Are Andy & Colin being dishonest with their employers?
AMacmil304
would describe as "working hours".
What they do in their own time is their affair, but if they are using their
employer's time and equipment to further their own views it is time to put a
stop to it.
I shall be writing today to the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council
(Andy's Employer) and to the Principal of the Cambs Biotech.(Colin's Employer).
After all, the organisations that these two work for are largely supported by
public money and I do not see why "we" should be paying for their output of
personal views and mistruths.
However I am going to be fair. If they give an assurance that from now on
their works computers will not be used for time consuming personal messages I
shall refrain from writing these letters.
I expect to have a reply by noon today; 6 March 2001.
Neil Jones
amacm...@aol.com "AMacmil304" writes:
>
> I shall be writing today to the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council
> (Andy's Employer) and to the Principal of the Cambs Biotech.(Colin's Employer).
> After all, the organisations that these two work for are largely supported by
> public money and I do not see why "we" should be paying for their output of
> personal views and mistruths.
This is my response. You can try complaining to MY boss. His email
address is at the bottom of this message . :-)
----------------------------------------
FREQUENTLY POSTED RESPONSES TO ANGUS MCMILLAN
Version 3.0
--------------------------------
This FAQ document is meant to introduce readers of this NG
(uk.environment.conservation) and others to points frequently made to
counter the accusations made by Angus McMillan ('Gussy' 'Savethedeer').
Rather than painstakingly going through all of these points every time this
discussion arises, it was suggested to me that compiling this document would
save us all much time and effort.
The format of much of this document is one of quote (from the websites Angus
asks us to visit) followed by response. I won't quote the URL directly,
because the address itself is currently in the legally grey area becoming
known as 'cybersquatting', using the name of the Woodland Trust.
The new section of this document is in a different format, taking some of
the suggested alternatives to culling deer on board and looking at the
available evidence for those techniques.
------------------------------
Quote: They [woodland trust] have authorised the slaughter and butchering of
small family groups of roe deer to protect saplings, despite their
commitment that; "donations will be helping to secure our cherished woodland
and the thousands of creatures that live there".
Response: Any ecologist will tell you the value of preventing any species in
a woodland from getting out of control; if any of the herbivores get too
numerous, the damage done can be tremendous. No figures for population have
been put forward by the gentleman, and until they are his case here is very,
very flimsy. The course he advocates would, by conventional ecological
management, lead to devastation of the woodland.
Some reference to the literature published in this field shows the neccesity
of maintaining an appropriate population:
Buckley GP, Howell R, Watt TA, et al.
Vegetation succession following ride edge management in lowland plantations
and woods .1. The influence of site factors and management practices
BIOL CONSERV 82: (3) 289-304 DEC 1997
(This paper gives us a study of woodland regeneration, particularly
appropriate to this discussion)
"Deer grazing profoundly affected vegetation composition and structure,
greatly reducing tree and shrub regeneration. "
Mayle BA
Progress in predictive management of deer populations in British woodlands
FOREST ECOL MANAG 88: (1-2) 187-198 NOV 1 1996
(This is probably the best study on Deer control. Interestingly, there's
more emphasis on the level of population control than on the neccesity for
population control, the case for the neccesity of control being so strong!)
Kirby KJ, Thomas RC, Dawkins HC
Monitoring of changes in tree and shrub layers in Wytham woods
(Oxfordshire), 1974-1991
FORESTRY 69: (4) 319-334 1996
(Looks at a wood that has basically thinned a little in the time period,
exploring the reasons why. One of the factors was grazing by deer.)
"The shrub cover has also declined greatly, probably because of increased
deer browsing."
Patel A, Rapport DJ
Assessing the impacts of deer browsing, prescribed burns, visitor use, and
trails on an oak-pine forest: Pinery Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada
NAT AREA J 20: (3) 250-260 JUL 2000
(A very good recent study of the effect of high deer population density on
woodland)
"Higher deer densities led to significant declines in species richness, stem
density, cover, and median seedling height."
Scott D, Welch D, Thurlow M, et al.
Regeneration of Pinus sylvestris in a natural pinewood in NE Scotland
following reduction in grazing by Cervus elaphus
FOREST ECOL MANAG 130: (1-3) 199-211 MAY 1 2000
(Looks at whether the initial regeneration of a gap in a forest is affected
by a number of factors. Found that the presence of red deer, grazing the
area, could give saplings a chance of germinating, but did not demonstrate
that those saplings had any increased chance of surviving to adulthood, and
the statistical increase increase in germination is very low).
Jorritsma ITM, van Hees AFM, Mohren GMJ
Forest development in relation to ungulate grazing: a modeling approach
FOREST ECOL MANAG 120: (1-3) 23-34 JUL 12 1999
"The results presented in this paper concern the development of a pine
forest (Pinus sylvestris L.) in the Netherlands under various grazing
pressures over a period of 100 years. They show that even low densities of
ungulates can have significant impacts on the regeneration and thereby on
forest development. it is argued that this approach is generally applicable
in forest grazing research, providing a means for quantitative
interpretation of the interaction between herbivory and forest development"
Radeloff VC, Pidgeon AM, Hostert P
Habitat and population modelling of roe deer using an interactive geographic
information system
ECOL MODEL 114: (2-3) 287-304 JAN 1 1999
(again, doesn't really discuss the proven neccesity of culling, more
discusses the level to which culling is neccesary)
"We describe a model to determine deer population densities compatible with
forest management goals, and to assess harvest rates necessary to maintain
desired deer densities. "
Impact of bark stripping by sika deer, Cervus nippon, on subalpine
coniferous forests in central Japan
Yokoyama N, Maeji I, Ueda T, Ando M, Shibata E
FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
140: (2-3) 93-99 JAN 15 2001
Demonstrated that a major killer of trees was sika deer. By stripping too
much bark, trees died, which led to a long term change in the species of
plants represented in those forests and an overall loss of woodlands.
He's also argued that a good alternative to controlling deer numbers would
be to fence the trees. This is an odd position, considering the weight of
evidence there is to show us what damage this would cause. Examples:
TI: Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus in Scotland - demography of a declining
population
AU: Moss_R, Picozzi_N, Summers_RW, Baines_D
JN: IBIS, 2000, Vol.142, No.2, pp.259-267
Another study, which is extremely damning of deer fencing is...
TI: Assessment of bird collisions with deer fences in Scottish forests
AU: Baines_D, Summers_RW
JN: JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1997, Vol.34, No.4, pp.941-948
I quote this report directly now: "This study adds weight to previous
findings that fences are a frequent cause of mortality in capercaillie", and
"a policy of deer culling to achieve tree regeneration without deer fencing
would be desirable wherever practicable and especially within the range and
main native pinewood habitat of capercaillie".
----------------------------------------
Quote: Rather than taking a cheap and nasty commercial decision to
"intervene" in the lives of roe deer to save money, it should pay for the
protection of its trees.
Response: An option to fencing (which clearly damages endangered, native
birds as explained above) would be protection of individual saplings.
