Justice too!

[Malcolm]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-back-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

[a***@aol.com]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-back-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

The important part of the article is:

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."

The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."

While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."


So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-back-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

[BAC]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

<snip>

They will be controlled by competitors and predators in their native
range, but not where they have been introduced.

Don't worry, the bullfrogs, terrapins, mitten crabs and mink will soon take
care of them :-)

[a***@aol.com]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-back-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native. Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.

What more invasive species is there than humans?

Is this another question that will go unanswered?

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-back-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Except that the article wasn't ludicrous, but stated some facts about
signal crayfish which you clearly find unpalatable :-)

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native.

Invasive non-natives are very obviously NOT being controlled, hence they
become invasive. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Post by a***@aol.com
Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.
What more invasive species is there than humans?
Is this another question that will go unanswered?

It's irrelevant to a discussion about crayfish.

[a***@aol.com]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:14:45 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-back-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Except that the article wasn't ludicrous, but stated some facts about
signal crayfish which you clearly find unpalatable :-)

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native.

Invasive non-natives are very obviously NOT being controlled, hence they
become invasive. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Absolute garbage! Over time an equilibrium will be reached.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.
What more invasive species is there than humans?
Is this another question that will go unanswered?

It's irrelevant to a discussion about crayfish.

It's not irrelevant about invasive species and obviously another
question you can't answer.

So, what more invasive species is there than humans?

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:14:45 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-back-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Except that the article wasn't ludicrous, but stated some facts about
signal crayfish which you clearly find unpalatable :-)

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native.

Invasive non-natives are very obviously NOT being controlled, hence they
become invasive. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Absolute garbage! Over time an equilibrium will be reached.

But not, if you had read what I wrote (oh yes, and understood it),
BEFORE they have become invasive, which also means that they will have
had a massive negative effect on native species and habitats. Are you in
favour of signal crayfish or mitten crabs damaging the banks of canals
and rivers, or of mink wiping out breeding ducks, gulls and terns, or of
Japanese knotweed smothering our native vegetation, or of losing our
native frogs and toad to the American bullfrog's appetite and the
disease that it carries? I won't mention grey squirrel, because you
have already intimated that you couldn't care less if the red squirrel
becomes extinct :-(

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.
What more invasive species is there than humans?
Is this another question that will go unanswered?

It's irrelevant to a discussion about crayfish.

It's not irrelevant about invasive species and obviously another
question you can't answer.

It is irrelevant to a discussion of invasive non-native species.

Post by a***@aol.com
So, what more invasive species is there than humans?

Irrelevant.

[a***@aol.com]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:12:25 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:14:45 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-back-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Except that the article wasn't ludicrous, but stated some facts about
signal crayfish which you clearly find unpalatable :-)

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native.

Invasive non-natives are very obviously NOT being controlled, hence they
become invasive. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Absolute garbage! Over time an equilibrium will be reached.

But not, if you had read what I wrote (oh yes, and understood it),
BEFORE they have become invasive, which also means that they will have
had a massive negative effect on native species and habitats. Are you in
favour of signal crayfish or mitten crabs damaging the banks of canals
and rivers, or of mink wiping out breeding ducks, gulls and terns, or of
Japanese knotweed smothering our native vegetation, or of losing our
native frogs and toad to the American bullfrog's appetite and the
disease that it carries? I won't mention grey squirrel, because you
have already intimated that you couldn't care less if the red squirrel
becomes extinct :-(

If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.
What more invasive species is there than humans?
Is this another question that will go unanswered?

It's irrelevant to a discussion about crayfish.

It's not irrelevant about invasive species and obviously another
question you can't answer.

It is irrelevant to a discussion of invasive non-native species.

Post by a***@aol.com
So, what more invasive species is there than humans?

Irrelevant.

It's very much relevant.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:12:25 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:14:45 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-ba
ck-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Except that the article wasn't ludicrous, but stated some facts about
signal crayfish which you clearly find unpalatable :-)

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native.

Invasive non-natives are very obviously NOT being controlled, hence they
become invasive. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Absolute garbage! Over time an equilibrium will be reached.

