toxoplasma gondii

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:06:29 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

©¿© wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:08:40 GMT, "Matthew"
wrote:
"©¿©" wrote in message
...

So snip the cross posts you troll.


why don't you so the cat people won't have to put up with this


I don't know how. Ask the old codger, he seems to have all the
answers.

You really are a liar and a Troll Pete.

Ouch. That is so cruel.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:26:12 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article .com,
writes

Malcolm wrote:

In article .com,
writes

Malcolm wrote:

In article , Pat Gardiner
writes

"©¿©" wrote in message
.. .

In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
what's going on, you'll never change that


Thank you, whoever you are ;o))

He's a troll, a serial liar and regularly defames people.

No wonder you agree with him, as you are all of those, too.

Just ignore us all Malcolm.

I've given you your rightful credit for telling the world that I was
telling the truth when I said that I had given evidence to a Select
Committee of the House of Commons about blood test faking by SVS vets
during the Swine Fever epidemic. You were really helpful

Why thank you, Pat, you patronising twerp. By the way, you keep saying
that the alleged blood test faking was by "SVS vets", in the plural. Yet
in your letter to the Select Committee you state that it was a single
vet. Would the Select Committee be pleased to know that you have changed
your evidence?

Don't get so upset. I hope your bird books have a higher standard of
accuracy that your comments here.

Which of my comments above is inaccurate?

Anyway, you give me the chance to explain again. At the time when I
gave evidence to the Select Committee, there had been only one blood
test faking.

After I complained I was visited by a senior official from the SVS, who
threatened us and faked up a record of the meeting. I complained to Mr
Speaker and he was sent home.

An investigation team arrived from Scotland. There was a third faking
of the records.You can find the details of this horrendous and worrying
series of incidents on my site. Read "Stop the World"
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/patg.../stopworld.htm

All of which is just a silly wriggle. You have stated above that you
gave evidence to the Select Committee about SVS "vets", plural. You
didn't, your evidence was about one vet. I hope that all your evidence
had a higher standard of accuracy than your claims here.


I don't suppose it will impact on your relationship with Maff-Defra,
the SVS or the RSPB in the long term.

No, it won't, you silly little man. I have no relationship with Defra,
though I do with Seerad. The only vets I know, or have ever known, are
hard-working, decent and honest. My relationship with the RSPB is in
exactly the same excellent state that it has been for a great many
years.

Don't be so gratuitouslly abusive. People might get the impression you
are worried.

Then they would be wrong. You are one of the most abusive posters here.
It seems fitting to inform you in no uncertain terms that what you are
claiming about me is stupid rubbish and people who spout stupid rubbish
are often (always) stupid themselves.

You are right, it is Seerad and indeed I was getting
Scottish Executive letterheads dealing with complaints of criminal
offences that were committed by Scottish vets in England. They seem to
have trouble understanding their role in Britain stops at the border.

I suppose there is no point asking you for evidence that anything
"criminal" was committed. You don't *do* evidence, do you? Nor can you
apparently understand why Scottish vets might legitimately do some work
in England.


If they are a bit sniffy with you, you can always take some time off to
look at that new highland bird.

They are much more likely to thank me for exposing you for the lying
defamer that you are. I've already seen the Scottish Crossbill, thank
you.

Good for you. That must be a big moment for any twitcher. I wonder they
did not name it after you? Wouldn't that have been fun?

Silly little man.


By the time you have found one, DNA'd it and got home. They will all
have forgotten all about your intervention and be knee deep in the next
crisis.

Now you call it my "intervention". A few hours ago you were claiming
that the only way I could have seen your letter was to have gone to
London, or sent someone else, to look at it at the House of Lords
library. Do you finally accept that your claim was wrong?

I have no idea. That was most certainly the position when the incident
occured. Maybe the rules of the House were changed in the meantime.
Anyway, by whatever means, you got a copy and were able to confirm that
part of the story. Thank You!

Another silly wriggle. There has been no change in the rules, just a
total reluctance by you to face up to the fact that what you were saying
about access to the evidence was completely wrong.

Even though I
told you months ago that I received a copy of your letter in the post,
you still had to repeat your lying claim again yesterday, didn't you?

Yes, well, I don't actually know how you received it and was being a
bit discrete in case accidentally any of the rules of the House were
broken in its aquisition.

Yes, well, you do know, because I spelt it out in detail soon after
receiving it in order to inform you that your continued claims about how
I got hold of it were completely wrong.

I got two separate stories as to why it was
not published with the other evidence, so things can go wrong. There
probably was a change in the rules and to be honest how you got it,
with or without actually visiting the House of Lords, is not material
to anything.

No, it isn't material, but the truth is, something you seem to have
great difficulty with. Your attempt to claim that there was a change in
the rules is a perfect example of this. Open your mind, Pat, stir your
two brain cells together and accept some facts, for a change, instead of
entering your usual state of denial.

