On Mar 21, 10:48*am, Old Codger >
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
> wrote:
>
> >On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
> >> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>
> >> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
> >> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
> >> > British birdwatching?
>
> >> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
> >> groups to which it is cross posted.
>
> >Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
> >to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
> >first.
>
> That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
> don't possess.
>
> >>*However, Pete is so desperate for
> >> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>
> >Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
> >that is his motivation?
>
> Education for all I should imagine.

The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
to discuss animal rights.
>
> >>*In
> >> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters..
>
> >If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...
>
> That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
> wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
> magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
> case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.
>
> The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
> please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
> decision.
>
> We simply don't care.

That's not the point. I wasn't question whether he should continue
posting to *relevant* newsgroups. If he wants to then of course he
should! But worming around people's killfiles, I don't agree with
that...
>
> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>
> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.

The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
them. End of.

> Even if you
> are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
> look for birds but usually just peeping toms!

"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 21, 10:48 am, Old Codger >
wrote:

> Education for all I should imagine.

The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
to discuss animal rights.
...
> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>
> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.

The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
them. End of.
...

Don't be silly. People who have an interest in birds have an interest
in their welfare, as in rights, as well as our impact on the ecosystem.

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
...
> 'Crisis and opportunity in North American agriculture' John Ikerd
> Emeritus professor of agricultural economics at the University of
> Missouri
>
> [extracts only, as selected by nlpwessex - original article presented at
> a farm conference, "Recapturing Wealth on the Canadian Prairies,"
> Brandon, Manitoba, October 26-27, 2000 - full copy available at
> http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=376 ]

This paper can be read he
http://web.archive.org/web/200409280....asp?recid=376

'Today agricultural markets are dominated by the large agribusiness
corporations, certainly at every level other than the farm level, and
increasingly even at the farm level. ... Consumers don't get accurate,
unbiased information concerning the products they buy, but instead
get disinformation by design, disguised as advertising. ... The food
industry spends billions of dollars designed specifically to bend and
shape consumers tastes and preferences to accommodate mass
production and mass distribution, which enable corporate control of
agriculture. ... corporate agriculture today is designed specifically to
generate profits and growth for corporate investors. .... '

Old Codger wrote:

None of it. That's another Pete the troll forgery. He keeps doing it,
especially in this thread. Five times so far.

> Seems on Usenet we have an unusual gathering of bigots then,as caring
> and sharing is certainly a minority sport here.

As Pete never reads what he posts and desires only to provoke
argument it is safest to assume that anything he espouses is
at least unsafe and probably malicious.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:03:07 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>> "Old Codger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the
>>> >> > vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't
>>> >> > dump
>>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>>
>>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>>
>> "Cautious, careful people, always casting about to maintain their
>> reputation
>> and social standing, never can bring about reform. Those who are really
>> in
>> earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's
>> estimation."
>> - Susan B. Anthony
>>
>
>posted by someone who won;'t eat meat this is nicely ironic

You seem to have missed the point jim. Your obsession with meat eating
self abuse doesn't have to be that way. Just stop eating it and at the
same time solve many of the worlds problems. Isn't it about time you
considered others for a change? The farm grandad handed to you on a
plate though you are an unwilling and incapable farmer is now almost
worthless so the family wont see that when you pop your clogs. So
perhaps you standing up to be counted could be your legacy for the
family?

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 10:48*am, Old Codger >
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
>> >> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>>
>> >> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
>> >> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
>> >> > British birdwatching?
>>
>> >> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
>> >> groups to which it is cross posted.
>>
>> >Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
>> >to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
>> >first.
>>
>> That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
>> don't possess.
>>
>> >>*However, Pete is so desperate for
>> >> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>>
>> >Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
>> >that is his motivation?
>>
>> Education for all I should imagine.
>
>The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
>to discuss animal rights.

People don't sign up anyway. If you want a sheltered world exclusively
for weirdo's who cannot face reality then go start a moderated
newsgroup on your own.

On a public forum you get to see everything the public want you to
see. Animal rights and global destruction are issues for us all even
birdwatchers.

What kind of ponce can pretend otherwise?

>> >>*In
>> >> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>>
>> >If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...
>>
>> That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
>> wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
>> magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
>> case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.
>>
>> The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
>> please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
>> decision.
>>
>> We simply don't care.
>
>That's not the point. I wasn't question whether he should continue
>posting to *relevant* newsgroups. If he wants to then of course he
>should! But worming around people's killfiles, I don't agree with
>that...

Learn to use filters then. Pro hunt extremists have been known to
track down and harm people so it's wise to keep on the run especially
if you are providing a public service.