But not, if you had read what I wrote (oh yes, and understood it),
BEFORE they have become invasive, which also means that they will have
had a massive negative effect on native species and habitats. Are you in
favour of signal crayfish or mitten crabs damaging the banks of canals
and rivers, or of mink wiping out breeding ducks, gulls and terns, or of
Japanese knotweed smothering our native vegetation, or of losing our
native frogs and toad to the American bullfrog's appetite and the
disease that it carries? I won't mention grey squirrel, because you
have already intimated that you couldn't care less if the red squirrel
becomes extinct :-(

If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.
What more invasive species is there than humans?
Is this another question that will go unanswered?

It's irrelevant to a discussion about crayfish.

It's not irrelevant about invasive species and obviously another
question you can't answer.

It is irrelevant to a discussion of invasive non-native species.

Post by a***@aol.com
So, what more invasive species is there than humans?

Irrelevant.

It's very much relevant.

Not in a thread about signal crayfish.

[a***@aol.com]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:12:25 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:14:45 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-ba
ck-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Except that the article wasn't ludicrous, but stated some facts about
signal crayfish which you clearly find unpalatable :-)

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native.

Invasive non-natives are very obviously NOT being controlled, hence they
become invasive. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Absolute garbage! Over time an equilibrium will be reached.

But not, if you had read what I wrote (oh yes, and understood it),
BEFORE they have become invasive, which also means that they will have
had a massive negative effect on native species and habitats. Are you in
favour of signal crayfish or mitten crabs damaging the banks of canals
and rivers, or of mink wiping out breeding ducks, gulls and terns, or of
Japanese knotweed smothering our native vegetation, or of losing our
native frogs and toad to the American bullfrog's appetite and the
disease that it carries? I won't mention grey squirrel, because you
have already intimated that you couldn't care less if the red squirrel
becomes extinct :-(

If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.
What more invasive species is there than humans?
Is this another question that will go unanswered?

It's irrelevant to a discussion about crayfish.

It's not irrelevant about invasive species and obviously another
question you can't answer.

It is irrelevant to a discussion of invasive non-native species.

Post by a***@aol.com
So, what more invasive species is there than humans?

Irrelevant.

It's very much relevant.

Not in a thread about signal crayfish.

Of course it is. It's a valid comparison. Humans will probably
destroy the planet as we know it and the signal crayfish might well
have the last laugh.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:12:25 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:14:45 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-ba
ck-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Except that the article wasn't ludicrous, but stated some facts about
signal crayfish which you clearly find unpalatable :-)

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native.

Invasive non-natives are very obviously NOT being controlled, hence they
become invasive. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Absolute garbage! Over time an equilibrium will be reached.

But not, if you had read what I wrote (oh yes, and understood it),
BEFORE they have become invasive, which also means that they will have
had a massive negative effect on native species and habitats. Are you in
favour of signal crayfish or mitten crabs damaging the banks of canals
and rivers, or of mink wiping out breeding ducks, gulls and terns, or of
Japanese knotweed smothering our native vegetation, or of losing our
native frogs and toad to the American bullfrog's appetite and the
disease that it carries? I won't mention grey squirrel, because you
have already intimated that you couldn't care less if the red squirrel
becomes extinct :-(

If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.
What more invasive species is there than humans?
Is this another question that will go unanswered?

It's irrelevant to a discussion about crayfish.

It's not irrelevant about invasive species and obviously another
question you can't answer.

It is irrelevant to a discussion of invasive non-native species.

Post by a***@aol.com
So, what more invasive species is there than humans?

Irrelevant.

It's very much relevant.

Not in a thread about signal crayfish.

Of course it is. It's a valid comparison. Humans will probably
destroy the planet as we know it and the signal crayfish might well
have the last laugh.

But how will you know they're laughing??

[a***@aol.com]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:12:25 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:14:45 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:32:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:23:27 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/village-fights-ba
ck-by-ki
lling-and-eating-its-alien-invaders-2077188.html

"This American species eats everything in sight," explained Mr
Storrar. "The river then becomes less diverse, and eventually it will
go sterile. That will mean eventually the animals at the top of the
food chain, like heron and trout, will have no food left."
The alien species also represents a threat to canals and dams. "The
problem is, they love digging their own tunnels inside of the mud
banks, which damage the canals and earth dams on top," said Mr
Storrar. "It all equals a failure in the infrastructure of our
waterways – river systems with banks will erode faster because of
them."
While trapping is the only effective method to eliminate the aquatic
nuisances, Mr Storrar said it does not always work. "Everybody would
have to start trapping crayfish daily and it would take several years
to work," he added. "No one bothers doing that for ecology. I suspect
nature's going to be left to sort the problem out, as always."
So I suppose from this there's no heron or trout in America?

