UCHR

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Roy
<roy@somedomainsomewhere.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

>> The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
>> areas are mostly supported by walkers too.
>
> Grant suckers.
The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers
who give up their time and expertise.

It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations. He's the
one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.

Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?

I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
Just look at the websites he references.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.

Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
apparently communists.

Yes, he seems to prefer the landowning fraternity even though he's
opposed to hunting, not something most walkers do.

I'm absolutely opposed to hunting in any shape or form but that
doesn't mean I should support sponging walkers.

Quoted message said:

I guess he's envious
and would like a big estate of his own he could fence to keep walkers
out.

I certainly wouldn't buy one for walkers to use.

Would you buy a car for other motorists to use?

I think you have double standards.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Roy
<roy@somedomainsomewhere.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend wrote:
> In message <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] writes

>>> The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
>>> areas are mostly supported by walkers too.
>>
>> Grant suckers.
> The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
>destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers
>who give up their time and expertise.

It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations. He's the
one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.

Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?

I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
Just look at the websites he references.

Quoted message said:

> Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.

Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
apparently communists.

Yes, he seems to prefer the landowning fraternity even though he's
opposed to hunting, not something most walkers do.

I'm absolutely opposed to hunting in any shape or form but that
doesn't mean I should support sponging walkers.

But it seems to mean you support pro-hunting landowners.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess he's envious
and would like a big estate of his own he could fence to keep walkers
out.

I certainly wouldn't buy one for walkers to use.

Would you buy a car for other motorists to use?

I think you have double standards.

You can't equate a car with an estate.

Quoted message said:

--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Roy
<roy@somedomainsomewhere.?.invalid> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>> In message <[email hidden]>,
>>[email hidden] writes
>
>>>> The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
>>>> areas are mostly supported by walkers too.
>>>
>>> Grant suckers.
>> The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
>>destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers
>>who give up their time and expertise.
>
>It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations. He's the
>one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
>obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.
>
>Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?

I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
Just look at the websites he references.
>
>
>> Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.
>
>Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
>apparently communists.

Yes, he seems to prefer the landowning fraternity even though he's
opposed to hunting, not something most walkers do.

I'm absolutely opposed to hunting in any shape or form but that
doesn't mean I should support sponging walkers.

But it seems to mean you support pro-hunting landowners.

Not in the slightest. I support the human right to have privacy on
one's owned property.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess he's envious
and would like a big estate of his own he could fence to keep walkers
out.

I certainly wouldn't buy one for walkers to use.

Would you buy a car for other motorists to use?

I think you have double standards.

You can't equate a car with an estate.

Quoted message said:

Of course you can. They are both an owned asset bought with the money
of the owner.

So why not let other people you don't know use your car and don't be
so selfish?

Or is it only other peoples' assets you think should be used by you?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:52:17 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>In message <[email hidden]>, Roy
><roy@somedomainsomewhere.?.invalid> writes
>>Chris Townsend wrote:
>>> In message <[email hidden]>,
>>>[email hidden] writes
>>
>>>>> The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
>>>>> areas are mostly supported by walkers too.
>>>>
>>>> Grant suckers.
>>> The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
>>>destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers
>>>who give up their time and expertise.
>>
>>It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations. He's the
>>one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
>>obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.
>>
>>Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?
>
>I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
>Just look at the websites he references.
>>
>>
>>> Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.
>>
>>Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
>>apparently communists.
>
>Yes, he seems to prefer the landowning fraternity even though he's
>opposed to hunting, not something most walkers do.

I'm absolutely opposed to hunting in any shape or form but that
doesn't mean I should support sponging walkers.

But it seems to mean you support pro-hunting landowners.

Not in the slightest. I support the human right to have privacy on
one's owned property.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I guess he's envious
>and would like a big estate of his own he could fence to keep walkers
>out.

I certainly wouldn't buy one for walkers to use.

Would you buy a car for other motorists to use?

I think you have double standards.

You can't equate a car with an estate.

Quoted message said:

Of course you can. They are both an owned asset bought with the money
of the owner.

So why not let other people you don't know use your car and don't be
so selfish?