Netkopping is despised the world over these days far more so than
crossposting devils. You'd do well to understand that before you start
trying to educate us into world of netkop weirdo's.

>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>
>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>
>The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
>or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
>them. End of.

You think it's ok for everyone else to fight your battles do you? I
prefer to kick netkpops up the arse so shove that up your chuffer.

>> Even if you
>> are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
>> look for birds but usually just peeping toms!

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:51:35 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
>On Mar 21, 10:48 am, Old Codger >
>wrote:
>
>> Education for all I should imagine.
>
>The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
>to discuss animal rights.
>..
>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>
>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>
>>he planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
>>r learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
>>hem. End of.
>..
>
>Don't be silly. People who have an interest in birds have an interest
>in their welfare, as in rights, as well as our impact on the ecosystem.

There are of course the odd few who get off hiding in bushes playing
peeping tom and ticking a book!

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

> 'Today agricultural markets are dominated by the large agribusiness
> corporations,

of course it is, most US consumers live in major urban centres many hundreds
of miles from where their food is grown. How on earth do you expect the
small producer to supply them in an environmentally sustainable manner? Load
his produce into paniers on the back of a mule and walk three weeks to
market? In Europe too, major corporations dominate the food market, Asda is
part of Walmart, Tesco is getting more and more international

Jim Webster

On Mar 21, 1:51*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> On Mar 21, 10:48 am, Old Codger >
> wrote:
>
> > Education for all I should imagine.
>
> The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
> to discuss animal rights.
> ..
>
> > >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
> > >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
> > >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
> > >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>
> > Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>
> The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
> or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
> them. End of.
> ..
>
> Don't be silly. *People who have an interest in birds have an interest
> in their welfare, as in rights, as well as our impact on the ecosystem.

Point conceded. The parts of the original posting that dealt with the
environmental impacts of animal agriculture have some relevance to
birdwatching. I owe Pete a partial apology.

On Mar 21, 5:41*pm, Old Codger >
wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 21, 10:48*am, Old Codger >
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
> >> >> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>
> >> >> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
> >> >> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
> >> >> > British birdwatching?
>
> >> >> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
> >> >> groups to which it is cross posted.
>
> >> >Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
> >> >to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
> >> >first.
>
> >> That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
> >> don't possess.
>
> >> >>*However, Pete is so desperate for
> >> >> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>
> >> >Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
> >> >that is his motivation?
>
> >> Education for all I should imagine.
>
> >The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
> >to discuss animal rights.
>
> People don't sign up anyway. If you want a sheltered world exclusively
> for weirdo's who cannot face reality then go start a moderated
> newsgroup on your own.
>
> On a public forum you get to see everything the public want you to
> see. Animal rights and global destruction are issues for us all even
> birdwatchers.
>
> What kind of ponce can pretend otherwise?

Public forums have both advantages and disadvantages over moderated
forums. It is true that if you read a public forum you get to see
whatever
its posters want you to see. It is still inconsiderate to flood a
group
with off topic postings the way you do.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >>*In
> >> >> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>
> >> >If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...
>
> >> That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
> >> wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
> >> magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
> >> case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.
>
> >> The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
> >> please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
> >> decision.
>
> >> We simply don't care.
>
> >That's not the point. I wasn't question whether he should continue
> >posting to *relevant* newsgroups. If he wants to then of course he
> >should! But worming around people's killfiles, I don't agree with
> >that...
>
> Learn to use filters then. Pro hunt extremists have been known to
> track down and harm people so it's wise to keep on the run especially
> if you are providing a public service.

OK. I doubt you really have anything to fear on that score but if
that is your motivation rather than avoiding killfiles then I
apologise.
>
> Netkopping is despised the world over these days far more so than
> crossposting devils. You'd do well to understand that before you start
> trying to educate us into world of netkop weirdo's.

Despised more by who - people who cross post?

> >> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
> >> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
> >> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
> >> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>
> >> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>
> >The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
> >or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
> >them. End of.
>
> You think it's ok for everyone else to fight your battles do you? I
> prefer to kick netkpops up the arse so shove that up your chuffer.

So I see....
>
>
> >> Even if you
> >> are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
> >> look for birds but usually just peeping toms!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > 'Today agricultural markets are dominated by the large agribusiness
> > corporations,
>
> of course it is, most US consumers live in major urban centres many hundreds
> of miles from where their food is grown. How on earth do you expect the
> small producer to supply them in an environmentally sustainable manner? Load
> his produce into paniers on the back of a mule and walk three weeks to
> market?