This cost breakdown was obtained from a commercial contractor involved in
such operations;
The huge price difference makes it abundantly clear that we're not looking
at the difference between cheap and expensive planting, the difference
(being nearly 4000 ponds per hectare) is such that little or no tree
planting could occur. In addition, this still does not address the problem
of deer overpopulation, and does not protect plants other than trees from
overgrazing.
Comparitive typical planting costs of 40 - 60 cm. native tree saplings.
All figures at per 1000 rate. Costs may vary according to scale, conditions,
stocking density and management company. Bare planting:
Tree - 40 - 60 cm. 15p
+VAT + delivery
Labour 9p
Profit @ 20% 5p +VAT
29p
Optimum planting density 2250 per ha. @ 29p = £652:50 per ha.
Planting in standard 1.2 m 'tubes' (effective against roe deer)
Tree - 40 - 60 cm. 15p
+VAT + delivery
Standard tube 67p +VAT +
delivery
4'6" planting stake 31p
+VAT + delivery
Labour 45p +VAT
Removal of tube and stake at 5-8 years 11p +VAT
Transport and disposal of tubes. 3p +VAT
Profit @ 20% 34p +VAT
£2:06p
2250 per ha @ £2:06p = £4,635 per ha
Plus environmental costs of tube production and landfill.
Labour costs for replacing any failed trees in years 1 and 2 are also much
higher than for bare planted trees because each tube has to be checked
individually, removed and re-attached during replacement planting.
------------------------------
Quote: This slaughter, euphemistically described as "deer control", is
despicable and dishonest!
Response: Emotional rubbish. Population control is a perfectly acceptable
description of responsible culling.
------------------------------
Quote: They have admitted that they allow traditional fox-hunting with
horses and hounds in about 8% (3500 acres) of their woodlands.
Response: Whatever you think about fox hunting, allowing it in a small part
of your land isn't going to ruin the habitat, and as part of a balanced
management policy doesn't represent an ecological hazard. Indeed, it can be
argued that by giving some financial value to the land hunting can help to
protect the habitat in the long term. However, that is beyond the scope of
this document.
-------------------------------
Quote: By way of a national woodland directory, they encourage a large
number of visitors to travel to, and descend upon, even the smallest of
their woodlands. This has the potential to disturb and destroy animal
habitats, by creating "hot spot" access. It also encourages the use of the
motorcar for non-essential journeys, which is environmentally irresponsible.
Response: This simply isn't true. Sites that need special protection because
they house especially rare species are quite closely protected. While no-one
is suggesting that tourism can't have an adverse effect, it's well worth
remembering that this generation of wealth by a woodland can give it the
economic value that will ultimately protect it from developers. Increasing
public awareness of the value of our few remaining ancient woodlands is just
about the most valuable thing the charity could possibly achieve, and the
only way to do this is by allowing some access. A little look at the site
http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/who/indexfr.htm will reveal the trusts
lobbying policy, it's quite revealing.
---------------------------------
Quote: Their urban woodland scheme known as the "Woods on your Doorstep"
initiative, is capable of destroying many animal habitats by encouraging a
large number of people to venture into locally sensitive areas that were
previously left undisturbed.
Response: The Woods on your Doorstep scheme aims to plant up to 200 -new-
woods in England and Wales. These aren't environmentally sensitive woods
because (1) they're too young, and (2) they are created with the specific
purpose of being accessible. If it wasn't for this project, those woods may
not exist at all.
--------------------------------------
Quote: Poachers come and go with impunity. When a recent incident was
reported, their response was to advise the complainant of the local police
telephone number.
Response: Poaching is an illegal activity. It would make sense to most of us
to report this kind of thing to the police. In their position, knowing that
a second hand report to the police would be less valuable to them than the
witnesses account, I'd have done the same. Someone involved in woodland
management responded to this by pointing out that to confront a poacher who
has a gun, you really have to call the police. When asked for advice on what
to do if confronted with an armed criminal, the police do advise that a
member of the public should not confront the criminal and should call for
the police.
--------------------------------------
Quote: They use "approved" herbicides which they claim are "safe", including
Glyphosate, that can harm wildlife and their habitats.
Glyphosate treatment has reduced populations of beneficial insects, birds,
and small mammals by destroying vegitation on which they depend for food and
shelter.
"Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including
humans", according to the Journal of Pesticide Reform, 1998, Vol18, No3.
Response: The potential damage caused by the glyphosate in regenerating
woodland is less than would be caused by not using glyphosate. That's why
it's used, and it's used widely by a range of organisations, not just the
woodland trust. Glyphosate is widely regarded as one of the safer chemicals
that can be used in environmental management.
I've had real trouble finding the journal of pesticide reform, it isn't
referred to in any scientific databases I've seen. It is in the British
library, but not in any of the research libraries I know. Mr Macmillan has
also failed to give us the publication details when requested.
Examples of research showing the usefulness of this product in woodland
management include:
TI: Control of coppice regrowth in roadside woodlands
AU: Willoughby_I
JN: FORESTRY, 1999, Vol.72, No.4, pp.305-312
A direct quote from this paper: "There was no evidence to suggest any
translocation of herbicides from treated stumps to untreated trees in these
trials"
So it wouldn't appear that any damage is being done here.
Another study is:
TI: A microcosm approach to the detection of the effects of herbicide
spray drift in plant communities
AU: Marrs_RH, Frost_AJ
JN: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 1997, Vol.50, No.4, pp.369- 388
Again, quoting directly: "Although damaging effects were found in the
immediate downwind zone from the sprayer, the restriction of effects to 8 m
suggests that a buffer zone of this size would be adequate to protect
sensitive habitats from most deleterious impacts on community processes".
Essentially, while there can be damage, it's very, very localised, and
within the context of managing the ecosystem as a whole that's perfectly
acceptable. If anyone out there can suggest anything effective that is safer
then I'm sure those involved with managing such habitats would be delighted
to hear.
Here's another reference that I think makes very interesting reading (but
I'm a fungus freak, so it ain't surprising)
TI: Response of microbial processes and fungal community structure to
vegetation management in mixedwood forest soils
AU: Houston_APC, Visser_S, Lautenschlager_RA
JN: CANADIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE BOTANIQUE, 1998,
Vol.76, No.12, pp.2002-2010
While there was an impact on the fungal population, in that the relative
abundancies of different species were affected, "Two years after vegetation
management was imposed there were no detectable effects on basal
respiration, microbial biomass C, qCO(2), CmicCorg, or nitrogen
mineralization in either the organic or mineral soil layers compared with
measurements made in the harvested control plots". So, on the whole, the mid
term effect was minimal.
------------------------------------
Quote: "These statements extolling the benefits of its woodlands for all
forms of wildlife are false, dishonest and misleading, and inconsistent with
the Trust's actions.
(this is one of several accusations that the WT have lied about the actions
they take, or have not been open about their culling policy).