Or is it only other peoples' assets you think should be used by you?

You're now getting so ridiculous that it's not worth replying any more.
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:52:17 +0100, Chris Townsend
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email hidden]>, Roy
>><roy@somedomainsomewhere.?.invalid> writes
>>>Chris Townsend wrote:
>>>> In message <[email hidden]>,
>>>>[email hidden] writes
>>>
>>>>>> The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
>>>>>> areas are mostly supported by walkers too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Grant suckers.
>>>> The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
>>>>destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers
>>>>who give up their time and expertise.
>>>
>>>It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations. He's the
>>>one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
>>>obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.
>>>
>>>Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?
>>
>>I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
>>Just look at the websites he references.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.
>>>
>>>Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
>>>apparently communists.
>>
>>Yes, he seems to prefer the landowning fraternity even though he's
>>opposed to hunting, not something most walkers do.
>
>I'm absolutely opposed to hunting in any shape or form but that
>doesn't mean I should support sponging walkers.

But it seems to mean you support pro-hunting landowners.

Not in the slightest. I support the human right to have privacy on
one's owned property.

Quoted message said:

>
>>I guess he's envious
>>and would like a big estate of his own he could fence to keep walkers
>>out.
>
>I certainly wouldn't buy one for walkers to use.
>
>Would you buy a car for other motorists to use?
>
>I think you have double standards.

You can't equate a car with an estate.
>

Of course you can. They are both an owned asset bought with the money
of the owner.

So why not let other people you don't know use your car and don't be
so selfish?

Or is it only other peoples' assets you think should be used by you?

You're now getting so ridiculous that it's not worth replying any more.

No I'm not. The same applies. Both are bought with the money of the
owner and should be for his/her own use.

What's the point of buying something to let strangers use it?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Richard Spencer
<[email hidden]> writes
>The message <[email hidden]>
>from Chris Townsend <[email hidden]> contains these
>words:
>
>> Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
>> homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
>> of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
>> the sight of other people?
>
>Chris,
>
>I think the answer to this one is as long as a bit of string! I didn't
>expect to look out of the sitting room window a few years back, and see
>a very pretty girl in a red dress having her photograph taken within a
>metre of the house. Actually neither she nor boyfriend/cameraman had any
>access rights, because they'd driven in, and from the speed with which
>they drove off, as I came out to enquire who they were, I think they
>knew they were out of bounds.
>
>I think the whole thing is down to tact and common sense. If I am on a
>path that passes a house, I look to see whether there is another spur of
>path slightly further away, and if there isn't, I clip by swiftly,
>taking no photographs, and avoiding looking into any windows.
>
>You also wrote, "Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of
>their home as disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.", with which I
>entirely agree. There is, however, a lot of difference between "within
>sight of their home" and walking past their windows.

Richard,

I agree with you. The example you give isn't about access rights. I have
an estate track some 10 metres in front of my house which is used by
estate and farm vehicles, walkers and cyclists. Most people don't look
in the house. If they do and I can see them I give them a wave.

So you're now admitting strangers are invading your privacy.

I have no problem with people looking towards my house. I don't feel
this is an invasion of my privacy. As I said, if I notice I just wave.
If I'm in the garden I sometimes chat to them.

But other people do have a problem with it and their wishes of privacy
should be respected.

Indeed this is enshrined in the Convention on Human Rights which the
UK has signed up to - long before the Land Reform Act. Is this not
the case?

So why should people tolerate others if they want their privacy?

Some time ago we had some Germans hikers at our door on a wet and dark
horrible night asking if I'd phone for a taxi. I told them to get
lost and if they were walkers they should walk. They'll not think
much of Scottish peoples' hospitality and friendliness. Perhaps
that's the way forward for all those who oppose access.

There's more than one way of skinning a cat.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Some time ago we had some Germans hikers at our door on a wet and dark
horrible night asking if I'd phone for a taxi. I told them to get
lost and if they were walkers they should walk. They'll not think
much of Scottish peoples' hospitality and friendliness. Perhaps
that's the way forward for all those who oppose access.

There's more than one way of skinning a cat.