'Localism and Its Enemies
Posted by David Bollier on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 11:48am

One the great lessons of Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma,
is that the industrial agriculture system necessarily entails all sorts of nasty
consequences: greater fuel consumption to transport food to market, crop
monocultures instead of biological diversity, pesticide-laden food instead of
organic produce, enormous lagoons of pig excrement from factory-raised
pork, etc. Yet the locally grown alternatives, which tend to be more
wholesome and ecologically friendly, have several strikes against them
from the git-go.

A Minnesota organic vegetable farmer, Jack Hedin, brought this to public
attention in a recent oped piece in the New York Times. Hedin described
how big agribusiness companies in California, Florida and Texas are using
federal regulation and subsidy programs to prevent regional farmers from
offering healthier, more ecologically benign local food. The regional farmers
want to produce more organic produce to meet growing consumer demand
for locally grown crops. But the Big Guys are using their political muscle
with the federal government to stifle this budding competition.

As Hedin puts it:

Consumers.will be dismayed to learn that the federal government
works deliberately and forcefully to prevent the local food movement
from expanding. And the barriers that the United States Department
of Agriculture has put in place will be extended when the farm bill that
House and Senate negotiators are working on now goes into effect.

The federal commodity farm program effectively forbids farmers who
usually grown corn or the other four federally subsidized commodity
crops (soybeans, rice, what and cotton) from trying fruit and vegetables.
Because my watermelon and tomates had been planted on "corn base"
acres, the Farm Service said, my landlords were out of compliance
with the commodity program.

Farmers who violate these rules not only lose their subsidy for the year for
the affected acreage, they are penalized the market value of the unapproved
crop - and may be permanently blackballed from future subsidies. What
this means is that the nation's farmers suffer if they innovate by growing
fruits and vegetables for the local market. They are discouraged from
growing local food at the very time when consumers are demanding such
produce, oil is becoming more expensive and the environment would
benefit from greater diversity of crops.

We hear a lot from free-market conservatives about "letting the market
decide and "getting government off our backs." Yet when it comes to
propping up their own market franchise, big agribusiness has no problems
at all with "government paternalism."

This story points up the need for local and regional farmers to get more
political, and to make common cause with consumers, environmentalists
and other commoners. Farmers' markets, the Slow Food movement and
the local food movement are surging these days, but they are not going
to become a bigger presence in our lives unless they can express their
interests on a bigger playing field, national politics.

http://onthecommons.org/node/1250

'My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)
By JACK HEDIN
Published: March 1, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/op...in&oref=slogin

> In Europe too, major corporations dominate the food market, Asda is
> part of Walmart, Tesco is getting more and more international

'As the food system has been restructured by corporate capital, a
relatively small number of agrochemical corporations have grown
in stature by providing the agricultural inputs upon which industrial
agriculture depends. At the same time, the deregulation and
globalisation of trade has led to the global production (and
increasingly global consumption) of standardised processed foods
and meat products. This has given a small number of very powerful
food corporations (grain traders, food processors and supermarkets)
the ability to scour the world, taking advantage of differences in
safety and environmental regulation, labour costs etc, in their search
for cheap food. As a result, the power and the profits in the global
food system have shifted away from farmers to the agribusiness
corporations that produce and sell inputs to farmers and the food
corporations that process, package, and market food to consumers.

The industrial model of agriculture is now a global phenomenon, but
with varying degrees of penetration. In developing countries low input
farming methods still survive and the knowledge, skills and value to
society of these traditional farming methods are gaining wider
recognition and support.[7] In industrialised countries, a small but
increasing number of conventional farmers, and new entrants to
farming in particular, are producing food using alternative farming
systems, which aim to be not only economically, but also socially
and environmentally sustainable (see box 'Sustainable Agriculture' on
page 39).
...'
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2631

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > 'Today agricultural markets are dominated by the large agribusiness
>> > corporations,
>>
>> of course it is, most US consumers live in major urban centres many
>> hundreds
>> of miles from where their food is grown. How on earth do you expect the
>> small producer to supply them in an environmentally sustainable manner?
>> Load
>> his produce into paniers on the back of a mule and walk three weeks to
>> market?
>
> 'Localism and Its Enemies
> Posted by David Bollier on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 11:48am

pity you cannot answer in your own words, don't you have your own ideas or
opinions?

Jim Webster

Jim Webster > writes

>pity you cannot answer in your own words, don't you have your own ideas or
>opinions?

