islay, next door to
>>> you.
>>>
>> Gosh, Pat, in November 2011 you found out something which took place in
>> September 2003 and which was reported around the world at the time.
>> That's one hell of an achievement, Pat. You should call yourself an
>> "investigative journalist" on the basis of that fantastic scoop.
>
> Once again, you take comfort from the passing of time.

You demonstrate how out of touch you are Pat.

>>>> Everyone,
>>>> but everyone, with the single exception of you who managed to be so deaf
>>>> and blind that it passed you by, had their say then. If you think that
>>>> 8-year-old news that was fully dealt with at the time will be of
>>>> interest to anyone now merely confirms your total ignorance of the
>>>> media. Hmm, delete the words "of the media".
>>>
>>> Yes, I was the one that recognised the significance
>>
>> 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.
>
> Manners, Malcolm,

You have lost it Pat. Your lack of comprehension is a real drawback
isn't it Pat?

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 11:51, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <6gs3s7t1tb9j6u61t...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
> <pat.ga...@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.
>

Oh, indeed it should.

[Old Codger]

Lack of comprehension Pat.

> 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!

Another demonstration of Pat's ability, possibly his only ability, to
fashion a vast fairy tale from the merest fact.

[Old Codger]

Lack of comprehension Pat.

> 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.

But you are making it up Pat.

You are again demonstrating your ability (only ability?) to create a
vast fairy tale out of the simplest fact.

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 12:44, buddenbrooks wrote:
>
> "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:yU58TzFo...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
> > 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,

Indeed he does. He knows few look at his website or read his blog. He
has made over 300 tweets over a couple of years yet has only 13
followers and, I suspect, no responses to any of his tweets, certainly
there will be very few. By posting here he can convince himself that he
is widely read and his words given serious consideration, there are no
apps to enable a poster to know just how few actually read his posts.
Also, this newsgroup tolerates him. Many other groups would virtually
lynch him.

> 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.
>
>
>
>

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 14:11, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:58:16 +0100, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article<un74s7da65ebqtt7r...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>
>> nothing of any interest, just more guff, the reading of which might
>> cause some people to think of the following definition.
>>
>> 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's not your copy and paste that is stuck it is your brain. Nobody
> would think anything of the kind.

Lacking comprehension again Pat?

> How could anyone distrust a mysterious controversial figure so close
> to two massive hoaxes spread over so many years?
>
> The media are going to get yards of reports and articles out of this.
>
> Washington and the BBC both fooled.
>
> This could outshine Leveson.
>
> I take my hat off to you!

Yet another demonstration of Pat's ability (possibly his only ability)
to fashion a vast fairy tale from the simplest fact.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:59:53 +0100, Old Codger <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 14:02, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:44:29 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
> <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Malcolm"<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:yU58TzFo...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> The first point, before I forget, is that you are still using a
> knightstemplar emaill address to post. Given events in Norway you are
> likely to introduce yet another line of enquiry for investigators.

That is total bull**it Pat, and you know it.

> I know you have used the address for years, but this is not a time to
> be stubborn on the issue.
>
> I would have thought you would have had enough sense to drop that.

He has more sense than to take advice from you Pat.

>> It would be better to ignore Pat than respond. Guessing someone's mental
>> health from their newsgroup ramblings
>> is rather pointless.
>
> Sensible remark. I wish he would ignore me.

No you don't Pat. You relish any response so that you can create a
thread and feel important.

>> Pat is never going to contribute anything useful and pointing out flaws in
>> his arguements will not make him change his posting.
>
> Oh, I think you will look back and recognise that my comments on
> livestock health were indeed useful, if not acted upon.

Yea, well, we all know how valid your thoughts are Pat.

>> 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.
>
> It's not so much satisfaction, there is not much of that.

Really?

> More a sad self-imposed duty to campaign and keep a record available
> worldwide. I get no kick out of most of the material posted. It is sad
> and bad.
>
> If there had not been the loss of several other archives (not always
> due to foul play either) I probably would not bother with ukba.

More evidence of Pat's ability to fashion vast fairy tales out of the
smallest fact.

>> 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.
>
> I'm not sure I follow that. You can't usually know if personal bias is
> involved.

You do need a certain level of comprehension Pat.

> But I have real record of unusual or strong opinions on anything much
> before clashing with Britain's corrupt government veterinarians, and
> no record of becoming involved with hoaxes.
>
> I certainly would not be interested in posting to ukba were is not for
> the animal health issues, and obviously struggle with the constant
> offensive stalking.
>
> I do the best I can and if I come accross something like the hoaxes, I
> will flag them to persuing journalists and plough on.
>
> Anyway, thank you for trying to get Malcolm to desist, it is in his
> own best interests if he would but see sense,.

Is that yet another demonstration of Pat's ability to create vast fairy
tales from the merest fact or is he just trolling? Could be either, or
both.

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 15:09, Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:02:12 +0100, Pat Gardiner
> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> But I have real record of unusual or strong opinions on anything much
>> before clashing with Britain's corrupt government veterinarians, and
>> no record of becoming involved with hoaxes.
>
> Correction - that should have read " I hav no real record of unusual
> or strong opinions..."
>

Really?