Impolite, rude, anti-social, misanthropic - what a miserable and
unpleasant person you are. Thank goodness most Scottish people are
hospitable and friendly.

If you're ever in need I hope others are prepared to show more sympathy.
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Some time ago we had some Germans hikers at our door on a wet and dark
horrible night asking if I'd phone for a taxi. I told them to get
lost and if they were walkers they should walk. They'll not think
much of Scottish peoples' hospitality and friendliness. Perhaps
that's the way forward for all those who oppose access.

There's more than one way of skinning a cat.

Impolite, rude, anti-social, misanthropic - what a miserable and
unpleasant person you are.

Quite the reverse. I think they were very rude and forward coming to
a strangers house and asking the occupier to phone for a taxi

If they're walkers they should walk. Not bother other people. But
spongers wouldn't see that.

I wouldn't go to someone's front door and ask them to phone for a
taxi.

Quoted message said:

Thank goodness most Scottish people are
hospitable and friendly.

More like they're ripping off the tourists. Perhaps you don't know
but Scotland is well known for ripping off visitors.

Quoted message said:

If you're ever in need I hope others are prepared to show more sympathy.

Now , you don't really mean that :-))

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Some time ago we had some Germans hikers at our door on a wet and dark
horrible night asking if I'd phone for a taxi. I told them to get
lost and if they were walkers they should walk. They'll not think
much of Scottish peoples' hospitality and friendliness. Perhaps
that's the way forward for all those who oppose access.

There's more than one way of skinning a cat.

Impolite, rude, anti-social, misanthropic - what a miserable and
unpleasant person you are.

Quite the reverse. I think they were very rude and forward coming to
a strangers house and asking the occupier to phone for a taxi

If wet and cold and in need of transport I think it's a perfectly
reasonable thing to do and I think it very rude not to assist them.

Quoted message said:

If they're walkers they should walk. Not bother other people. But
spongers wouldn't see that.

German hikers are not spongers. Oh, of course, you regard anyone who
walks as a sponger.

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't go to someone's front door and ask them to phone for a
taxi.

If in need I would.

I guess you'd rather lie down and die than be thought a sponger.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thank goodness most Scottish people are
hospitable and friendly.

More like they're ripping off the tourists. Perhaps you don't know
but Scotland is well known for ripping off visitors.

Certainly true in Edinburgh! But not particularly in the Highlands. I
travel a lot here and other than the cost of petrol prices are quite
reasonable. I also know many people in the tourist trade and none of
them wish to rip people off, just to make a reasonable living, and all
are hospitable and friendly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're ever in need I hope others are prepared to show more sympathy.

Now , you don't really mean that :-))

I do, actually. The fact I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I want
them to suffer in any way.

Quoted message said:

--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Roy said:

Chris Townsend wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
Just look at the websites he references.

Oh he's serious alright, and that's what makes it particularly sad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Angus wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, walking is damaging.

So you're opposed to walking/ You'd prefer people to sit at home all
the time?

He undoubtedly would. In fact, that's probably exactly what he does. I
suspect that he's a loner who lives out in the country, right next to
footpath. He probably spends all his time indoors, stewing in his own
vitriolic viewpoints, suffering the misery of watching happy walkers passing
outside, occasionally looking his way and noticing a strange face grimacing
at the window.

He's probably been alone with his viewpoints for so long that he just
doesn't realise how extreme and unacceptable they are to normal folk, with
whom he probably never socialises.

Quoted message said:

Well Troll or Fool. Take your pick.

How about this description? An illogical obsessive paranoid fanatic with a
biased personal agenda, a warped view of the world and a complete lack of
understanding of human nature.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Chris Townsend said:

You're now getting so ridiculous that it's not worth replying any
more.

And it's taken you that long to figure that out? ;-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

You're now getting so ridiculous that it's not worth replying any
more.

And it's taken you that long to figure that out? ;-)

Well, there were points earlier that others might have been interested
in. But now he's getting into pointless and contorted metaphors that
really aren't worth considering.

I've argued with Angus before. It's entertaining for a while and I do
find it useful to practice and revise my arguments and facts
occasionally.