Response: The WT distribute the magaine 'Broadleaf' to their members. The
Spring 2000 issue contained a very relevant article, which included this
passage:
"[Glen Finglas] As in many parts of Scotland, there are too many deer at
present and some are being culled. The population will be reduced to a level
that will allow saplings to grow on and mature replacing the old veteran
trees before the whole wooded landscape disappears. In the long term, the
restored woodland will provide shelter and food for the remaining deer,
which will be better able to survive the biting winter in the glens."
So it is simply erroneous to suggest that the WT are lying about this, they'
ve clearly informed their members about their activities.
------------------------------------
CONTRACEPTION IN WILD DEER
Some commentators have suggested that contraception of wild deer might be a
viable alternative to culling.
A good general review of this topic is;
Theory and practice of immunocontraception in wild mammals
Muller LI, Warren RJ, Evans DL
WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN
25: (2) 504-514 SUM 1997
------------------
GENERAL CONCEPTS
A very good grounding in this area is given by the article:
Effects of fertility control on populations of ungulates: General,
stage-structured models
Hobbs NT, Bowden DC, Baker DL
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
64: (2) 473-491 APR 2000
Quoting the main findings of that paper;
"(1) More than 50% of fertile females will need to be maintained infertile
to achieve meaningful reductions in ungulate numbers even when fertility
rates are low (2) The relationship between the proportion of females maintai
ned infertile and the steady state density is highly nonlinear. This means
that small errors in estimating levels of infertility can lead to large
errors in achieved density. It also means that managers should expect to see
little change in steady-state density across a broad range of delivery
rates. (3) The efficacy of fertility control as a management technique
depends strongly on the persistence of the effect of the fertility control
agent and the ability of managers to recognize previously treated animals.
(4) Fertility control using long-lived agents can be more efficient than
culling in regulating ungulate numbers. (5) Treating small populations with
irreversible agents magnifies the likelihood of population extinction
relative to treatment by culling. As with all techniques, managing
population fertility must extend from a sound understanding of the influence
of management actions on the state and dynamics of the population."
Clearly, such schemes are -just- possible for small scale problems, but
cannot be extended across whole regions. To successfully control a large
population, in a large area, with this kind of technique without massive
fluctuations in the population, enormous cost and tremendous manpower is
going to be practically impossible, and even then very small errors could
lead to losses way out of proportion to what would be expected, ie the risk
factor for the wild population, hence the whole habitat, is too high for
this to be used on a large population..
Another (now somewhat old) article of interest is:
Potential consequences and problems with wildlife contraceptives
Nettles VF
REPRODUCTION FERTILITY AND DEVELOPMENT
9: (1) 137-143 1997
This article is mainly concerned with contraceptive methods other than those
discussed below (PZP and GnRH vaccine), and highlights the problems
associated, such as;
"harmful effects on pregnant animals, inhibition of parturition or dystocia,
changes in ovarian structure or function, changes in sex ratio, changes in
lactation or mammary glands, impact on fertility of young, changes in
testicular structure or function, changes in secondary sex characteristics,
changes in bodyweight, changes in behaviour, changes in annual breeding
season, other physiologic and pathologic changes, abscesses or inflammatory
reactions, toxicity, interference with diagnostic tests and ecological
alterations. Concern is expressed that the use of immunocontraception could
create genetic changes in the target population that would influence disease
resistance".
GNRH VACCINE
GnRH vaccine has been advocated as an appropriate contraceptive agent in
deer by some, but I can find only one paper on this relating to deer;
Immunocontraception of white-tailed deer with GnRH vaccine
Miller LA, Johns BE, Killian GJ
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
44: (5) 266-274 NOV 2000
"Treatment lead to reduced fawning rates, altered estrus behavior, reduced
concentrations of progesterone, contraception and failure to maintain
pregnancy following conception. GnRH immunized does bred to untreated bucks
had an 88% reduction in fawning caused by either immunocontraception or
immunocontragestion. The vaccine effect is reversible, directly related to
the antibody titer. Infertility lasted up to two years without boosting.
GnRH immunized bucks demonstrated no interest in sexual activity when paired
with control females. Depending on the immunization schedule, antlers either
dropped early or remained in velvet."
Although the paper concludes with a statement that this technique is
promising, and can reduce fertility, it fails to discuss the environmental
impact of releasing GnRH into the environment or indeed the health
implications of this for the deer in much depth. I also find the change in
behaviour of the animals to be quite an odd phenomenon, and it's quite
perplexing that such changes (and changes in antler development) would be
considered acceptable in a wild population.
One wonders also what the opinion of many of the proponent of this method
would be if they realised that the likely production method for such a
vaccine would be the use of recombinant (GM) bacteria.
The method of using the GnRH vaccine is also called into doubt by:
Effect of GnRH immunisation on hormonal levels, sexual behaviour, semen
quality and testicular morphology in mature stallions
Malmgren L, Andresen O, Dalin AM
EQUINE VETERINARY JOURNAL
33: (1) 75-83 JAN 2001
This paper shows that there was a pronounced lack of libido (but not total
suppression) in the test animals, and that there was a reduction in
testicular size. Further, the effects of the treatment were found to be
variable between individual animals, in my mind very much calling into
question whether such a practice could be used on a large scale for wild
animals (where close monitoring of individuals is not possible). Indeed, as
long as such variation occurs there must surely be severe animal welfare
concerns for this drug if used on large numbers of wild animals, at least
until more controlled trials are conducted.
Another paper highlighting the problems that would arise if this drug were
used for wild animals is:
The effects of active immunization against GnRH on testicular development,
feedlot performance, and carcass characteristics of beef bulls
Cook RB, Popp JD, Kastelic JP, Robbins S, Harland R
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
78: (11) 2778-2783 NOV 2000
Bulls treated with such a vaccine grew more like steers (castrated bulls),
i.e. more slowly, and the meat had a different consistency. It is therefore
simply wrong to put this method forward as a no-problems panacea for
lowering fertility rates in large numbers of wild animals, the one study
published using this method for wild deer didn't look in any depth at the
effects that have since been observed in other animals.
Note the recency of all of these publications (all within the last few
months). To criticise charitable organisations in the UK for not having been
involved in this yet (a method not even used in any sort of scale in
domestic animals, at least not that I know of) seems a bit harsh.
PZP
Another technique that has attracted a little attention has been the use of
PZP (porcine zona pellucida). This was studied in;
Evaluating immunocontraception for managing suburban white-tailed deer in
Irondequoit, New York
Rudolph BA, Porter WF, Underwood HB
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
64: (2) 463-473 APR 2000
To quote that paper:
"Potential of using immunocontraception at low deer population densities
(<25% ecological carrying capacity) is limited by the interaction of the
proportion of breeding-age females in the population and treatment efficacy,
as well as encounter rates. Immunocontraception has the best potential for
holding suburban deer populations between 30 and 70% of ecological carrying
capacity, but is likely to be useful only in localized populations when the
number of females to be treated is small (e.g., less than or equal to 200
deer)."
Clearly, we're not looking at a technique that could be applied in large
scale population control.