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 15:24, Pat Gardiner wrote:

< Absolutely nothing>

A vast improvement on his usual posts.

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 20:04, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:

<Absolutely nothing>

A vast improvement on his usual posts.

[buddenbrooks]

"Old Codger" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4fc27c3c$0$12267$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...

> On 27/05/2012 14:02, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:44:29 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
>> <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The first point, before I forget, is that you are still using a
>> knightstemplar emaill address to post. Given events in Norway you are
>> likely to introduce yet another line of enquiry for investigators.
>
> That is total bull**it Pat, and you know it.
>

I have no idea what his rambling on about Norway is, I live very close to
the Knights Templar site in Somerset.

http://www.templars.org.uk/public/preceps/p_preceps_5_tcombe.htm

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 20:10:33 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>In article <el94s7l11uuvgkfco...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner

><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:58:16 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <un74s7da65ebqtt7r...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>nothing of any interest, just more guff, the reading of which might
>>>cause some people to think of the following definition.
>>>
>>>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.
>>

>snip more gibberish.

Hi Malcolm

If you keep going, with such enthusiasm and no direction, you will
eventually snip yourself.

[Old Codger]

I am sure you are not concerned though.

I doubt if he has any idea what he is on about either, probably just a
convenient means of trolling. If there is any logic behind it you can
be sure Pat will have it all wrong.

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 21:54, Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 20:10:33 +0100, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article<el94s7l11uuvgkfco...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:58:16 +0100, Malcolm
>>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article<un74s7da65ebqtt7r...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>> nothing of any interest, just more guff, the reading of which might
>>>> cause some people to think of the following definition.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> snip more gibberish.
>
> Hi Malcolm
>
> If you keep going, with such enthusiasm and no direction, you will
> eventually snip yourself.

Comprehension Pat, that is all you need, well, apart from knowledge and
common sense of course.

[Pat Gardiner]

Oh dear. You really do not seem to keep up with news, do you?

To give a brief explanation, the mass murderer currently on trial in
Norway claimed to be part of an organisation based in England known as
the Knights Templar.

If you think back you will realise that one of the journalists keeping
an eye on this newsgroup is Norwegian.

Add this a serious of ill-advised hoaxes and similar activities based
about this newsgroup and, at the very least, the matter is now in
singularity bad taste and certain to attract official attention.

It is a matter for you of course, but I would get shot of the
reference fast.

I warned you weeks ago, if you recall.

Suggesting you did not know is asking for trouble.

[Steve Firth]

"buddenbrooks" <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> "Old Codger" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:4fc27c3c$0$12267$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On 27/05/2012 14:02, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:44:29 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
>>> <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The first point, before I forget, is that you are still using a
>>> knightstemplar emaill address to post. Given events in Norway you are
>>> likely to introduce yet another line of enquiry for investigators.
>>
>> That is total bull**it Pat, and you know it.
>>
>
> I have no idea what his rambling on about Norway is,

He is referring to the demented claims of Anders Behring Breivik that
Breivik was acting as a member of a non-existent secret organisation called
The Knights Templar.

In short it's another Pat Gardiner libel.

> I live very close to the Knights Templar site in Somerset.
>
> http://www.templars.org.uk/public/preceps/p_preceps_5_tcombe.htm

Oh well, Gardiner will embroider another fantasy around that in due course.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 21:33:18 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

>"buddenbrooks" <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>> "Old Codger" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:4fc27c3c$0$12267$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> On 27/05/2012 14:02, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:44:29 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
>>>> <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first point, before I forget, is that you are still using a
>>>> knightstemplar emaill address to post. Given events in Norway you are
>>>> likely to introduce yet another line of enquiry for investigators.
>>>
>>> That is total bull**it Pat, and you know it.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea what his rambling on about Norway is,
>
>He is referring to the demented claims of Anders Behring Breivik that
>Breivik was acting as a member of a non-existent secret organisation called
>The Knights Templar.
>
>In short it's another Pat Gardiner libel.

No libel involved, just the most appalling bad taste of anyone using
such an address, not least after being warned and then using it under
the heading "Hoaxes and hoaxers"

You realise the that the Norwegian prosecution are denying any such
organisation and the defence will very properly be going all out to
suggest otherwise.

This half-witted banana "Buddenbrooks" whatever his real name,
knowing that you are being watched by a Norwegian journalist on animal
health issues, decides it is clever to carry on using such an email
adddess egged on by the rest of you nutters.

The offence in Norway will be immense and totally justified.

There will obviously be a reference to the British police for
enquiries to be made. The defence are bound to use it. It is their
duty to the defendant.

I give up. If any of you ever get into the real world...

>
>> I live very close to the Knights Templar site in Somerset.
>>
>> http://www.templars.org.uk/public/preceps/p_preceps_5_tcombe.htm
>
>Oh well, Gardiner will embroider another fantasy around that in due course.

It would seem that I have a more realistic view of the consequences of
role playing than any of you.

[Old Codger]

What a load of old gobbledygook. Not a fairy tale more a fantasy horror
story. But what else can be expected from an excessive, compulsive troll?