I see you're treating him gently elsewhere :-)
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Paul Saunders said:

Roy said:

Chris Townsend wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
Just look at the websites he references.

Oh he's serious alright, and that's what makes it particularly sad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Angus wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Also, walking is damaging.

So you're opposed to walking/ You'd prefer people to sit at home all
the time?

He undoubtedly would. In fact, that's probably exactly what he does. I
suspect that he's a loner who lives out in the country, right next to
footpath. He probably spends all his time indoors, stewing in his own
vitriolic viewpoints, suffering the misery of watching happy walkers passing
outside, occasionally looking his way and noticing a strange face grimacing
at the window.

He's probably been alone with his viewpoints for so long that he just
doesn't realise how extreme and unacceptable they are to normal folk, with
whom he probably never socialises.

Quoted message said:

Well Troll or Fool. Take your pick.

How about this description? An illogical obsessive paranoid fanatic with a
biased personal agenda, a warped view of the world and a complete lack of
understanding of human nature.

Paul

Wow! When you can't hack the argument attack the messenger :-))

So, I wonder how I could describe you?

One with a biased personal agenda against anyone who opposes the
sponging walkers' view that they have a right to use other peoples'
property in the furtherance of their recreation at no cost to
themselves. And a paranoid view that anyone opposing such scrounging
might perchance get a foothold of support against the scroungers'
charter known as Land Reform, and a vitriolic hatred of those who
dare to oppose you.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Paul Saunders said:

Chris Townsend said:

You're now getting so ridiculous that it's not worth replying any
more.

And it's taken you that long to figure that out? ;-)

Paul

So you don't mind using other peoples' property but not allowing
others to use yours?

That figures :-((

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

You're now getting so ridiculous that it's not worth replying any
more.

And it's taken you that long to figure that out? ;-)

Well, there were points earlier that others might have been interested
in. But now he's getting into pointless and contorted metaphors that
really aren't worth considering.

Not if your committed to using other peoples' property but not
allowing others to use yours.

If an estate owner came to you and asked you to let him use your car
because you use his property would you refuse?

Quoted message said:

I've argued with Angus before. It's entertaining for a while and I do
find it useful to practice and revise my arguments and facts
occasionally.

I don't see much revision.

Quoted message said:

I see you're treating him gently elsewhere :-)

Yes, he's run out of ideas :-))

Happens all the time.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Paul Saunders said:

Roy said:

Chris Townsend wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
Just look at the websites he references.

Oh he's serious alright, and that's what makes it particularly sad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Angus wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Also, walking is damaging.

So you're opposed to walking/ You'd prefer people to sit at home all
the time?

He undoubtedly would. In fact, that's probably exactly what he does. I
suspect that he's a loner who lives out in the country, right next to
footpath. He probably spends all his time indoors, stewing in his own
vitriolic viewpoints, suffering the misery of watching happy walkers passing
outside, occasionally looking his way and noticing a strange face grimacing
at the window.

He's probably been alone with his viewpoints for so long that he just
doesn't realise how extreme and unacceptable they are to normal folk, with
whom he probably never socialises.

Quoted message said:

Well Troll or Fool. Take your pick.

How about this description? An illogical obsessive paranoid fanatic with a
biased personal agenda, a warped view of the world and a complete lack of
understanding of human nature.

Paul

BTW. If you want to talk about real "sadness" look at this entry in
your website:

Paul Saunders

Born: 28th November 1958, Gorseinon

Home: Swansea, South Wales

Status: Single

Walking Areas: Gower Peninsula, Brecon Beacons, Mid-Wales, Snowdonia

Interests: Music, landscape photography, wargames & wandering in the
wilderness.

Website: Wilderness Wales

AND

What's all this about "expeditions" in Wales? That's a laugh!

I think you've got ideas above your station.

No wonder you're "single" :-))

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If they're walkers they should walk. Not bother other people. But
spongers wouldn't see that.

German hikers are not spongers.

Ooh I bet they are. Coming over here bringing their own wurst and
sauerkraut, wild camping next to our car parks to avoid contributing to
the local economy.

Roy.