The best general review of this method is:
Possible mechanisms of mammalian immunocontraception
Barber MR, Fayrer-Hosken RA
JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
46: (2) 103-124 MAR 2000
It's clear that although this does show some promise for localised treatment
of some species, (such as the Nature paper below) it's not what we need
right now in the UK to control a huge population of deer.
Immunocontraception of African elephants - A humane method to control
elephant populations without behavioural side effects.
Fayrer-Hosken RA, Grobler D, Van Altena JJ, Bertschinger HJ, Kirkpatrick JF
NATURE
407: (6801) 149-149 SEP 14 2000
PZP has also been demonstrated effective in a small number of Elk (JOURNAL
OF WILDLIFE DISEASES 34: (3) 539-546 JUL 1998, and JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT 62: (1) 243-250 JAN 1998), but again the authors of these studies
strongly recommend that population studies need to be done before this can
seriously be used, and don't suggest that this is used on a large wild
population.
So, to conclude, while there is some scope for using
contraception/immunocontraception, when dealing with a large area and an
enormous population of deer, this is clearly not an option.
--
Neil Jones- Ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
AMacmil304
>From: one_l...@NNNhotmail.com (Pete)
>Date: 06-03-01 11:38 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <3aadc9fa...@news.eidosnet.co.uk>
>
>On 06 Mar 2001 08:28:35 GMT, amacm...@aol.com (AMacmil304) wrote:
>
>>I have noticed that many postings from these two are carried out in what I
>>would describe as "working hours".
>
>troll posting and the other is quite obviously abusing terms of
>service.
>
>>What they do in their own time is their affair, but if they are using their
>>employer's time and equipment to further their own views it is time to put a
>>stop to it.
>
>
>>I shall be writing today to the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council
>>(Andy's Employer) and to the Principal of the Cambs Biotech.(Colin's
>Employer).
>> After all, the organisations that these two work for are largely supported
>by
>>public money and I do not see why "we" should be paying for their output of
>>personal views and mistruths.
>>
>>their works computers will not be used for time consuming personal messages
>I
>>shall refrain from writing these letters.
>>
>>I expect to have a reply by noon today; 6 March 2001.
>
Well Pete, there's been no assurances that they won't use their employer's time
and equipment for peddling their trolls and personal views, so I think the time
to write a coule of letters is here.
Strangely there hasn't been a cheep out of them all day
swroot
> On Tue, 06 Mar 01 16:40:04 GMT, Ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <20010306032835...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
> > amacm...@aol.com "AMacmil304" writes:
> >
> >>
> >> I shall be writing today to the Chief Executive of Birmingham City
> >> Council (Andy's Employer) and to the Principal of the Cambs
> >> Biotech.(Colin's Employer). After all, the organisations that these two
> >> work for are largely supported by public money and I do not see why
> >> "we" should be paying for their output of personal views and mistruths.
> >
> >This is my response. You can try complaining to MY boss. His email
> >address is at the bottom of this message . :-)
>
> Not necessary, your ISP Demon.Co.UK will do.
On what grounds?
regards
sarah
--
'legs to walk and thoughts to fly
eyes to laugh and lips to cry
a restless tongue to classify
all born to grow and grown to die'
Andy Mabbett
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>I have noticed that many postings from these two are carried out in what I
>would describe as "working hours".
You really do appear to be utterly clueless; just because you would
describe something as so, does not make it real, as we have seen many
tomes recently.
>What they do in their own time is their affair,
Quite.
>but if they are using their employer's time and equipment to further
>their own views it is time to put a stop to it.
If Macmillan is sexually molesting goats, it is time to put a stop to
it.
>I shall be writing today to
[my employer]
You will make clear that you have no evidence of wrongdoing, won't you?
You certainly won't be able to include any.
Considering your concerns about public money, you seen oddly ready to
waste some, on a wild goose chase.
> After all, the organisations that these two work for are largely supported by
>public money and I do not see why "we" should be paying for their output
You aren't, you're just making snide and unfounded allegations, again.
>of personal views and mistruths.
What mistruths? Evidence, please. You are the one who has been shown to
be lying here, more than once.
BTW, why won't you retract your previous dishonest allegations about me?
>However I am going to be fair.
No you're not.
> If they give an assurance that from now on
>their works computers will not be used for time consuming personal messages I
>shall refrain from writing these letters.
And who the hell are you to demand such an assurance?
>I expect to have a reply by noon today; 6 March 2001.
That would be fair only to the kind of mind which came up with et
ducking stool as a test of innocence of witchcraft; I saw your post at
about 7.30pm - the only way I would have been able to reply with in your
laughable deadline, would have been by using my employers computer and
account.
You must be really desperate, if this is the best you can do, when
challenged to refute the facts in this FAQ:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/angus.htm
--
Andy Mabbett
Just created:
uk.current-events.foot-and-mouth
Andy Mabbett
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>Strangely there hasn't been a cheep out of them all day
Of course not - I've been at work.
Andy Mabbett
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>I saw your post at about 7.30pm
6.30pm
The new Savethedeer
>On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:59:19 -0000, "Colin A. B. Davidson"
><c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>This is the latest version of the FAQ document containing refutations of
>>Angus's points.
[nearly all of Colin's document and Pete's replies snipped]
>please give us checkable proof online of where you obtained this
>misinformation, note online checkable not from some obscure leaflet in
>a dentists surgery.
and
>document
>conveniently unavailable online so we cant check the content even
>exists, a handy tool the poster of this frequently uses.
and again
>document conveniently unavailable online so we cant check
>the content even exists, a handy tool the poster of this frequently
>uses to substantiate his untrue claims on angus.
What do you mean "cant check the content even exists"? Don't they have
public libraries where you live?
(Actually, I wouldn't be all that surprised if the material _was_ available
online, but on a subscription service- a good town-centre reference library
might even subscribe, which would save you time)
>If I may quote a little on the subject
[1998 New Scientist article mostly snipped, except:]
>Landowners regard fences as a simpler and cheaper solution than the
>alternative advocated by conservationists-shooting large numbers of
>deer.
>
>The number of collisions can be reduced if fences are hung with strips
>of orange netting, the researchers say.
So why do conservationists have such a grudge against deer? Is almost every
practical conservationist motivated by blood-lust?
>>I've had real trouble finding the journal of pesticide reform, it isn't
>>referred to in any scientific databases I've seen. It is in the British
>>library, but not in any of the research libraries I know.
Oh blimey, Colin wrote that bit- it looks as if you caught the "cant check"
disease off him
swroot
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:36:42 +0000, swr...@farm-direct.co.uk (swroot)
> wrote:
>
> >Pete <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 06 Mar 01 16:40:04 GMT, Ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <20010306032835...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
> >> > amacm...@aol.com "AMacmil304" writes:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I shall be writing today to the Chief Executive of Birmingham City
> >> >> Council (Andy's Employer) and to the Principal of the Cambs
> >> >> Biotech.(Colin's Employer). After all, the organisations that these two
> >> >> work for are largely supported by public money and I do not see why
> >> >> "we" should be paying for their output of personal views and mistruths.