[Old Codger]

On 27/05/2012 22:48, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 21:33:18 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
> <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "buddenbrooks"<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>>> "Old Codger"<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4fc27c3c$0$12267$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>> On 27/05/2012 14:02, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:44:29 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
>>>>> <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first point, before I forget, is that you are still using a
>>>>> knightstemplar emaill address to post. Given events in Norway you are
>>>>> likely to introduce yet another line of enquiry for investigators.
>>>>
>>>> That is total bull**it Pat, and you know it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no idea what his rambling on about Norway is,
>>
>> He is referring to the demented claims of Anders Behring Breivik that
>> Breivik was acting as a member of a non-existent secret organisation called
>> The Knights Templar.
>>
>> In short it's another Pat Gardiner libel.
>
> No libel involved, just the most appalling bad taste of anyone using
> such an address, not least after being warned and then using it under
> the heading "Hoaxes and hoaxers"

Do learn some law Pat. you will get into trouble one of these days if
you don't.

> You realise the that the Norwegian prosecution are denying any such
> organisation and the defence will very properly be going all out to
> suggest otherwise.
>
> This half-witted banana "Buddenbrooks" whatever his real name,
> knowing that you are being watched by a Norwegian journalist on animal
> health issues, decides it is clever to carry on using such an email
> adddess egged on by the rest of you nutters.
>
> The offence in Norway will be immense and totally justified.
>
> There will obviously be a reference to the British police for
> enquiries to be made. The defence are bound to use it. It is their
> duty to the defendant.
>
> I give up. If any of you ever get into the real world...

We are "in the real world" Pat. It is you who lives in fantasy land and
conjures up conspiracies at the drop of a hat.

>>> I live very close to the Knights Templar site in Somerset.
>>>
>>> http://www.templars.org.uk/public/preceps/p_preceps_5_tcombe.htm
>>
>> Oh well, Gardiner will embroider another fantasy around that in due course.
>
> It would seem that I have a more realistic view of the consequences of
> role playing than any of you.

You ought to because that is all that you do but you just don't have the
comprehension.

Of course, this chap, if it is a chap, who calls himself Pat Gardiner,
wonder of that is his real name, is nothing more than a troll and a
"half witted banana".

[Peter Duncanson]

That's a strange comment from a man who lives in the aggressively named
Hangman's Cottage.

If anyone who knows you online or in person is found hanged the police
will know where to start looking.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)

[Pat Gardiner]

Every time the UKBA stalking ring runs out of steam or gets into
trouble, you appear to reinvigorate and organise.

Strange kind of hobby for a retirement.

It was the original name: Hangmans Cottage, Hangmans Lane, Misery
Corner before it was "cleaned up" in the 1930s. It lies alongside a
Norman castle mott and bailey.

Not that I have to explain anything to you. The explanation
accompanies its use and as far as I can recall, it has rarely if ever
used on uk.business.agriculture, although my full address has been
published here by the Politburo as part of some kind of organised
threat.

I have not found it necessary to hide my identity and use an unwise
email address. If you look back you will note that Buddenbrooks email
seemed to have fallen into other hands, a few weeks ago, and I told
him as much.

He is usually a careful accurate speller and I spotted a
deterioration.

He came back explaining the sudden deterioration in his spelling as
being down to the use of multiple language keyboards.

Anyone sensible would have taken the unfortunate co-incidence with the
Norwegian case seriously and changed over to one of his other email
addresses.

Your "retaliation" is characteristic of your activities over many
years. You can explain yourself to the authorities if called upon to
do so.

As far as I'm concerned you are a public nuisance.

[Steve Firth]

Malcolm <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <roa5s7d7thtq9t9lk...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes

> ROFL!!

I think the police should be directed to investigate George Patrick
Gardiner of Hangman's Cottage. He has a long history here of making threats
to Italians and of making abusive comments about Italian businesses,
shipbrokers, farmers and bankers. He has also posted over and over again
about spending a great deal of time in and around Westminster. He also has
stated that his normal state when around Westminster was to be drunk and
that a government appointed solicitor had to caution him about his
drinking.

He has a 12 year history of posting abuse in which he singles out civil
servants and declaims that he is going to take action against civil
servants. His rants appear to make it clear that he's a Freemason and the
content of his rants are clearly similar to that other Freemason Anders
Behring Breivik. Don't forget that Gardiner has blabbered, nay boasted,
about his role in a Top Secret UK Eyes Only operation to ready a ship for
RN service. That work is still classified and his bragging was a breach of
the OSA. Gardiner also has a long track record of treasonous comment
against the Crown (his comments about Prince Charles for example) and
against Crown Agents.

He is therefore a clear security risk and a general bad egg. But most
significant is that his profile matches that of a politically motivated
serial killer with an obsession with hanging and Italians.