A ludicrous supposition to make from the above.

No more ludicrous than the article.

Except that the article wasn't ludicrous, but stated some facts about
signal crayfish which you clearly find unpalatable :-)

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
What garbage these people come up with, except that he realises his
task is fruitless.

What he said was not garbage. You are, as usual, trying to ignore the
ecology of invasive non-native species. They will be controlled by
competitors and predators in their native range, but not where they have
been introduced.

All species are "controlled" in accordance with their environment;
native or non-native.

Invasive non-natives are very obviously NOT being controlled, hence they
become invasive. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Absolute garbage! Over time an equilibrium will be reached.

But not, if you had read what I wrote (oh yes, and understood it),
BEFORE they have become invasive, which also means that they will have
had a massive negative effect on native species and habitats. Are you in
favour of signal crayfish or mitten crabs damaging the banks of canals
and rivers, or of mink wiping out breeding ducks, gulls and terns, or of
Japanese knotweed smothering our native vegetation, or of losing our
native frogs and toad to the American bullfrog's appetite and the
disease that it carries? I won't mention grey squirrel, because you
have already intimated that you couldn't care less if the red squirrel
becomes extinct :-(

If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Even humans that think they're somehow exempt
from that will eventually be "controlled". I'm surprised you don't
know that.
What more invasive species is there than humans?
Is this another question that will go unanswered?

It's irrelevant to a discussion about crayfish.

It's not irrelevant about invasive species and obviously another
question you can't answer.

It is irrelevant to a discussion of invasive non-native species.

Post by a***@aol.com
So, what more invasive species is there than humans?

Irrelevant.

It's very much relevant.

Not in a thread about signal crayfish.

Of course it is. It's a valid comparison. Humans will probably
destroy the planet as we know it and the signal crayfish might well
have the last laugh.

But how will you know they're laughing??

I wouldn't.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Post by a***@aol.com
But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

That's another lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

[a***@aol.com]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

That's another lie.

Why, have they sacked you?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

That's another lie.

Why, have they sacked you?

No, but you still lied.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science. And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

[a***@aol.com]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.

I'll repeat the question.

Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

That's another lie.

Why, have they sacked you?

No, but you still lied.

So you do screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day plus expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

That's another lie.

Why, have they sacked you?

No, but you still lied.

So you do screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day plus expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

No, Angus, I don't.

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

More nonsense.

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

[a***@aol.com]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own money on
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

That's another lie.

Why, have they sacked you?

No, but you still lied.

So you do screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day plus expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

No, Angus, I don't.

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

More nonsense.

Yes, your advice.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can you,
with being told that you are wrong.

Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

That's another lie.

Why, have they sacked you?

No, but you still lied.

So you do screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day plus expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

No, Angus, I don't.

I'm pleased to see that you now accept that I am not lying about this.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can
you, with being told that you are wrong.

Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Please state your knowledge and experience on which you are basing your
claim that my scientific advice was "duff"?

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

You have an obsession with the nazis, such that you drag them into
thread after thread without a scrap of justification, merely total
prejudice against conservation organisations.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

More nonsense.

Yes, your advice.

Ho, ho, Angus thinks he's being clever.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

Indeed I do get paid for a small number of days a year to give advice. I
also give advice for free. It seems that such a concept is outwith your
comprehension, but then that's hardly surprising given your track
record.

[a***@aol.com]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:59:31 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All you do is
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can you,
with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
But you screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day + expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

That's another lie.

Why, have they sacked you?

No, but you still lied.

So you do screw the taxpayer for around £300 a day plus expenses as a
member of SNH's SAC.

No, Angus, I don't.

I'm pleased to see that you now accept that I am not lying about this.

See above.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can
you, with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Please state your knowledge and experience on which you are basing your
claim that my scientific advice was "duff"?

You wanted the hedgehogs killed. That was overturned.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

You have an obsession with the nazis, such that you drag them into
thread after thread without a scrap of justification, merely total
prejudice against conservation organisations.

I just show like comparisons.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

More nonsense.

Yes, your advice.

Ho, ho, Angus thinks he's being clever.

Not me. I don't need to be "clever".

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

Indeed I do get paid for a small number of days a year to give advice. I
also give advice for free. It seems that such a concept is outwith your
comprehension, but then that's hardly surprising given your track
record.