> >> >
> >> >This is my response. You can try complaining to MY boss. His email
> >> >address is at the bottom of this message . :-)
> >>
> >> Not necessary, your ISP Demon.Co.UK will do.
> >
> >On what grounds?
> >
> >regards
> >sarah
>
>
> Posting an article designed to deceive as an FAQ for this group
>
> against the spirit of the group.
>
> to discredit a legitimate user of this group without basis or
> justification.
>
> and to inflame an already volatile situation merely adding flames to
> the fire.
>
> by his comment
The above points are a matter of opinion rather than fact: there's
certainly no grounds for a complaint to Demon.
As far as I'm concerned you and Angus are far more offensive than Colin.
But I think that's the intention, isn't it?
> >> >This is my response. You can try complaining to MY boss. His email
> >> >address is at the bottom of this message . :-)
>
> he was suggesting sending an email to himself which was not quite what
> the original post was about, I merely suggested if anyone did have a
> complaint to send it to his ISP instead where I am sure it would be
> dealt with legitimately if anyone did have a complaint about Neil.
>
>
> The frivolous and defamatory FAQ was discredited many times as such, a
> copy of the post I place here for your perusal.
I'd read it before.
AMacmil304
>Subject: Re: Are Andy & Colin being dishonest with their employers?
>From: Ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk (Neil Jones)
>Date: 06-03-01 16:40 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <983896...@nwjones.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <20010306032835...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
> amacm...@aol.com "AMacmil304" writes:
>
>>
>> I shall be writing today to the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council
>> (Andy's Employer) and to the Principal of the Cambs Biotech.(Colin's
>Employer).
>> After all, the organisations that these two work for are largely supported
>by
>> public money and I do not see why "we" should be paying for their output of
>> personal views and mistruths.
>
>This is my response. You can try complaining to MY boss. His email
>address is at the bottom of this message . :-)
Go on, stamp your foot as well. Quite a childish response!
AMacmil304
>Date: 06-03-01 18:42 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <6Sbc9wCk...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Andy, you're losing the plot! Calm down.
You're ramblings are getting even more disjointed and plain stupid.
Good to see that you're using your own time to post messages and hopefully will
not be costing your employer for reading time, thinking time, writing time, and
Internet access costs.
Angus Macmillan.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010306123826...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
>
> Well Pete, there's been no assurances that they won't use their employer's
time
> and equipment for peddling their trolls and personal views, so I think the
time
> to write a coule of letters is here.
>
> Strangely there hasn't been a cheep out of them all day
Actually, no. I just didn't think that your threat worthy of response. I did
send you an email to try to appease the situation (I've -never- seen a need
for this much agro in a discussion that is essentially a scientific one),
but it looks quite clear you're not interested in that.
Colin A. B. Davidson
> Andy, you're losing the plot! Calm down.
> You're ramblings are getting even more disjointed and plain stupid.
>
> Good to see that you're using your own time to post messages and hopefully
will
> not be costing your employer for reading time, thinking time, writing
time, and
> Internet access costs.
Replying to your arguments doesn't take a great deal (if any) thinking time
if one is already familiar with the subject.
Technically, I'm sure a solicitor could have a damn good go at sorting you
for this kind of harassment. I just don't think you're worth it.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Andy Mabbett" <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:6Sbc9wCk...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
> >but if they are using their employer's time and equipment to further
> >their own views it is time to put a stop to it.
hehe. And next time I give my boss at 8:30 AM results I got in the lab in
the lab at 9:00 PM the night before, I'm sure we'll have a damn good laugh
about this accusation:)
AMacmil304
>Date: 07-03-01 07:41 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <1epvd9e.rkf8321t04ok0N%swr...@farm-direct.co.uk>
I think Neil's contribution was just a foot stamping exercise, and trying to
make a point.
If I have to take some abuse and fight court proceedings to try to protect
wildlife from the actions of the Woodland Trust then I am delighted to do so.
But I will give back as good as I get and that might be interpreted by you as
being more abusive than Andy. But, just compare Andy's posting this morning to
my response.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3aa90477...@news.eidosnet.co.uk...
>
> Oh look, at last colin you have seen the light but there is always a
> sting in the tail with you.
>
> Let it drop, accept other people's rights to their own opinion, if you
> don't like someone here you don't have to fight with them all, ignore
> them.
>
Why do you assume that by expressing a contrary opinion I am expressing that
I do not accept anothers right to their opinion?
> the group will benefit greatly if you stop the aggro now so please do.
>
I have -never- posted simple abuse her, I have never threatened anyone, I am
not someone who dishes out 'aggro'.
> oops kf not working here!!! actually I am on another machine in
> another office and have not got round to sticking you in it, I shall
> give you the benefit of the doubt and delay it a little.
>
> I do miss all the posts here I hate kf people in fact you, andy and
> janet, are the only ones I have done it too in years, the peace was
> instant, I certainly do not have time to be fighting silly battles
> even if you do.
Really, whether you killfile me or not is of no interest to me.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
> He does have a point tho if you are fighting people on newsgroups in
> company or state subsidised time, just another reason to stop it all I
> guess.
Not really. My hours, being a microbiologist, are long. By definition. And
by definition include many short periods of dead time. My total work output
is more than respectable, his criticism is based upon the false assumption
that I am in some way robbing my employer; in fact my empliyer gets way more
than enough hours out of me.
AMacmil304
>Date: 07-03-01 10:23 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <98522f$se7$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
I don't think that this issue will be up to a decision by your immediate boss.
If at all, it will probably be from well above him.
I get the impression from you that you think you have a right to use your
employer's equipment and time for personal use. Am I correct in this?
Colin A. B. Davidson
> I don't think that this issue will be up to a decision by your immediate
boss.
> If at all, it will probably be from well above him.
>
> I get the impression from you that you think you have a right to use your
> employer's equipment and time for personal use. Am I correct in this?
According to our local rules, I am.
Malcolm Hayes
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> oops kf not working here!!! actually I am on another machine in
> another office and have not got round to sticking you in it, I shall
> give you the benefit of the doubt and delay it a little.
>
> I do miss all the posts here I hate kf people in fact you, andy and
> janet, are the only ones I have done it too in years, the peace was
> instant, I certainly do not have time to be fighting silly battles
> even if you do.
>
>
>
> If you must email please remove
> spamblock NNN 1st. thanks
> -------------------------------
Now, who was complaining about people abusing their work/office connections?
MalcolmX
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
> All companies would usually allow use of the PC services in break
> times, but not on a full time basis and certainly not when they risk
> bringing the owners into disrepute by using their machines for troll
> activities, I know I would be unimpressed if I found out my loyal
> members of staff were fighting wars on the internet in my time and
> with my equipment.
The only people who have expressed an opinion that -anything- disreputable
is going on here are you and Angus. Looking at postings from other people, I
see that there's little consensus for your opinion that this is
disreputable. I've not been abusive, and certainly (unlike you) I've never
threatened violence. Nor have I misused my facilities at work in any way.
You're simply barking up the wrong tree with this one, it all looks like a
shameless attempt to silence someone on the grounds you both disagree with
him.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
> Still trying to enflame the situation.