Are there any unsolved crimes that relate to Freemasonry, hanging,
Westminster and Italians? Yes, there is, the still unsolved case of Roberto
Calvi. I predict that an examination if Garfdiner will reveal that he can
tie knots, has access to bricks and knows where to obtain rope. Thus he has
easy access to the murder weapons and the site of the killing. Clearly
Gardiner has many questions to answer in relation to this incident and he
should be extremely concerned that this newsgroup is being monitored by the
Italian Police and by Italian Journalists. This is a scandal of huge
proportions that could topple the UK government and shake the establishment
to its knees.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:14:15 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

>Malcolm <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <roa5s7d7thtq9t9lk...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:48:01 +0100, Pat Gardiner
>>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would seem that I have a more realistic view of the consequences of
>>>> role playing than any of you.
>>>
>>> That's a strange comment from a man who lives in the aggressively named
>>> Hangman's Cottage.
>>>
>>> If anyone who knows you online or in person is found hanged the police
>>> will know where to start looking.
>>>
>> ROFL!!
>
>I think the police should be directed to investigate George Patrick
>Gardiner of Hangman's Cottage. He has a long history here of making threats
>to Italians and of making abusive comments about Italian businesses,
>shipbrokers, farmers and bankers. He has also posted over and over again
>about spending a great deal of time in and around Westminster. He also has
>stated that his normal state when around Westminster was to be drunk and
>that a government appointed solicitor had to caution him about his
>drinking.

Well, that would be regarded by most shipbrokers as a splendid
reference. Alas, nothing so prestigous, and the source a olive oil
market salesman exiled from Britain most of the time. His kids, in the
USA probably to keep away from him, is hardly reliable, alas.

>
>He has a 12 year history of posting abuse in which he singles out civil
>servants and declaims that he is going to take action against civil
>servants.

That too would do me no harm. Britain seems to be run by sub-standard
civil servants with an exagerated idea of their own self-importance.
Is that why you emigrated to Italy?

>His rants appear to make it clear that he's a Freemason and the
>content of his rants are clearly similar to that other Freemason Anders
>Behring Breivik.

Not a freemason, although I was invited a couple of times. I have
freemason friends including one who, I understand, is one of the most
senior in the country.

I have no prejudices for or against masons and know little about the
subject. I think we have some currently and historically within my
family. I am aware that others get wound up about the subject.
Failures always find someone to blame.

>Don't forget that Gardiner has blabbered, nay boasted,
>about his role in a Top Secret UK Eyes Only operation to ready a ship for
>RN service. That work is still classified and his bragging was a breach of
>the OSA.

It was not bragging, merely a statement of fact. I can't help it if I
was there and with the appropriate clearance. That, which I have
disclosed is a matter of public record, and is not classified.

You would not know classified if it bit you in the bum.

>Gardiner also has a long track record of treasonous comment
>against the Crown (his comments about Prince Charles for example)

The source of my comments was the Sunday Times and I believe the
material published was accurate, even though i is currently
unavailable on the WWW. Take it up with Murdoch

>and
>against Crown Agents.

From that, I deduce that you donlt know know what Crown Agents are or
rather were. I think, after the last scandal, they were abolished. I
will check when I get time.

>
>He is therefore a clear security risk and a general bad egg. But most
>significant is that his profile matches that of a politically motivated
>serial killer with an obsession with hanging and Italians.

I'm against capital punishment as a matter of principle, on the basis
that they usually hang the wrong one. I have every respect for
Italians not least for having the common humanity to harbour you.

>
>Are there any unsolved crimes that relate to Freemasonry, hanging,
>Westminster and Italians? Yes, there is, the still unsolved case of Roberto
>Calvi. I predict that an examination if Garfdiner will reveal that he can
>tie knots, has access to bricks and knows where to obtain rope. Thus he has
>easy access to the murder weapons and the site of the killing. Clearly
>Gardiner has many questions to answer in relation to this incident and he
>should be extremely concerned that this newsgroup is being monitored by the
>Italian Police and by Italian Journalists. This is a scandal of huge
>proportions that could topple the UK government and shake the establishment
>to its knees.

We will leave that to you as you seem to be an expert. Don't upset the
Italians, you might have to come home.

Incidentally for those that don't know, they has just been a protest
at the Leveson Enquiry, nobody hurt. So much for the security again.

Anyway, Frith as usual, lightens the tone.

I am always puzzled to know if that was his intention.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:15:31 +0100, Pat Gardiner
<pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:


>
>From that, I deduce that you don't know know what Crown Agents are or

>rather were. I think, after the last scandal, they were abolished. I
>will check when I get time.
>>

I have checked and they are, in a much diminished form, still
operating.

I was surprised to see that the last really big scandal was back in
the seventies. How time flies!

I had forgotten all about them.

They were important in shipping terms, but I only encountered them
much in the very earliest days in the South Africa - Rhodesia trades.

My trades were mostly where the flag never flew or where they did not
need Crown Agents.

[buddenbrooks]

>>
>> To give a brief explanation, the mass murderer currently on trial in
>> Norway claimed to be part of an organisation based in England known as
>> the Knights Templar.
>>
>> If you think back you will realise that one of the journalists keeping
>> an eye on this newsgroup is Norwegian.
>>

Probably sufficiently educated to know the Knights Templar are endorsed
and associated with the Holy Catholic Church and the Freemasons. And the
location I refer to is the site of the Naval Office of Europes largest
Defence company, with branches in Norway. So I am at the end of a very large
queue.

