uk.environment.conservation

On Feb 22, 9:56 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:23:07 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 11:31 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:18:29 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 20, 8:39 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:35:35 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >In article ,
> >> >> >amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >> >>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:33:50 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>In article ,
> >> >> >>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >> >>>>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:01:03 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>>>In article ,
> >> >> >>>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >> >>>>>>Malcolm has repeatedly refuted my claims on this newsgroup that dogs
> >> >> >>>>>>disturb wildlife.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>However, the access group of which he is chairman say differently.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>Malcolm the liar - caught out again!
>
> >> >> >>>>>How typical that Angus starts his latest attack on me with a lie :-(
>
> >> >> >>>>>Still, it's good to see how interested he is in outdoor access :-))
>
> >> >> >>>>Don't compound the lie, Malcolm.
>
> >> >> >>>>For months you banged on about how dogs didn't disturb wildlife.
>
> >> >> >>>Don't lie, Angus.
>
> >> >> >>>You claimed, repeatedly, that dogs disturbed wildlife. What I, and
> >> >> >>>others, did was to ask you for some examples. Perhaps you would like to
> >> >> >>>repeat what you said at the time.
>
> >> >> >>I seem to remember saying that the RSPB didn't allow dogs because they
> >> >> >>disturbed wildlife and it was obvious the Woodland Trust didn't care.
>
> >> >> >>Look it up yourself.
>
> >> >> >Ah, the typical Angus answer. Unable to provide evidence to back up his
> >> >> >claims, he tells the person requesting the evidence to provide it
> >> >> >themselves :-(
>
> >> >> I'm not like you, Malcolm. I don't xarchive my posts. Anyone can
> >> >> look them up if they're keen enough.
>
> >> >I'm keen. Please supply the Usenet Reference No. for the post I need
> >> >to look up.
>
> >> That would mean I had to look it up.
>
> >And you are unable to do that? Malcolm's explanation goes up another
> >notch in my scorecard. Now, let's try again. You posted something so
> >you can find it easily compared to me. So let me have the reference
> >number for the post, please.
>
> >> If you're keen, do it yourself.
>
> >If I have to......
>
> Good. You have to. It's all on record.

So it is. And no wonder you didn't want to draw attention to it - it's
100% confirmation of your mendacity. How could you possibly write such
things.