>
Not at all, I'd very much like to calm it down. Back to the points, eh? With
me on that?
> >The only people who have expressed an opinion that -anything-
disreputable
> >is going on here are you and Angus. Looking at postings from other
people, I
> >see that there's little consensus for your opinion that this is
> >disreputable.
>
> The group is pretty much dead because of your and others attacks on
> people voicing their views, do you really think this group or any
> other support you in that?........what we want is peace and adult
> discussion, not you to keep fanning the flames you send.
>
Please, demonstrate where I've 'attacked' a person, as opposed to expressing
and explaining a differing view? This simply ahs not happened.
> >I've not been abusive, and certainly (unlike you) I've never
> >threatened violence.
>
> I for one consider your posts to be very offensive.
Mmmh hm. You for one.
>
> So, lets see if we can discredit this malicious statement of yours
> where I am supposed to have threatened violence on someone.
>
> please quote the whole article or articles you refer to and do not as
> usual try to quote them out of context, once I have shown you to once
> again not be telling quite the truth, I shall be sending a complaint
> to your ISP, I for one do not like libelous untruths being made public
> about me. thank you.
>
> I await expectantly.
>
Well, here's one where you advocate threatening people with a gun, and I'll
add that this one is particularly creepy;
"Pete" <one_love20@....hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a9fa1e5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> God has nothing to do with it, these attitudes are fed by blind
> ignorance from people who think the world is here for their conceited
> pleasure..............threaten them with a gun they'll soon realise
> it's not a very nice thing to happen.........never mind all the
> rubbish about clean kills, humane and all that.
>
But this is the one that has been interpreted by many people here as a clear
threat;
> In article <3aa16f5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Pete
> <one_love20@?.?.?.?.?.?.hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >Abuse ravings?...........my you have lived a sheltered life, let me
> >edificate you prize winning beaver consultant.
> >
> >If you question a mans character with diatribe, snidey remarks etc,
> >etc,...........best that happens is you get your national health teeth
> >kicked in, however your knowledge of real life is not so limited that
> >you do that in real life, you hide behind the anonymity of the
> >internet, therefore people give you back as good as they
> >get......savvy..............now if you canna live with that me ole
> >chum, I suggest you move along and take some lessons in real life.
Looks very much like one to me still, and I it was interpreted as such by
Janet, Malcolm and (from the tone of one of his messages) Roger Mills. (If
I've misrepresented you here Roger, let me know and I'll take that back)
But, if you really want, if you'll say that you'll not threaten violence
again, then we'll let both of these drop, there's nothing to be gained from
degenerating to threats.
> No one, no one here need ever be silenced or feel so, I would defend
> anyones right to free speech if held in a civil tongue, I certainly
> actively seek civil discussion on any subject with any view, I respect
> the lot, what I do not respect is your,and others vicious, nasty,
> vindictive campaign against certain individuals here who choose not to
> agree with your views, we are each entitled to a view and each should
> respect it, and that would be the end, whilst you and others choose to
> carry on this campaign against innocent people, we will always defend
> their, mine or anyones right to free speech.
So why is it that you view me posting a counter view to his to be somehow in
violation of his right to free speech? I haven't dished out tons of personal
abuse, I haven't lied, and I haven't made up a single fact. Why do you view
my arguing against Angus as vindictive? When have I threatened him in any
way outside this arena for discussion? He posts reference to the web-sites
containig his main points, frequently, and I have compiled a collection of
the typical sort of responses. When it's been updated I've posted the
updated version. How have my actions been demostrably vendictive or
disreputable?
You seem to be all for defending the rights of free speech of one person by
suppressing the right of another to argue against him. Doesn't seem awfully
logical.
I really don't have any reason to continue a discussion with you. If you're
going to fall into this confrontational mode every time I try to get back to
the issues (I have replied in depth to your comments on the 'FAQ') then
there's nothing to be gained from this.
I'd -like- you to respond to my comments on your response to the 'FAQ',
after all you did raise some interesting points that were worth thinking
about, but not if this is the level of argument I'm going to get. Lets get
back on topic, eh?
swroot
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 07:41:36 +0000, swr...@farm-direct.co.uk (swroot)
> wrote:
>
> <snip false group FAQ facts>
>
> >As far as I'm concerned you and Angus are far more offensive than Colin.
> >But I think that's the intention, isn't it?
>
> Not really worthy of an answer is it?....I have opinions on everyone
> and everything but in civilsed society it is often better to keep them
> to oneself, in your case apparently not, are you happy to see the
> group as a battleground?
No. But I wouldn't wish to see your fallacious arguments allowed to
stand unchallenged, either.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"swroot" <swr...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1epwey5.176pf6v19k9eoeN%swr...@farm-direct.co.uk...
> No. But I wouldn't wish to see your fallacious arguments allowed to
> stand unchallenged, either.
And there's the crunch. None of us want this to be a battlefield, but other
than simply ignoring the claims made here by (certain individuals), which
isn't neccesarily a good option, what can we do?
Of course, we -could- all just have a concerted effort to ignore (certain
individuals)?
Roger Mills
> Looks very much like one to me still, and I it was interpreted as such by
> Janet, Malcolm and (from the tone of one of his messages) Roger Mills. (If
> I've misrepresented you here Roger, let me know and I'll take that back)
Nothing "mis-" about your interpretation, Colin!
Andy Mabbett
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
[untrimmed quote of entire post]
You will find a useful primer on how to post to Usenet properly at:
http://www.star-one.org.uk/computer/format.htm
Excepted from rfc1855
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
Why are you so discourteous to others?
[more baseless abuse]
>Good to see that you're using your own time to post messages
Yes. And..?
>and hopefully will not be costing your employer for reading time,
>thinking time, writing time, and Internet access costs.
My employers pay me quite well for the time I spend reading, thinking
and writing. The provide me with super- fast 'Net access, too.
Andy Mabbett
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>that might be interpreted by you as being more abusive than Andy.
You generally are.
>But, just compare Andy's posting this morning to my response.
Me? I didn't make post anything this morning; once again, you appear to
be totally detached from reality. If you wish to refer to posts, quote
MIDs.
Andy Mabbett
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>Quite a childish response!
Good of you to admit it.
AMacmil304
>From: "Colin A. B. Davidson" c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk
>Message-id: <985top$qs9$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
Great idea, Colin. I never asked for all this nonsense. All I am doing is
informing the publicabout the activities of the Woodland Trust in my websites.
AMacmil304
>From: "Colin A. B. Davidson" c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk
>Message-id: <985eqj$cdm$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
>You're simply barking up the wrong tree with this one, it all looks like a
>shameless attempt to silence someone on the grounds you both disagree with
>him.
Wow! this seems to be what the Woodland Trust is trying to do to me.
Perhaps its your turn to look up "hypocrit" in the dictionary. Please remember
that you told me to do that some time ago.
Andy Mabbett
<c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes
>Please, demonstrate where I've 'attacked' a person, as opposed to
>expressing and explaining a differing view? This simply ahs not
>happened.