As a Norwegian he will also of worked out that the man you refer to is
dilusional. As he has yet to be convicted
I would hesitate to preempt the Norwegian court's decision as to his sanity
or guilt.

The world is full of people that latch on to historical organisations or
figures and unilaterly act in thier name. History does not change because of
the action of these people.

Although a Norwegian journalist might be expected to have excelent English
language skills I doubt he can cope with Pats ramblings and convoluted
thought processes.

[Pat Gardiner]

Yes, well, it was you using a Knights Templar email address, not me
and despite my well meant warnings of potential problems.

You still use it despite knowing for weeks the potential hurt to
Norway and Norwegians

Your problem, not mine.

Most Britons will be horrified and anxious to distance themselves from
your activities.

I join them. It is quite disgraceful.

[Old Codger]

Why should anyone take any notice of your "warnings" Pat? They are
generally the result of a very fertile imagination with little relevance
to reality.

> You still use it despite knowing for weeks the potential hurt to
> Norway and Norwegians

Only in your mind Pat.

> Your problem, not mine.

No Pat, Bud does not have a problem, you do but lack the comprehension
to realise it.

> Most Britons will be horrified and anxious to distance themselves from
> your activities.

Really?

> I join them. It is quite disgraceful.

That makes a crowd of, er, er, er, one.

[Old Codger]

Do we kbnow that Pater? Is it not distinctly possible that it is just
anotherr figment of Pat's imagination.

> If anyone who knows you online or in person is found hanged the police
> will know where to start looking.

Indeed, obvious really.

[Old Codger]

On 28/05/2012 13:15, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:14:15 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
> <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Malcolm<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article<roa5s7d7thtq9t9lk...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:48:01 +0100, Pat Gardiner
>>>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would seem that I have a more realistic view of the consequences of
>>>>> role playing than any of you.
>>>>
>>>> That's a strange comment from a man who lives in the aggressively named
>>>> Hangman's Cottage.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone who knows you online or in person is found hanged the police
>>>> will know where to start looking.
>>>>
>>> ROFL!!
>>
>> I think the police should be directed to investigate George Patrick
>> Gardiner of Hangman's Cottage. He has a long history here of making threats
>> to Italians and of making abusive comments about Italian businesses,
>> shipbrokers, farmers and bankers. He has also posted over and over again
>> about spending a great deal of time in and around Westminster. He also has
>> stated that his normal state when around Westminster was to be drunk and
>> that a government appointed solicitor had to caution him about his
>> drinking.
>
> Well, that would be regarded by most shipbrokers as a splendid reference.

Really? I suspect "most shipbrokers" would quickly disown anyone who
behaved like that. Of course it is all just in your imagination isn't
it Pat.

> Alas, nothing so prestigous, and the source a olive oil
> market salesman exiled from Britain most of the time. His kids, in the
> USA probably to keep away from him, is hardly reliable, alas.

Only in your mind Pat. You can hardly call yourself reliable and,
coupled with your lack of comprehension, are not in a position to assess
the reliability of others. I am certain Steve would make an excellent
witness.

>> He has a 12 year history of posting abuse in which he singles out civil
>> servants and declaims that he is going to take action against civil
>> servants.
>
> That too would do me no harm.

Really? see above.

> Britain seems to be run by sub-standard civil servants with an exagerated idea of their own self-importance.

You should not project your characteristics onto others Pat.

> Is that why you emigrated to Italy?

Lack of comprehension again Pat. Above you claimed Steve had been exiled.

>> His rants appear to make it clear that he's a Freemason and the
>> content of his rants are clearly similar to that other Freemason Anders
>> Behring Breivik.
>
> Not a freemason, although I was invited a couple of times. I have
> freemason friends including one who, I understand, is one of the most
> senior in the country.

Delusions of grandeur again.

> I have no prejudices for or against masons and know little about the
> subject. I think we have some currently and historically within my
> family. I am aware that others get wound up about the subject.
> Failures always find someone to blame.

As you so frequently demonstrate Pat.

>> Don't forget that Gardiner has blabbered, nay boasted,
>> about his role in a Top Secret UK Eyes Only operation to ready a ship for
>> RN service. That work is still classified and his bragging was a breach of
>> the OSA.
>
> It was not bragging, merely a statement of fact. I can't help it if I
> was there and with the appropriate clearance. That, which I have
> disclosed is a matter of public record, and is not classified.
>
> You would not know classified if it bit you in the bum.

I strongly suspect that is the other way round Pat. It is you who

"would not know classified if it bit you in the bum".

>> Gardiner also has a long track record of treasonous comment
>> against the Crown (his comments about Prince Charles for example)
>
> The source of my comments was the Sunday Times and I believe the
> material published was accurate, even though i is currently
> unavailable on the WWW. Take it up with Murdoch

You made the comment Pat.

>> and
>> against Crown Agents.
>
> From that, I deduce that you donlt know know what Crown Agents are or
> rather were. I think, after the last scandal, they were abolished. I
> will check when I get time.