Killfile her, she never has had any words of her own that I can
remember. Ten years and she has learned zilch.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > 'Today agricultural markets are dominated by the large agribusiness
> >> > corporations,
> >>
> >> of course it is, most US consumers live in major urban centres many
> >> hundreds
> >> of miles from where their food is grown. How on earth do you expect the
> >> small producer to supply them in an environmentally sustainable manner?
> >> Load
> >> his produce into paniers on the back of a mule and walk three weeks to
> >> market?
> >
> > 'Localism and Its Enemies
> > Posted by David Bollier on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 11:48am
>
> pity you cannot answer in your own words, don't you have your own ideas or
> opinions?

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal of some kind, 'cos it ain't y'know.

Of course I can answer in my own words - that's the part where you
would typically ridicule my ideas or opinions and demand evidence.

Instead of continuing to make a spectacle of yourself with all of this
snipping and wriggling, maybe you just hearken to the unseeing Oz.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:13:21 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Jim Webster > writes
>
>>pity you cannot answer in your own words, don't you have your own ideas or
>>opinions?
>
>Killfile her, she never has had any words of her own that I can
>remember. Ten years and she has learned zilch.

The bully hath spoken. You might bamboozle a senile woman like Jill in
to obeying your whim but I think Jim is a little too dense to use a
kf, but then you don't appear to be the brightest spark in the box
either.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:13:21 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Jim Webster > writes
>
>>pity you cannot answer in your own words, don't you have your own ideas or
>>opinions?
>
>Killfile her, she never has had any words of her own that I can
>remember. Ten years and she has learned zilch.

The bully OZ
Oswald Hotz De Baar (posting anonymously as OZ)
Upthorpe Farm
Moreton Road
Aston Tirrold
Didcot
OX11 9EW
Oxfordshire
giving orders to yet another gang member of the cyberstalking
fraternity when he's not playing God acting out some role playing
fantasy in real life.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 1:51*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
>> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>>
>> On Mar 21, 10:48 am, Old Codger >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Education for all I should imagine.
>>
>> The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
>> to discuss animal rights.
>> ..
>>
>> > >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>> > >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>> > >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>> > >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>
>> > Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>>
>> The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
>> or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
>> them. End of.
>> ..
>>
>> Don't be silly. *People who have an interest in birds have an interest
>> in their welfare, as in rights, as well as our impact on the ecosystem.
>
>Point conceded. The parts of the original posting that dealt with the
>environmental impacts of animal agriculture have some relevance to
>birdwatching. I owe Pete a partial apology.

There is no pete. He's a figment of the bullies imagination. Bullies
like Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex (address to follow) who
conspired with others to bully and drive users away from the
newsgroups.

These bullies now seem to have an awful time reaping what they sowed.

It's a crazy world.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:07:09 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 5:41*pm, Old Codger >
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 21, 10:48*am, Old Codger >
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
>> >> >> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
>> >> >> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
>> >> >> > British birdwatching?
>>
>> >> >> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
>> >> >> groups to which it is cross posted.
>>
>> >> >Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
>> >> >to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
>> >> >first.
>>
>> >> That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
>> >> don't possess.
>>
>> >> >>*However, Pete is so desperate for
>> >> >> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>>
>> >> >Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
>> >> >that is his motivation?
>>
>> >> Education for all I should imagine.
>>
>> >The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
>> >to discuss animal rights.
>>
>> People don't sign up anyway. If you want a sheltered world exclusively
>> for weirdo's who cannot face reality then go start a moderated
>> newsgroup on your own.
>>
>> On a public forum you get to see everything the public want you to
>> see. Animal rights and global destruction are issues for us all even
>> birdwatchers.
>>
>> What kind of ponce can pretend otherwise?
>
>Public forums have both advantages and disadvantages over moderated
>forums. It is true that if you read a public forum you get to see
>whatever its posters want you to see.

Bit like the real world then!

> It is still inconsiderate to flood a
>group with off topic postings the way you do.

You have no idea what a flood is. You also apparently don't know how
to ignore something. It's not rocket science.

You wouldn't stick your beak in on a tube train conversation would you
if you weren't interested?

>> >> >>*In
>> >> >> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>>
>> >> >If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...
>>
>> >> That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
>> >> wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
>> >> magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
>> >> case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.
>>
>> >> The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
>> >> please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
>> >> decision.
>>
>> >> We simply don't care.
>>
>> >That's not the point. I wasn't question whether he should continue
>> >posting to *relevant* newsgroups. If he wants to then of course he
>> >should! But worming around people's killfiles, I don't agree with
>> >that...
>>
>> Learn to use filters then. Pro hunt extremists have been known to
>> track down and harm people so it's wise to keep on the run especially
>> if you are providing a public service.
>
>OK. I doubt you really have anything to fear on that score but if
>that is your motivation rather than avoiding killfiles then I
>apologise.