Unlike the abuse posted by Pete & Macmillan. Who was it, again, who
threw the "get a girlfriend" comments around?
Andy Mabbett
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>All I am doing
>is informing the publicabout the activities of the Woodland Trust in my
>websites.
Websites which have been thoroughly refuted, in the FAQ:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/angus.htm
swroot
I think that might be best in the long term.
I'm virtually certain Pete is a troll, and Angus -- well, at best he's a
nuisance. Perhaps post the MacFAQ once a fortnight for as long as he's
active? Other than that... into the killfile 'forever'. And any alias
under which they appear :-)
regards
swroot
> I think Neil's contribution was just a foot stamping exercise, and trying to
> make a point.
>
> If I have to take some abuse and fight court proceedings to try to protect
> wildlife from the actions of the Woodland Trust then I am delighted to do so.
Angus, from what I have seen your arguments regarding this matter are
unscientific, founded at best on uninformed emotion. They carry no
weight with me and I wish the WT every success in countering them.
> But I will give back as good as I get and that might be interpreted by you
> as being more abusive than Andy. But, just compare Andy's posting this
> morning to
> my response.
Andy (Mabbett) has his own idiosyncracies. If you were to drop your
one-man crusade against the WT's perfectly reasonably anti-deer
management policies I'm sure the rest of us would be only too happy to
leave you alone.
I plan to leave you alone in any case.
good bye
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
> what I will agree is, you don't attack peoples character here
> including mine and I'll not defend them and the right to their own
> views.
I really can't be bothered with you. I'm not getting into a flame way with
you when at the end of the day you don't answer on topic points.
Colin A. B. Davidson
> I think that might be best in the long term.
>
> I'm virtually certain Pete is a troll, and Angus -- well, at best he's a
> nuisance. Perhaps post the MacFAQ once a fortnight for as long as he's
> active? Other than that... into the killfile 'forever'. And any alias
> under which they appear :-)
A good plan, Sarah. Post the URL for the FAQ in response and ignore further
comments until such a time as something new is raised?
Colin A. B. Davidson
> Wow! this seems to be what the Woodland Trust is trying to do to me.
>
> Perhaps its your turn to look up "hypocrit" in the dictionary. Please
remember
> that you told me to do that some time ago.
Errm, why do you link any of the WT'sactivities with me? I'm not a member,
have no links to that organisation, and don't speak for them. It would
appear that although you're now using the word, you still ned to brush up on
the old definition.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Untrue, that is a valid website with very good points the FAQ you
> refer to, your own personal FAQ is certainly not the FAQ for this
> group and certainly was never created in the spirit of this group.,
> all the points in it have been discredited already as is shown in the
> following copy, it is a personal assault on the character of one of
> our nicest users to this group, written by a known troll out to
> disrupt normal newsgroup etiquette.
You seem to have posted the same counter argument to the fAQ again, without
addressing the comments that have been made thereof.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
> Oh yeah right, as if, this is nothing to do with the Deer ole WT, this
> is a vindictive attack and concerted effort on the part of some very,
> very small minded people such as yourself to relive us of our freedom
> to speech.
Pete, no-one is trying to relieve you of your freedome of speech. By posting
a counter argument to your points we are sisagreeing with you, not
suppressing you.
> At last, a serious reduction in junk posts is in the offing, not that
> you ever contributed much of value even for the argument.
That's unfair, really, Sarah is an infrequent poster but without doubt a
valued one.
AMacmil304
>Date: 07-03-01 22:07 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <4D$GqNA9E...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <3aada84b...@pubnews.netcom.net.uk>, Pete
><one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> writes
>>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:53:19 +0000, Malcolm <mal...@ogilvie.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>If you are a great advocate of non-violence, why is it that violence
>>>gets a mention at all in your posts?
>>
>>That's life.
>>
>That's *your* life, it seems.
>
>>>In the years I have been subscribing to this newsgroup, no-one that I
>>>can remember has ever brought in remarks such as kicking in teeth or
>>>threatening with a gun. I think you therefore have to ask yourself why
>>>these images appear in your mind and get translated into words. This
>>>would not happen to a truly non-violent person.
>>
>>Don't be silly malcolm they were completely innocent remarks and you
>>well know it, so much for you not wanting to continue to fan the
>>flames eh? well that's fine by me.
>>
>But you still haven't explained why you needed to introduce violent
>imagery into your posts. Is this normal with you or your subconscious
>taking over? Whichever it was, they were *not* innocent remarks. How
>could they be, with talk of kicking in teeth and threatening with guns.
>What is innocent about that?
>
>>>One of the remarks above was directed at me without the slightest
>>>justification. Think about what you write, Pete, preferably before you
>>>write it and then this newsgroup might return to being the pleasant
>>>place it used to be where, yes, people could disagree, even strongly
>>>disagree, but no-one, until you came along, was so free with their abuse
>>>or introduced the slightest mention of physical violence against other
>>>posters.
>>
>>Out and out kobblas, this all started out in your case because I told
>>you what to do with your self opinionated garbage about my surname,
>>you didn't like it and attacked me ever since I merely defended
>>myself, that's life.
>>
>So you admit that you defended yourself with threats of violence.
>Thanks, I've noted that, as well as the fact that you've never been
>attacked with violence on this newsgroup. Does this sum up your
>personality?
>
>--
>Malcolm
There have been many supporting views of violence on this ng; including your
own support of violence against roe deer.
swroot
Something like that. A sentence or two:
'The points which Angus Macmillan [and ... would you wish to mention
Pete?] raise/s regarding the manner in which the Woodland Trust controls
deer populations in woodland are demonstrably inaccurate and
unscientific.
Those who are interested may view the detailed refutations at <URL>.'
One could add a humorous comment asking that readers refrain from
further discussion of the topic... perhaps one could arrange creation of
alt.uk.environment.conservation[1] and redirect discussion there?
[1] I thought of some more appropriate... well, wittier names, but
decided it would be childish to suggest them.
;-)
swroot
Why, thank you, sir. A compliment from you is a compliment indeed!
But given that I've said virtually nothing regarding Angus' and Pete's
fixations of late, the insults hurled my way reveal more about them than
about me :-)
usenet: love it or leave it
*sigh*
regards
Roger Mills
As peace doesn't seem to be about to break out otherwise, it's a necessary
plan. Looks like a good wording to me, sarah.
Probably better to leave "Pete" out as he rarely talks about the WT and,
anyway, seems to change posting identities daily. I count 5 in the last 4
days.
AMacmil304
>From: Malcolm mal...@ogilvie.org
>Message-id: <SNTspqCM...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20010308041712...@ng-mp1.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>There have been many supporting views of violence on this ng; including your
>>own support of violence against roe deer.
>>
>
>--
>Malcolm
Copycat!
Colin A. B. Davidson
> Something like that. A sentence or two:
>
> 'The points which Angus Macmillan [and ... would you wish to mention
> Pete?] raise/s regarding the manner in which the Woodland Trust controls
> deer populations in woodland are demonstrably inaccurate and
> unscientific.