Lack of comprehension Pat. The civil servants you so regularly threaten
and libel are indeed agents of the Crown.

>> He is therefore a clear security risk and a general bad egg. But most
>> significant is that his profile matches that of a politically motivated
>> serial killer with an obsession with hanging and Italians.
>
> I'm against capital punishment as a matter of principle, on the basis
> that they usually hang the wrong one.

Afraid of being hung for treason Pat?

> I have every respect for Italians not least for having the common humanity to harbour you.

Could we have some evidence to support that claim Pat? You appear to
respect nobody but yourself.

>> Are there any unsolved crimes that relate to Freemasonry, hanging,
>> Westminster and Italians? Yes, there is, the still unsolved case of Roberto
>> Calvi. I predict that an examination if Garfdiner will reveal that he can
>> tie knots, has access to bricks and knows where to obtain rope. Thus he has
>> easy access to the murder weapons and the site of the killing. Clearly
>> Gardiner has many questions to answer in relation to this incident and he
>> should be extremely concerned that this newsgroup is being monitored by the
>> Italian Police and by Italian Journalists. This is a scandal of huge
>> proportions that could topple the UK government and shake the establishment
>> to its knees.
>
> We will leave that to you as you seem to be an expert. Don't upset the
> Italians, you might have to come home.

No Pat, it is those authorities of whom you are so proud that will do
the investigation.

> Incidentally for those that don't know, they has just been a protest
> at the Leveson Enquiry, nobody hurt. So much for the security again.

That occurred an hour before you posted Pat, hardly "just". Of course
you were watching the news at one so did not know until they reported it.

> Anyway, Frith as usual, lightens the tone.

Good job someone does, although your fairy tales are often good for a laugh.

> I am always puzzled to know if that was his intention.

Really?

[Old Codger]

On 28/05/2012 15:23, Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:15:31 +0100, Pat Gardiner
> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> From that, I deduce that you don't know know what Crown Agents are or
>> rather were. I think, after the last scandal, they were abolished. I
>> will check when I get time.
>>>
> I have checked and they are, in a much diminished form, still
> operating.
>
> I was surprised to see that the last really big scandal was back in
> the seventies. How time flies!
>
> I had forgotten all about them.

There's a surprise.

> They were important in shipping terms, but I only encountered them
> much in the very earliest days in the South Africa - Rhodesia trades.
>
> My trades were mostly where the flag never flew or where they did not
> need Crown Agents.

Indeed.

[Old Codger]

Typical Gardiner, abuse anyone who responds.

> It was the original name: Hangmans Cottage, Hangmans Lane, Misery
> Corner before it was "cleaned up" in the 1930s. It lies alongside a
> Norman castle mott and bailey.
>
> Not that I have to explain anything to you. The explanation
> accompanies its use and as far as I can recall, it has rarely if ever
> used on uk.business.agriculture, although my full address has been
> published here by the Politburo as part of some kind of organised
> threat.

Really Pat? I don't recall that. You always seemed to take much
trouble to ensure your address never became known whilst simultaneously
providing apparent clues as to your whereabouts. I suppose it is too
much to ask that you provide some clue that will support your claim

> I have not found it necessary to hide my identity and use an unwise email address.

How do we know that Pat Gardiner really is your name?

Your posts indicate an individual totally different to the man that you
claim this Pat Gardiner to be.

> If you look back you will note that Buddenbrooks email
> seemed to have fallen into other hands, a few weeks ago, and I told
> him as much.

Your fantasies at work again Pat?

> He is usually a careful accurate speller and I spotted a
> deterioration.

You spotted a deteriation???

> He came back explaining the sudden deterioration in his spelling as
> being down to the use of multiple language keyboards.
>
> Anyone sensible would have taken the unfortunate co-incidence with the
> Norwegian case seriously and changed over to one of his other email
> addresses.

No Pat, only you and you are certainly not sensible.

> Your "retaliation" is characteristic of your activities over many
> years. You can explain yourself to the authorities if called upon to
> do so.

Making idle threats again Pat. You know the only interest the
authorities might have in this group is in reference to your threats and
libels against civil servants.

> As far as I'm concerned you are a public nuisance.

Wrong Pat. It is you who is a public menace.

[Steve B]

In article <aP6dnR4CJIPpKF7S...@brightview.co.uk>,
knights...@budweiser.com says...

I think that PG is being very foolish in trying to assert a sinister
association between your newsnet address and the mass murderer Anders
Breivig. I also think that any Norwegian journalist will be aware that
Breivig was influenced by the 'idealogical' writings of Nick Griffon.
However, they might not be aware of the association between Griffon and
Pat Gardiner, something that PG has mentioned before on UKBA and can
easily be googled. I wouldn't care to speculate on the significance of
this connection, but I can well imagine that there is every likelihood
that PG will have his appearance in Court after all. Unfortunately for
him it will be in Norway, where they know exactly how to deal with
trolls.

Perhaps PG should ponder the saying,'People that live in glass houses..