It's very much a reality and serious. Old Codger, Oz, Jim Webster,
Jill Bowis are all active participants in pro hunt extremism and of
the usual bullying ilk. They don't like it uppem and they don't like
anything that can fight back.

>> Netkopping is despised the world over these days far more so than
>> crossposting devils. You'd do well to understand that before you start
>> trying to educate us into world of netkop weirdo's.
>
>Despised more by who - people who cross post?

NetKops are despised by most of usenet. Their boring posts on how to
post far outweigh any other usenet problems. Usually by a ratio of
50/1

>> >> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>> >> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>> >> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>> >> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>
>> >> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>>
>> >The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
>> >or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
>> >them. End of.
>>
>> You think it's ok for everyone else to fight your battles do you? I
>> prefer to kick netkpops up the arse so shove that up your chuffer.
>
>So I see....
>>
>>
>> >> Even if you
>> >> are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
>> >> look for birds but usually just peeping toms!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

In article >,
Jim Webster > wrote:

> > 'Localism and Its Enemies
> > Posted by David Bollier on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 11:48am

> pity you cannot answer in your own words, don't you have your own ideas
> or opinions?

There are some points that should be addressed. That may be the USA but
they do like to maintain protection of their own, while keeping out
competition.

Bananas in the Carribean are another example.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > 'Today agricultural markets are dominated by the large agribusiness
>> >> > corporations,
>> >>
>> >> of course it is, most US consumers live in major urban centres many
>> >> hundreds
>> >> of miles from where their food is grown. How on earth do you expect
>> >> the
>> >> small producer to supply them in an environmentally sustainable
>> >> manner?
>> >> Load
>> >> his produce into paniers on the back of a mule and walk three weeks to
>> >> market?
>> >
>> > 'Localism and Its Enemies
>> > Posted by David Bollier on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 11:48am
>>
>> pity you cannot answer in your own words, don't you have your own ideas
>> or
>> opinions?
>
> Is that supposed to be a rebuttal of some kind, 'cos it ain't y'know.

no, there is a ? at the end of it, it is a question, but I forgot, you don't
seem to have opinions of your own so cannot answer questions

Jim Webster

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim Webster > wrote:
>
>> > 'Localism and Its Enemies
>> > Posted by David Bollier on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 11:48am
>
>> pity you cannot answer in your own words, don't you have your own ideas
>> or opinions?
>
> There are some points that should be addressed. That may be the USA but
> they do like to maintain protection of their own, while keeping out
> competition.

the US has strong phytosanitary regulations. It has to be admitted that
some, (the New Zealanders for example) are of the opinion that these
regulations are trade distorting on purpose, but it also has to be admitted
that their regulations have kept FMD out a damned sight better than ours
have

>
> Bananas in the Carribean are another example.

It was once explained to me that the import quotas for Carribean bananas was
a political decision in Europe, in that we didn't want to leave the
Carribean to be divided up between the US and Cuba. It is just so much
easier to dress up as 'AID' and give it some sort of moral legitimacy.
It isn't a stance I agree with, but I would be very wary of getting on too
high a horse over this issue.

Jim Webster

In article >,
Jim Webster > wrote:



> >
> > Bananas in the Carribean are another example.

> It was once explained to me that the import quotas for Carribean bananas
> was a political decision in Europe, in that we didn't want to leave the
> Carribean to be divided up between the US and Cuba. It is just so much
> easier to dress up as 'AID' and give it some sort of moral legitimacy.
> It isn't a stance I agree with, but I would be very wary of getting on
> too high a horse over this issue.

> Jim Webster

I saw the plantations in St Lucia pretty well idle. A few people were
literally giving them to tourists with a donation box present because
people tended to give more than they could get by setting a price. They
said it was because their bananas did not meet some American conditions,
unlike those grown by multinationals in Honduras. As for me I know
nothing.

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim Webster > wrote:
>
> >
> I saw the plantations in St Lucia pretty well idle. A few people were
> literally giving them to tourists with a donation box present because
> people tended to give more than they could get by setting a price. They
> said it was because their bananas did not meet some American conditions,
> unlike those grown by multinationals in Honduras. As for me I know
> nothing.
>
probably true but I'm not sure whether they ever sold many into the US
anyway, they have been largely geared to UK and France for political
reasons.
I can see where the donation box idea would win out, if you do it in this
country with field vegetables it works as well, because people will always
donate more than you can sell them for ;-(

Jim Webster

Old Codger wrote:

No. Pete the troll is playing wannabe master forger again. He did it
yet again three minutes later in this thread

> The bully hath spoken. You might bamboozle a senile woman like Jill in
> to obeying your whim but I think Jim is a little too dense to use a
> kf, but then you don't appear to be the brightest spark in the box
> either.