I'm talking about the paid advice. So, why don't you do it for free
if you're so committed, rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day
+ expenses?

It's easy to do some for free if you're getting £300 + quid a day at
other times.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:59:31 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can you,
with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

You asked why I didn't give advice for free. I do.

And your second sentence contains a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can
you, with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

See above and don't lie.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Please state your knowledge and experience on which you are basing your
claim that my scientific advice was "duff"?

You wanted the hedgehogs killed. That was overturned.

I note that you have failed to produce a single scrap of evidence that
my scientific advice was "duff". But then you can't, can you?

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

You have an obsession with the nazis, such that you drag them into
thread after thread without a scrap of justification, merely total
prejudice against conservation organisations.

I just show like comparisons.

Based on your obsession.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

More nonsense.

Yes, your advice.

Ho, ho, Angus thinks he's being clever.

Not me. I don't need to be "clever".

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

Indeed I do get paid for a small number of days a year to give advice. I
also give advice for free. It seems that such a concept is outwith your
comprehension, but then that's hardly surprising given your track
record.

I'm talking about the paid advice. So, why don't you do it for free
if you're so committed, rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day
+ expenses?

See above. And your second sentence contains a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
It's easy to do some for free if you're getting £300 + quid a day at
other times.

Are you now accepting that I give advice for free? Good.

[a***@aol.com]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:38:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:59:31 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for
money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up that you run
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and lies. Do you
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time on dealing
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can you,
with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

You asked why I didn't give advice for free. I do.

Not for the sdvice you're paid for.

Post by Malcolm
And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can
you, with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

See above and don't lie.

See above and don't lie.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Please state your knowledge and experience on which you are basing your
claim that my scientific advice was "duff"?

You wanted the hedgehogs killed. That was overturned.

I note that you have failed to produce a single scrap of evidence that
my scientific advice was "duff". But then you can't, can you?

I note you don't deny it.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

You have an obsession with the nazis, such that you drag them into
thread after thread without a scrap of justification, merely total
prejudice against conservation organisations.

I just show like comparisons.

Based on your obsession.

If thewre were no leik comparisons, I wouldn't be able to show it.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

More nonsense.

Yes, your advice.

Ho, ho, Angus thinks he's being clever.

Not me. I don't need to be "clever".

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

Indeed I do get paid for a small number of days a year to give advice. I
also give advice for free. It seems that such a concept is outwith your
comprehension, but then that's hardly surprising given your track
record.

I'm talking about the paid advice. So, why don't you do it for free
if you're so committed, rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day
+ expenses?

See above. And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
It's easy to do some for free if you're getting £300 + quid a day at
other times.

Are you now accepting that I give advice for free? Good.

Why should I accept the word of a known liar.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:38:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:59:31 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for
money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can you,
with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

You asked why I didn't give advice for free. I do.

Not for the sdvice you're paid for.

Gosh, how did you work that out?

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

No, of course not. But that wasn't the lie, was it?

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can
you, with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

See above and don't lie.

See above and don't lie.

I'm not. You are in the second sentence of your previous entry.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Please state your knowledge and experience on which you are basing your
claim that my scientific advice was "duff"?

You wanted the hedgehogs killed. That was overturned.

I note that you have failed to produce a single scrap of evidence that
my scientific advice was "duff". But then you can't, can you?

I note you don't deny it.

I asked you to produce your evidence that my scientific advice was
"duff". Thank you for demonstrating that you can't.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

You have an obsession with the nazis, such that you drag them into
thread after thread without a scrap of justification, merely total
prejudice against conservation organisations.

I just show like comparisons.

Based on your obsession.

If thewre were no leik comparisons, I wouldn't be able to show it.

But you don't show it, that's the whole point.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

More nonsense.

Yes, your advice.

Ho, ho, Angus thinks he's being clever.

Not me. I don't need to be "clever".

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

Indeed I do get paid for a small number of days a year to give advice. I
also give advice for free. It seems that such a concept is outwith your
comprehension, but then that's hardly surprising given your track
record.

I'm talking about the paid advice. So, why don't you do it for free
if you're so committed, rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day
+ expenses?

See above. And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

No, of course not. But that wasn't the lie.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
It's easy to do some for free if you're getting £300 + quid a day at
other times.

Are you now accepting that I give advice for free? Good.

Why should I accept the word of a known liar.