[buddenbrooks]

"Steve B" <st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a2e046ca...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> I think that PG is being very foolish in trying to assert a sinister
> association between your newsnet address and the mass murderer Anders
> Breivig.

Breivig is yet to be convicted in a Norweigen court , he is undoubtedly a
mass killer, murder would require he is sane.
His actions and attitudes indicates he is not sane. His association in his
mind with historical organisations from nearly a thousand years ago just
indicates his state of mind and says little about history. Reality does not
need to change to respond to lunitics.

If Pat's Norweigen jounalist is upset I am sure he would respond to the
newsgroup, his silence says it all.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 22:54:28 +0100, Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk>
wrote:

That is your interpretation not mine. You seem determined to prolong
the embarrassment for Buddenbrooks.

I simply warned Buddenbrooks that his email address seemed to have
fallen into other hands and that he was using a potentially explosive
email address - and why. He foolishly took no notice, as is his right.

I also made the point that he had been using the Knights Templar
address for some years, long before the Norwegian tragedy. That does
not suggest a hoax, does it?

>I also think that any Norwegian journalist will be aware that
>Breivig was influenced by the 'idealogical' writings of Nick Griffon.

"Griffin" not "Griffon", otherwise you won't find anything. The
Griffin's were good neighbours for many years. I know Nick's father
and mother better then Nick himself. Whilst I do not share his views,
I think you should realise that Edgar, the father, was actually a
Conservative and vice-president of Ian Duncan Smith's leadership
campaign.

Edgar looked after the books of my parent company for a time,
especially when I was too unwell to make it to the office.

I know of no association between any of the Griffins and the
Norwegian mass murderer or indeed between Buddenbrooks.

That was not the point I was making and you know that.

I think you are unwise and very wrong to try to involve the Griffins
in these vile insinuations.

>However, they might not be aware of the association between Griffon and
>Pat Gardiner, something that PG has mentioned before on UKBA and can
>easily be googled. I wouldn't care to speculate on the significance of
>this connection,

You won't need to speculate, I have long put it on the public record
to head off insinuations of the kind you and your sleazy hoaxing
buddies are making - http://www.go-self-sufficient.com/saint_john.htm

Everryone can read it for themselves and have been able to for years
as a result of uk.buiness.agriculture's activities in hoaxes.

>but I can well imagine that there is every likelihood
>that PG will have his appearance in Court after all.

I doubt that very much, except possibly to give evidence for the
prosecution.

>Unfortunately for
>him it will be in Norway, where they know exactly how to deal with
>trolls.

Very droll.

>
>Perhaps PG should ponder the saying,'People that live in glass houses..

You still have not got the point. I do not live in a glasshouse.

You are judging me by uk.business.agriculture politburo standards.
That is a bad mistake.

[Pat Gardiner]

Probably does. The matter has been brought to your attention. You are
a big boy, you can make your own decisions and judging by the header
have.

I suggest it is in your best interests to terminate this discussion.
Some of your friends are unwisely taking it to places where it can
only become an ever bigger embarrassment for you.

[Old Codger]

On 29/05/2012 09:47, that well known troll Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 05:55:27 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
> <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steve B"<st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2a2e046ca...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> I think that PG is being very foolish in trying to assert a sinister
>>> association between your newsnet address and the mass murderer Anders
>>> Breivig.
>>
>> Breivig is yet to be convicted in a Norweigen court , he is undoubtedly a
>> mass killer, murder would require he is sane.
>> His actions and attitudes indicates he is not sane. His association in his
>> mind with historical organisations from nearly a thousand years ago just
>> indicates his state of mind and says little about history. Reality does not
>> need to change to respond to lunitics.
>>
>> If Pat's Norweigen jounalist is upset I am sure he would respond to the
>> newsgroup, his silence says it all.
>
> Probably does. The matter has been brought to your attention. You are
> a big boy, you can make your own decisions and judging by the header
> have.

You were the one who introduced the heading Pat.

> I suggest it is in your best interests to terminate this discussion.
> Some of your friends are unwisely taking it to places where it can
> only become an ever bigger embarrassment for you.

Back in fantasy land Pat?

[Old Codger]

We all know that your interpretation is crap Pat.

> I simply warned Buddenbrooks that his email address seemed to have
> fallen into other hands and that he was using a potentially explosive
> email address - and why. He foolishly took no notice, as is his right.

If, as you claim, his e-mail address had been purloined why should he be
concerned because you consider it to be explosive?

> I also made the point that he had been using the Knights Templar
> address for some years, long before the Norwegian tragedy. That does
> not suggest a hoax, does it?

If, as you claim, his e-mail address had been purloined ity could
suggest anything.

>> I also think that any Norwegian journalist will be aware that
>> Breivig was influenced by the 'idealogical' writings of Nick Griffon.
>
> "Griffin" not "Griffon", otherwise you won't find anything. The
> Griffin's were good neighbours for many years. I know Nick's father
> and mother better then Nick himself. Whilst I do not share his views,
> I think you should realise that Edgar, the father, was actually a
> Conservative and vice-president of Ian Duncan Smith's leadership
> campaign.
>
> Edgar looked after the books of my parent company for a time,
> especially when I was too unwell to make it to the office.
>
> I know of no association between any of the Griffins and the
> Norwegian mass murderer or indeed between Buddenbrooks.
>
> That was not the point I was making and you know that.
>
> I think you are unwise and very wrong to try to involve the Griffins
> in these vile insinuations.