As Pete never reads what he posts and desires only to provoke
argument it is safest to assume that anything he espouses is
at least unsafe and probably malicious.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 21, 10:48 am, Old Codger >
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
>>> >> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
>>> >> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
>>> >> > British birdwatching?
>>>
>>> >> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
>>> >> groups to which it is cross posted.
>>>
>>> >Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
>>> >to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
>>> >first.
>>>
>>> That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
>>> don't possess.
>>>
>>> >> However, Pete is so desperate for
>>> >> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>>>
>>> >Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
>>> >that is his motivation?
>>>
>>> Education for all I should imagine.
>>
>>The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
>>to discuss animal rights.
>
> People don't sign up anyway. If you want a sheltered world exclusively
> for weirdo's who cannot face reality then go start a moderated
> newsgroup on your own.
>
> On a public forum you get to see everything the public want you to
> see. Animal rights and global destruction are issues for us all even
> birdwatchers.
>
> What kind of ponce can pretend otherwise?

Hear! Hear!

>
>>> >> In
>>> >> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>>>
>>> >If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...
>>>
>>> That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
>>> wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
>>> magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
>>> case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.
>>>
>>> The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
>>> please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> We simply don't care.
>>
>>That's not the point. I wasn't question whether he should continue
>>posting to *relevant* newsgroups. If he wants to then of course he
>>should! But worming around people's killfiles, I don't agree with
>>that...
>
> Learn to use filters then. Pro hunt extremists have been known to
> track down and harm people so it's wise to keep on the run especially
> if you are providing a public service.
>
> Netkopping is despised the world over these days far more so than
> crossposting devils. You'd do well to understand that before you start
> trying to educate us into world of netkop weirdo's.
>
>>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>>
>>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>>
>>The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
>>or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
>>them. End of.
>
> You think it's ok for everyone else to fight your battles do you? I
> prefer to kick netkpops up the arse so shove that up your chuffer.
>
>>> Even if you
>>> are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
>>> look for birds but usually just peeping toms!
>


--
ah

In > on Fri, 21 Mar 2008
08:30:29 -0000, in uk.current-events.bird-flu, 'Buddenbrooks' wrote:

>
>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> Also to note that all decaying plant matter emits methane, remember the
>> fuss when they recently discovered vast amounts were being emitted by
>> topsoils worldwide.
>>
>
>
> In an area of Salisbury which had a building estate using an ex-city dump
>there was a sudden need to dig holes to release gas safely. The dump had
>been disused for decades and had been deemed inactive.
>
> I find it astonishing that it is accepted that a super-computer is needed
>to inaccurately predict weather and yet "obvious aint it" is applied to the
>global warming problem.
>
>It will be interesting to see what the coming credit crunch driven downturn
>in the economy does to people's views as jobs disappear and people realize
>that
>keeping the worlds economy going and reducing emissions is not going to be
>easy.

I was going to stay out of it, but 'keeping the worlds economy going' is
the polar opposite of 'reducing emissions'

In fact it's broader than that.

'Keeping the economy going' is, by definition, a maintenance of the
current exponential rate of growth. That growth (almost) by definition
involves a parallel increase in consumption.

Therefore a 'healthy economy', under the current system of values,
desires, and definitions of success, probably has an *automatic* cost WRT
the odds on our survival.

Dave J.

Dave J. > writes

>I was going to stay out of it, but 'keeping the worlds economy going' is the
>polar opposite of 'reducing emissions'

Almost certainly unless there is a sudden burst for nuclear, tidal or
massive solar powerstations. None of these seems very likely.

>In fact it's broader than that.
>
>'Keeping the economy going' is, by definition, a maintenance of the current
>exponential rate of growth. That growth (almost) by definition involves a
>parallel increase in consumption.

Yes. That's true and by golly its kicking in with the chinese, and soon
perhaps even the indians. There are 2B of them, which is a tad more than
500M westerners.

>Therefore a 'healthy economy', under the current system of values, desires,
>and definitions of success, probably has an *automatic* cost WRT the odds on
>our survival.

That depend on whether global warming and survival go together.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Dave J." > wrote in message
...
> Therefore a 'healthy economy', under the current system of values,
> desires, and definitions of success, probably has an *automatic* cost WRT
> the odds on our survival.
>


Dictators and world war with a whole generation of men being wiped out
is the traditional result when economies fail to feed their people.