I'm not a liar. On the other hand, I don't accept your word for anything
because of your long history.

[a***@aol.com]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:09:58 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:38:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:59:31 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for
money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying about me.

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can you,
with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

You asked why I didn't give advice for free. I do.

Not for the sdvice you're paid for.

Gosh, how did you work that out?

Very easily :-))

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

No, of course not. But that wasn't the lie, was it?

So you do get paid. So why not do it for free if you're so committed?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can
you, with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

See above and don't lie.

See above and don't lie.

I'm not. You are in the second sentence of your previous entry.

See above.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your duff advice
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Please state your knowledge and experience on which you are basing your
claim that my scientific advice was "duff"?

You wanted the hedgehogs killed. That was overturned.

I note that you have failed to produce a single scrap of evidence that
my scientific advice was "duff". But then you can't, can you?

I note you don't deny it.

I asked you to produce your evidence that my scientific advice was
"duff". Thank you for demonstrating that you can't.

You wanted them killed. That was overturned.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

You have an obsession with the nazis, such that you drag them into
thread after thread without a scrap of justification, merely total
prejudice against conservation organisations.

I just show like comparisons.

Based on your obsession.

If thewre were no leik comparisons, I wouldn't be able to show it.

But you don't show it, that's the whole point.

Of course there's a like comparison. Hitler and his thugs killed
people he saw as a threat to the well-being of his chosen Aryans;
"conservations" kill wildlife they see as a threat to their chosen
wildlife. The principle is exactly the same.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
I'm an advisor, Angus. I and other members of the SAC are asked for our
advice and we give it. Subsequent decisions are taken by boards and
managers.

Yours was obviously duff when they overturned it.

Wrong, as usual. Your assumptions, guesses and speculations lack all
evidence, again as usual.

They wouldn't have overturned it if they thought the advice was any
good.

More nonsense.

Yes, your advice.

Ho, ho, Angus thinks he's being clever.

Not me. I don't need to be "clever".

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

Indeed I do get paid for a small number of days a year to give advice. I
also give advice for free. It seems that such a concept is outwith your
comprehension, but then that's hardly surprising given your track
record.

I'm talking about the paid advice. So, why don't you do it for free
if you're so committed, rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day
+ expenses?

See above. And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

No, of course not. But that wasn't the lie.

What lie?

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
It's easy to do some for free if you're getting £300 + quid a day at
other times.

Are you now accepting that I give advice for free? Good.

Why should I accept the word of a known liar.

I'm not a liar.

Of course you are; you lie and twist all the time.

Post by Malcolm
On the other hand, I don't accept your word for anything
because of your long history.

No, because it undermines your credibility.

[Malcolm]

Post by a***@aol.com
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:09:58 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:38:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:59:31 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for
money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can you,
with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

You asked why I didn't give advice for free. I do.

Not for the sdvice you're paid for.

Gosh, how did you work that out?

Very easily :-))

Well *done*, Angus!

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

No, of course not. But that wasn't the lie, was it?

So you do get paid. So why not do it for free if you're so committed?

Of course I get paid, but that wasn't the lie, was it?

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can
you, with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

See above and don't lie.

See above and don't lie.

I'm not. You are in the second sentence of your previous entry.

See above.

Your lie remains.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Please state your knowledge and experience on which you are basing your
claim that my scientific advice was "duff"?

You wanted the hedgehogs killed. That was overturned.

I note that you have failed to produce a single scrap of evidence that
my scientific advice was "duff". But then you can't, can you?

I note you don't deny it.

I asked you to produce your evidence that my scientific advice was
"duff". Thank you for demonstrating that you can't.

You wanted them killed. That was overturned.

That isn't evidence that my scientific advice was "duff". Hedgehogs were
killed before the policy was changed.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

You have an obsession with the nazis, such that you drag them into
thread after thread without a scrap of justification, merely total
prejudice against conservation organisations.

I just show like comparisons.

Based on your obsession.

If thewre were no leik comparisons, I wouldn't be able to show it.

But you don't show it, that's the whole point.

Of course there's a like comparison. Hitler and his thugs killed
people he saw as a threat to the well-being of his chosen Aryans;
"conservations" kill wildlife they see as a threat to their chosen
wildlife. The principle is exactly the same.

See, I said you were obsessed with the nazis :-(

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

Indeed I do get paid for a small number of days a year to give advice. I
also give advice for free. It seems that such a concept is outwith your
comprehension, but then that's hardly surprising given your track
record.