You started it Pat.

>> However, they might not be aware of the association between Griffon and
>> Pat Gardiner, something that PG has mentioned before on UKBA and can
>> easily be googled. I wouldn't care to speculate on the significance of
>> this connection,
>
> You won't need to speculate, I have long put it on the public record
> to head off insinuations of the kind you and your sleazy hoaxing
> buddies are making - http://www.go-self-sufficient.com/saint_john.htm
>
> Everryone can read it for themselves and have been able to for years
> as a result of uk.buiness.agriculture's activities in hoaxes.

That is your site Pat and you are not renowned for truth.

>> but I can well imagine that there is every likelihood
>> that PG will have his appearance in Court after all.
>
> I doubt that very much, except possibly to give evidence for the
> prosecution.

Really?

>> Unfortunately for
>> him it will be in Norway, where they know exactly how to deal with
>> trolls.
>
> Very droll.

but true.

>> Perhaps PG should ponder the saying,'People that live in glass houses..
>
> You still have not got the point. I do not live in a glasshouse.

Comprehension Pat. You are somewhat lacking in that direction.

> You are judging me by uk.business.agriculture politburo standards.
> That is a bad mistake.

Indeed, you are far below their standards (taking 'the politburo' as
defined by Pat, without prejudice)

[Steve B]

In article <Ka2dnQhA368iy1nS...@brightview.co.uk>,
knights...@budweiser.com says...

>
> "Steve B" <st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2a2e046ca...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >
> > I think that PG is being very foolish in trying to assert a sinister
> > association between your newsnet address and the mass murderer Anders
> > Breivig.
>
> Breivig is yet to be convicted in a Norweigen court , he is undoubtedly a
> mass killer, murder would require he is sane.

Yes, but whatever his mental state and however it is detemined, I think
there is no doubt that he is lacking an essential quality that defines
what being human is and has become a heartless monster. Sadly, there are
a lot of belligerent socio-paths in the world that would behave in a
similar way if the opportunity arose.

> His actions and attitudes indicates he is not sane. His association in his
> mind with historical organisations from nearly a thousand years ago just
> indicates his state of mind and says little about history. Reality does not
> need to change to respond to lunitics.

Yes, maybe he is using the 'authority' of history as a justification for
his actions according to his world view. Or, as others might say, an
excuse.

>
> If Pat's Norweigen jounalist is upset I am sure he would respond to the
> newsgroup, his silence says it all.
>

Indeed.

[Pat Gardiner]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 23:58:31 +0100, Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk>
wrote:

Educated as a scientist, one Norwegian journalist has you know, if you
have paid attention, been watching this newsgroup for some years, on
the animal health and related human health issues.

You wildly underestimate the numbers of readerhip and their
self-descipline. Nobody wants a storm of abuse.

Things are bad in Britain, and there is much justified concern abroad.
Sir High Pennington yesterday was quoted as saying that the North-east
of Scotland had the highest rate of E-coli cases in the world.

The issues are serious. There is currently another outbreak with kids
in hospital in Grampian.

Very sensibly, people won't post much, if at all to
uk.business.agriculture, because of a totally justified fear of
attracting abusive stalkers encouraged and egged on by the others.

I also warn my contacts of the risks. If you recall there have been
attempts to extract from me, usually by calling me a liar, the names
of female journalists in Essex.

No chance. I will not endanger anyone in that way.

[Old Codger]

You wildly overestimate the numbers of readership who believe whay you
post Pat. Those who conduct sensible conversations don't seem to have
any trouble posting here. Neither do those who, having made claims or
assertions that some consider questionable, provide their thought
process or provide some evidence in support of their statements and
enter in to discussion. Those who might receive a less than
enthusiastic response are those, very few fortunately, who respond to
any adverse comment with abuse, as you do Pat.

> Things are bad in Britain, and there is much justified concern abroad.
> Sir High Pennington yesterday was quoted as saying that the North-east
> of Scotland had the highest rate of E-coli cases in the world.
>
> The issues are serious. There is currently another outbreak with kids
> in hospital in Grampian.
>
> Very sensibly, people won't post much, if at all to
> uk.business.agriculture, because of a totally justified fear of
> attracting abusive stalkers encouraged and egged on by the others.

Bullsh*t Pat, and you know it is. See above.

> I also warn my contacts of the risks. If you recall there have been
> attempts to extract from me, usually by calling me a liar, the names
> of female journalists in Essex.

You are well known to be, shall we say, economical with the truth Pat
and, as regards to your claim above, please give a message reference or
some other identification for any post that supports your claim. You
see Pat, I don't believe you.

> No chance. I will not endanger anyone in that way.

What you mean is that there never was such a journalist.

Always full of reasons not to provide any information that supports
anything you have posted aren't you Pat? Do you wonder why you have
absolutely zero credibility?