In article >, buddenbrooks
> wrote:
>
> "Dave J." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Therefore a 'healthy economy', under the current system of values,
> > desires, and definitions of success, probably has an *automatic* cost WRT
> > the odds on our survival.

> Dictators and world war with a whole generation of men being wiped out
> is the traditional result when economies fail to feed their people.

You'd think governments would worry about the preceeding riot and
revolution - does the National Curriculum history syllabus include bread and
circuses? - Ce qu'ils mangeant la brioche.

Cheerio,

--

>>
>> http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

Old Codger wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:06:04 -0400, ah > wrote:
>
>>Old Codger wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mar 21, 10:48 am, Old Codger >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
>>>>> >> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
>>>>> >> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
>>>>> >> > British birdwatching?
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
>>>>> >> groups to which it is cross posted.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
>>>>> >to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
>>>>> >first.
>>>>>
>>>>> That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
>>>>> don't possess.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> However, Pete is so desperate for
>>>>> >> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
>>>>> >that is his motivation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Education for all I should imagine.
>>>>
>>>>The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
>>>>to discuss animal rights.
>>>
>>> People don't sign up anyway. If you want a sheltered world exclusively
>>> for weirdo's who cannot face reality then go start a moderated
>>> newsgroup on your own.
>>>
>>> On a public forum you get to see everything the public want you to
>>> see. Animal rights and global destruction are issues for us all even
>>> birdwatchers.
>>>
>>> What kind of ponce can pretend otherwise?
>>
>>Hear! Hear!
>
> Parakeet?

Will one do?

>
> What am I Tiwit, towoo?

Twixt?

>
>>>
>>>>> >> In
>>>>> >> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>>>>>
>>>>> >If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
>>>>> wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
>>>>> magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
>>>>> case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
>>>>> please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
>>>>> decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> We simply don't care.
>>>>
>>>>That's not the point. I wasn't question whether he should continue
>>>>posting to *relevant* newsgroups. If he wants to then of course he
>>>>should! But worming around people's killfiles, I don't agree with
>>>>that...
>>>
>>> Learn to use filters then. Pro hunt extremists have been known to
>>> track down and harm people so it's wise to keep on the run especially
>>> if you are providing a public service.
>>>
>>> Netkopping is despised the world over these days far more so than
>>> crossposting devils. You'd do well to understand that before you start
>>> trying to educate us into world of netkop weirdo's.
>>>
>>>>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>>>>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>>>>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>>>>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>>>>
>>>>The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
>>>>or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
>>>>them. End of.
>>>
>>> You think it's ok for everyone else to fight your battles do you? I
>>> prefer to kick netkpops up the arse so shove that up your chuffer.
>>>
>>>>> Even if you
>>>>> are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
>>>>> look for birds but usually just peeping toms!
>>>
>


--
ah

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:17:32 -0400, ah > wrote:

>Old Codger wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:06:04 -0400, ah > wrote:
>>
>>>Old Codger wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mar 21, 10:48 am, Old Codger >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
>>>>>> >> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
>>>>>> >> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
>>>>>> >> > British birdwatching?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
>>>>>> >> groups to which it is cross posted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
>>>>>> >to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
>>>>>> >first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
>>>>>> don't possess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> However, Pete is so desperate for
>>>>>> >> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
>>>>>> >that is his motivation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Education for all I should imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
>>>>>to discuss animal rights.
>>>>
>>>> People don't sign up anyway. If you want a sheltered world exclusively
>>>> for weirdo's who cannot face reality then go start a moderated
>>>> newsgroup on your own.
>>>>
>>>> On a public forum you get to see everything the public want you to
>>>> see. Animal rights and global destruction are issues for us all even
>>>> birdwatchers.
>>>>
>>>> What kind of ponce can pretend otherwise?
>>>
>>>Hear! Hear!
>>
>> Parakeet?
>
>Will one do?
>
>>
>> What am I Tiwit, towoo?
>
>Twixt?