I'm talking about the paid advice. So, why don't you do it for free
if you're so committed, rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day
+ expenses?

See above. And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

No, of course not. But that wasn't the lie.

What lie?

The lie in your second sentence. Can't you read?

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
It's easy to do some for free if you're getting £300 + quid a day at
other times.

Are you now accepting that I give advice for free? Good.

Why should I accept the word of a known liar.

I'm not a liar.

Of course you are; you lie and twist all the time.

I don't lie. I leave that to you.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
On the other hand, I don't accept your word for anything
because of your long history.

No, because it undermines your credibility.

My credibility is fine, thank you. Your's on the other hand.........

[a***@aol.com]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:34:50 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:09:58 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:38:46 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:59:31 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:49:41 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:03:26 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:33:49 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:02:32 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:44:07 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
If you're so keen, why don't you and your kind spend your own
killing the "invaders". Oh no, you wouldn't do that. All
whip up hate against them and screw the taxpayers' for
money for and
endless and pointless gravy train.

Wrong, endlessly wrong, as always. You get so worked up
right off the rails with your baseless speculation and
froth at the mouth when you rant like that?

So why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I frequently have. I have also spent my own money and time
with invasive non-natives. So you were, as so often, lying

What about acknowledging your lie about me?

Are you denying you get paid by SNH?

No, but you still lied.

So you do get paid.
I'll repeat the question.
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can you,
with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

You asked why I didn't give advice for free. I do.

Not for the sdvice you're paid for.

Gosh, how did you work that out?

Very easily :-))

Well *done*, Angus!

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

No, of course not. But that wasn't the lie, was it?

So you do get paid. So why not do it for free if you're so committed?

Of course I get paid, but that wasn't the lie, was it?

No lie I can see.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

It is very obviously a lie. Obviously as you wrote it, you won't agree,
but anyone else reading it will know it is a lie.

Post by a***@aol.com
Why don't you give your advice to SNH for free?

I do.

Silly wee man! You don't give it for free if you get paid:-))

Thank you for your further surrender, Angus. You really can't cope, can
you, with being told that you are wrong.
Are you really incapable of working out that I might give both free and
paid for advice? It certainly seems so.

I'm talking about the paid advice. Why don't you do it for free if
you're so committed rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day +
expenses?

See above and don't lie.

See above and don't lie.

I'm not. You are in the second sentence of your previous entry.

See above.

Your lie remains.

No lie I can see.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
So how about giving some of it back, especially for your
about the Uist Hedgehogs which was overturned.

The advice was not duff.

Of course it was. It was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

No, it was based on science.

What science?

Biological science, of course. Duh!

Which was duff and overturned.

Please state your knowledge and experience on which you are basing your
claim that my scientific advice was "duff"?

You wanted the hedgehogs killed. That was overturned.

I note that you have failed to produce a single scrap of evidence that
my scientific advice was "duff". But then you can't, can you?

I note you don't deny it.

I asked you to produce your evidence that my scientific advice was
"duff". Thank you for demonstrating that you can't.

You wanted them killed. That was overturned.

That isn't evidence that my scientific advice was "duff".

Of course it is. You supported the killing.

Post by Malcolm
Hedgehogs were
killed before the policy was changed.

Exactly. It was overturned.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
And my referring to hedgehogs as "nazis"
was a direct reference to your obsession with them.

No Malcolm, it was based on prejudice and you even gleefully
called hedgehogs "Nazis".

It was a direct reference to your obsession with the nazis - and it very
obviously hit home.

I don't have an obsession with the Nazis. It's you and youyr
so-called conservationists who use the same principles against
wildlife as Hitler and his thugs did aginnst humans.

You have an obsession with the nazis, such that you drag them into
thread after thread without a scrap of justification, merely total
prejudice against conservation organisations.

I just show like comparisons.

Based on your obsession.

If thewre were no leik comparisons, I wouldn't be able to show it.

But you don't show it, that's the whole point.

Of course there's a like comparison. Hitler and his thugs killed
people he saw as a threat to the well-being of his chosen Aryans;
"conservations" kill wildlife they see as a threat to their chosen
wildlife. The principle is exactly the same.

See, I said you were obsessed with the nazis :-(

Quite the reverse. It's the so-called conservationists that are
obsessed with Nazis and their "Final Solution".