(further explanation cut for brevity)
A splendid plan. Well, if you guys are game we'll go with that then.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Roger Mills" <san...@firewallXL5.com> wrote in message
news:987t7h$8ig$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> As peace doesn't seem to be about to break out otherwise, it's a necessary
> plan. Looks like a good wording to me, sarah.
>
> Probably better to leave "Pete" out as he rarely talks about the WT and,
> anyway, seems to change posting identities daily. I count 5 in the last 4
> days.
Really? Which ones?
AMacmil304
>Date: 08-03-01 08:54 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <987h80$aqr$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
I don't know what you mean by the "old definition" but I seem to remember that
the Hypocrites were a tribe of arabs who sought to please everybody in the time
of Mahommet. I think they were cast out into the desert from Mecca or Medina,
but I'm not sure and can't be bothered to look it up.
BTW after receiving you e-mail yesterday about how shocked you were that I
would write to you superiors about your using your employers time and equipment
to post personal messages, I have decided to leave it meantime and see how
things develop.
I hope you see that I am not taking the same line as the Woodland Trust, of
attempting to shut up the opposition - not yet anyhow!
AMacmil304
>Date: 08-03-01 07:59 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <1epxxx5.1ce2jsv14xy3viN%swr...@farm-direct.co.uk>
>
>AMacmil304 <amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I think Neil's contribution was just a foot stamping exercise, and trying
>to
>> make a point.
>>
>> If I have to take some abuse and fight court proceedings to try to protect
>> wildlife from the actions of the Woodland Trust then I am delighted to do
>so.
>
>Angus, from what I have seen your arguments regarding this matter are
>unscientific, founded at best on uninformed emotion. They carry no
>weight with me and I wish the WT every success in countering them.
>
>
>> But I will give back as good as I get and that might be interpreted by you
>> as being more abusive than Andy. But, just compare Andy's posting this
>> morning to
>> my response.
>
>Andy (Mabbett) has his own idiosyncracies. If you were to drop your
>one-man crusade against the WT's perfectly reasonably anti-deer
>management policies I'm sure the rest of us would be only too happy to
>leave you alone.
>
>I plan to leave you alone in any case.
>
>good bye
>
>sarah
Phew! What a relief!
AMacmil304
>Subject: Re: Are Andy & Colin being dishonest with their employers?
>From: swr...@farm-direct.co.uk (swroot)
>Date: 08-03-01 11:51 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <1epy7oe.1yrkxqvl7dwyhN%swr...@farm-direct.co.uk>
My, that didn't last! I thought you said you'd leave me alone.
Four hours later you're back, using my name in vain
Not a woman of your word, thinks I.
Andy Mabbett
<swr...@farm-direct.co.uk> writes
>the insults hurled my way reveal more about them than
>about me :-)
That's true in many cases.
swroot
Killfile on the count of three...
One
Two
Three!
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
> I wouldn't, you can bet he has written many times to your ISP to
> discredit you, many times.
>
Actually no, I've never complained about anyone to any ISP ever.
Andy Mabbett
<c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes
>it all looks like a shameless attempt to silence someone on the grounds
>you both disagree with him.
Not for the first time. Remember this:
-----Original message-----
Subject: Angus Macmillan
Newsgroups: uk.rec.natural-history, uk.rec.birdwatching,
uk.environment.conservation, uk.legal, alt.politics.british
From: Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:18:18 +0100
Message-ID: <5ybGN8Bq...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>
A couple of weeks ago, having read the following three posts
(superfluous headers removed for brevity; line lengths adjusted):
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
1.
From: amacm...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Subject: Re: BLAIR HANDS BEEF VICTORY TO FROGS
Date: 04 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19991104130107...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
Newsgroups: uk.legal
>Subject: BLAIR HANDS BEEF VICTORY TO FROGS
>From: Bob b...@bscserv.com
>It comes as no surprise, therefore, that his homosexual
>Agriculture Minister, Brown, has allowed the French to demand
>yet more irrelevant test for BSE on British beef. Blair and
>his gang of pretend socialists (they are Stalinsts in drag)
>have contrived a means to harm British interests further -
>whilst declining utterly to stand up
YES!! and it looks as if their action of "support" for this
country is just as "queer" as Brown's sexual preferences.
Did he change his name by deed pole?
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
2.
From: amacm...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality is an abomination
Date: 22 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000122152148...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british
>James Steel "101733,3653"@compuserve.com
>Date: Sat, 22 January 2000 09:07 AM EST
>Message-id: <3889B9...@compuserve.com>
Says,
>The promotion of this on the internet and our schools
>is a descent into the abyss
You are quite right!
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
3.
From: amacm...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
Subject: Re: Should homosexuality be banned?
Date: 05 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000105150353...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british
In one word; YES!
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
I wrote, in article <p6SCfuAk...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>:
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
>You might think he's a "single issue" campaigner,
>but:
>
> Message-ID: <19991104130107...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
> Message-ID: <20000122152148...@ng-bk1.aol.com
>and Message-ID: <20000105150353...@ng-cm1.aol.com
>
>indicate that he's also a homophobic bigot.
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
and have since referred to, and called, that poster a homophobic bigot,
in :
Message-ID: <+Ft3gRFJ...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BTaYVIBd...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <acou24DS...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>
He, Angus Macmillan, has now written to me to say:
In recent days a number of offensive claims against me have been
made by some people including yourself.
On a number of occations (sic) you claim that I am a "homophobic
bigot" presumably from your mistaken interpretation of reports I
have made in my Crimeloch Website.
I have passed these postings along with those of others to my
solicitors for comment and evaluation.
If you are prepared to post a full retraction of your
accusations on all of the relevant newsgroups, please let me
know by e-mail as soon as possible.
As can be clearly seen from my post, quoted above, Macmillan is
completely wrong in his assumption that my comments resulted from
anything written on his website, which I only visited, briefly, some
time ago, and on which I recall seeing nothing whatsoever about
Homosexuality. (I wonder what he has on that site, which he thinks I
might have interpreted as being homophobic or bigoted?)
However, since I am disinclined to conduct tiresome and expensive
litigation, I hereby fully retract, though without any admission of
liability, my accusation that Macmillan is a "homophobic bigot".
Further more, I am at a complete loss to explain how I, or indeed any
rationally- thinking person, could have come to the conclusion that he
is a homophobic bigot, having read the above quoted posts, apparently
made in his name. The New Oxford Dictionary of English gives:
homophobia: extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality
and homosexual people [homophobic - adjective]
bigot: a person who is bigoted [bigoted - obstinately
convinced of the superiority or correctness of
one's own opinions and prejudiced against those
who hold different opinions]
So, nothing remotely relevant there, then.
As an act of contrition, of my own volition and without any prompting
from Macmillan, I will be making a donation of GBP 20 to two of my
favourite registered charities: GBP 10 to the Woodland Trust, and GBP 10
to the RSPB. Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to post their web and
postal addresses?
-----End of original message from Andy Mabbett-----