Sorry I cant dance but thanks for asking. My ugly sister can, will she
do?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>> >> In
>>>>>> >> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
>>>>>> wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
>>>>>> magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
>>>>>> case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
>>>>>> please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We simply don't care.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not the point. I wasn't question whether he should continue
>>>>>posting to *relevant* newsgroups. If he wants to then of course he
>>>>>should! But worming around people's killfiles, I don't agree with
>>>>>that...
>>>>
>>>> Learn to use filters then. Pro hunt extremists have been known to
>>>> track down and harm people so it's wise to keep on the run especially
>>>> if you are providing a public service.
>>>>
>>>> Netkopping is despised the world over these days far more so than
>>>> crossposting devils. You'd do well to understand that before you start
>>>> trying to educate us into world of netkop weirdo's.
>>>>
>>>>>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>>>>>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>>>>>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>>>>>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>>>>>
>>>>>The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
>>>>>or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
>>>>>them. End of.
>>>>
>>>> You think it's ok for everyone else to fight your battles do you? I
>>>> prefer to kick netkpops up the arse so shove that up your chuffer.
>>>>
>>>>>> Even if you
>>>>>> are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
>>>>>> look for birds but usually just peeping toms!
>>>>
>>

Old Codger wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:17:32 -0400, ah > wrote:
>
>>Old Codger wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:06:04 -0400, ah > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Old Codger wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mar 21, 10:48 am, Old Codger >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On 20 Mar, 16:21, Old Codger > wrote:
>>>>>>> >> Tom Withycombe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> > I'm obviously suffering from mental constipation but could someone
>>>>>>> >> > enlighten me as to what this rubbish has to do with a ng dedicated to
>>>>>>> >> > British birdwatching?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> Nothing at all Tom, just as it has little relevance to many of the
>>>>>>> >> groups to which it is cross posted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Of course the problem could be alleviated if everyone replying
>>>>>>> >to the guy removed all the irrelevant groups from the cross-post
>>>>>>> >first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That requires aptitude and common sense. Something the troll netkops
>>>>>>> don't possess.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> However, Pete is so desperate for
>>>>>>> >> attention that he always cross posts to at least six groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Why does he post to small groups instead of large ones if
>>>>>>> >that is his motivation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Education for all I should imagine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The point is people don't sign up to groups like uk.rec.birdwatching
>>>>>>to discuss animal rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> People don't sign up anyway. If you want a sheltered world exclusively
>>>>> for weirdo's who cannot face reality then go start a moderated
>>>>> newsgroup on your own.
>>>>>
>>>>> On a public forum you get to see everything the public want you to
>>>>> see. Animal rights and global destruction are issues for us all even
>>>>> birdwatchers.
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of ponce can pretend otherwise?
>>>>
>>>>Hear! Hear!
>>>
>>> Parakeet?
>>
>>Will one do?
>>
>>>
>>> What am I Tiwit, towoo?
>>
>>Twixt?
>
> Sorry I cant dance but thanks for asking. My ugly sister can, will she
> do?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> In
>>>>>>> >> addition, he frequently nymshifts in attempts to avoid the kill filters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >If they don't want to read his posts he should respect that...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a bit like saying a newspaper should be tailored to individual
>>>>>>> wants. Nonsense. Most of the netkops just want comics and dirty
>>>>>>> magazines to read. In Brian's (Old Codger from Bicknacre in Essex)
>>>>>>> case he just wants dirty magazines portraying bestiality subjects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simple fact is if you don't want to read something then DON'T, but
>>>>>>> please don't proceed and feel the world needs to know about your
>>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We simply don't care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's not the point. I wasn't question whether he should continue
>>>>>>posting to *relevant* newsgroups. If he wants to then of course he
>>>>>>should! But worming around people's killfiles, I don't agree with
>>>>>>that...
>>>>>
>>>>> Learn to use filters then. Pro hunt extremists have been known to
>>>>> track down and harm people so it's wise to keep on the run especially
>>>>> if you are providing a public service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Netkopping is despised the world over these days far more so than
>>>>> crossposting devils. You'd do well to understand that before you start
>>>>> trying to educate us into world of netkop weirdo's.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> > By all means discuss this in the fullest possible detail in the vegan, veggie, environmentally aware landfill sites,
>>>>>>> >> > methane and related gases and such focussed groups but please don't dump
>>>>>>> >> > this rubbish in the British birdwatching group. After all you have
>>>>>>> >> > around 60,000 other newsgroups to choose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every one should be aware of the problem the planet faces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The planet has many problems. People who want to discuss them
>>>>>>or learn about them do not join uk.rec.birdwatching to learn about
>>>>>>them. End of.
>>>>>
>>>>> You think it's ok for everyone else to fight your battles do you? I
>>>>> prefer to kick netkpops up the arse so shove that up your chuffer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if you
>>>>>>> are sad twitcher who likes to hide away in dark bushes pretending to
>>>>>>> look for birds but usually just peeping toms!
>>>>>
>>>
>

Yup.
--
ah