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
With luck perhaps with the spending cuts they'll get rid of the old
hanger-on :-))

The end date of my current term on the SAC is, as you are fully aware,
shown on the SNH website.

For which you are paid at around £300 a day + expenses and you're
trying to infer you do it for nothing.

Indeed I do get paid for a small number of days a year to give advice. I
also give advice for free. It seems that such a concept is outwith your
comprehension, but then that's hardly surprising given your track
record.

I'm talking about the paid advice. So, why don't you do it for free
if you're so committed, rather than screw the taxpayer for £300 a day
+ expenses?

See above. And your second sentence contains a lie.

Are you denying you get paid around £300 a day + expenses?

No, of course not. But that wasn't the lie.

What lie?

The lie in your second sentence. Can't you read?

No lie I can see.

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm

Post by a***@aol.com
It's easy to do some for free if you're getting £300 + quid a day at
other times.

Are you now accepting that I give advice for free? Good.

Why should I accept the word of a known liar.

I'm not a liar.

Of course you are; you lie and twist all the time.

I don't lie. I leave that to you.

Post by a***@aol.com

Post by Malcolm
On the other hand, I don't accept your word for anything
because of your long history.

No, because it undermines your credibility.

My credibility is fine, thank you. Your's on the other hand.........

Not when you write this:

Perhaps its just "ignorance" like

_________________________________

Malcolm:
No, Angus, that's just you wriggling again. You used a specific term,
"sock-puppet", on the internet and, as that term has no meaning other
than that used on the internet, you must expect people to think that
that's the meaning you were attributing to it.

Angus:
Complete rubbish! See above.

Malcolm:
No, Angus, a fact. Unless of course you can find a definition of
sock-puppet as being the same as glove-puppet.

Angus:
From Wikipedia:

"Simple hand puppets are usually not much larger than the hand itself.
A sock puppet is a particularly simple type of hand puppet made from a
sock. A glove puppet is slightly more complex, with an internal
division for fingers allowing independent manipulation of a
character's arms.

______________________________

or prejudice like:


_____________________________

Internet posting to Malcolm Kane of Penrith from Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie


"Malcolm, it must be what a teacher feels like after trying to drum
something into the head of the dullard who is going to leave school
with a single 'O' grade. There's only so much that someone so
intellectually challenged can understand. The problem will come in
later life, when an inability to grasp concepts, not to mention be
able to understand the meanings of words, will seriously let them
down, to the point when, how ever often they are told something, they
merely repeat, as a rote, statements and claims which they think are
very telling but, in fact, were meaningless or just plain wrong the
first time, and continue to be so regardless of how many times they
are repeated. The situation will be even worse if, during their lives,
they have gained absolutely no personal knowledge of the subjects
about which they spout and thus are completely unable to comprehend
anyone who points out that their ignorance is letting them down."

Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie
Scientific Adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage
On Internet Newsgroup uk.environment.conservation
Date: Mon,18 Sept 2006 07:32;30 +0100

Comment: A nasty prejudiced and unwarranted attack on kids
leaving school with one O Grade.

___________________________

Or dimness of mind when he can't understand a question:

__________________________

Malcolm Ogilvie aka Dr Thick is confused about his measure of
intelligence.

A Macmillan: "Do you think you don't have limited intelligence?"

Dr Thick: "What a contorted question. The answer is yes. What about
yourself?"

___________________________

Or confusion about what is natural

__________________________

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"The grey squirrel, on the other hand, is an invasive non-native
introduced from North America."

Angus Macmillan:
"In perfectly natural circumstances, unless you exclude man from
nature."

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"More nonsensical rubbish."

Angus Macmillan:
"Are you saying that man is outside nature and that his actions are
not natural?"

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"Are you claiming that ships are natural objects?"

Angus Macmillan:
"Of course they are. They are a product of man's evolution and made
entirely of natural materials."

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"LOL!!!!

You're a card, Angus, a real card :-))))

Since when have manufactured materials, for example, steel, been
"natural"?"

Angus Macmillan:
"Steel and manufacturing are products of man's evolution and consists
of entirely natural materials.

I am gob-smacked at your ignorance in this matter."

__________________________

Or when all else fails:

_________________________

Angus: Is this where you tell me to "f****" off" like the last time
I mentioned your air ambulance trip?

Malcolm: Yes, if you like. Fuck off, Angus.

_________________________


Which means just about everything he says is nonsense.