By the way, take note that your lying, trolling, defaming "friend" has
just proved how right I was about him by repeating lies and defamation
about me. You and he are two of a kind.

I don't even know who he is Malcolm, but perhaps you should be more
careful about needlessly upsetting people.

I shall do as I please, Pat, including correcting you when you spout
lying nonsense about matters on which I know more than you, which is
undoubtedly more than you think. I also take great exception to you
libelling me, which you have done on a number of occasions, whereas your
claim that I have libelled you was a complete fiction. I note that I
still haven't heard from your solicitor.

Oh dear. Looks like someone has upset Malcolm, quite badly. Now who
would want to do such a mean thing?

The fact he is a fat, lying, cheating, obnoxious, file, deviant troll,
is neither here nor there.

Have pity, now he is unemployed.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:26:12 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article .com,
writes

Malcolm wrote:

In article .com,
writes

Malcolm wrote:

In article , Pat Gardiner
writes

"©¿©" wrote in message
.. .

In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
what's going on, you'll never change that


Thank you, whoever you are ;o))

He's a troll, a serial liar and regularly defames people.

No wonder you agree with him, as you are all of those, too.

Just ignore us all Malcolm.

I've given you your rightful credit for telling the world that I was
telling the truth when I said that I had given evidence to a Select
Committee of the House of Commons about blood test faking by SVS vets
during the Swine Fever epidemic. You were really helpful

Why thank you, Pat, you patronising twerp. By the way, you keep saying
that the alleged blood test faking was by "SVS vets", in the plural. Yet
in your letter to the Select Committee you state that it was a single
vet. Would the Select Committee be pleased to know that you have changed
your evidence?

Don't get so upset. I hope your bird books have a higher standard of
accuracy that your comments here.

Which of my comments above is inaccurate?

Anyway, you give me the chance to explain again. At the time when I
gave evidence to the Select Committee, there had been only one blood
test faking.

After I complained I was visited by a senior official from the SVS, who
threatened us and faked up a record of the meeting. I complained to Mr
Speaker and he was sent home.

An investigation team arrived from Scotland. There was a third faking
of the records.You can find the details of this horrendous and worrying
series of incidents on my site. Read "Stop the World"
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/patg.../stopworld.htm

All of which is just a silly wriggle. You have stated above that you
gave evidence to the Select Committee about SVS "vets", plural. You
didn't, your evidence was about one vet. I hope that all your evidence
had a higher standard of accuracy than your claims here.


I don't suppose it will impact on your relationship with Maff-Defra,
the SVS or the RSPB in the long term.

No, it won't, you silly little man. I have no relationship with Defra,
though I do with Seerad. The only vets I know, or have ever known, are
hard-working, decent and honest. My relationship with the RSPB is in
exactly the same excellent state that it has been for a great many
years.

Don't be so gratuitouslly abusive. People might get the impression you
are worried.

Then they would be wrong. You are one of the most abusive posters here.
It seems fitting to inform you in no uncertain terms that what you are
claiming about me is stupid rubbish and people who spout stupid rubbish
are often (always) stupid themselves.

You are right, it is Seerad and indeed I was getting
Scottish Executive letterheads dealing with complaints of criminal
offences that were committed by Scottish vets in England. They seem to
have trouble understanding their role in Britain stops at the border.

I suppose there is no point asking you for evidence that anything
"criminal" was committed. You don't *do* evidence, do you? Nor can you
apparently understand why Scottish vets might legitimately do some work
in England.


If they are a bit sniffy with you, you can always take some time off to
look at that new highland bird.

They are much more likely to thank me for exposing you for the lying
defamer that you are. I've already seen the Scottish Crossbill, thank
you.

Good for you. That must be a big moment for any twitcher. I wonder they
did not name it after you? Wouldn't that have been fun?

Silly little man.


By the time you have found one, DNA'd it and got home. They will all
have forgotten all about your intervention and be knee deep in the next
crisis.

Now you call it my "intervention". A few hours ago you were claiming
that the only way I could have seen your letter was to have gone to
London, or sent someone else, to look at it at the House of Lords
library. Do you finally accept that your claim was wrong?

I have no idea. That was most certainly the position when the incident
occured. Maybe the rules of the House were changed in the meantime.
Anyway, by whatever means, you got a copy and were able to confirm that
part of the story. Thank You!

Another silly wriggle. There has been no change in the rules, just a
total reluctance by you to face up to the fact that what you were saying
about access to the evidence was completely wrong.

Even though I
told you months ago that I received a copy of your letter in the post,
you still had to repeat your lying claim again yesterday, didn't you?

Yes, well, I don't actually know how you received it and was being a
bit discrete in case accidentally any of the rules of the House were
broken in its aquisition.

Yes, well, you do know, because I spelt it out in detail soon after
receiving it in order to inform you that your continued claims about how
I got hold of it were completely wrong.

I got two separate stories as to why it was
not published with the other evidence, so things can go wrong. There
probably was a change in the rules and to be honest how you got it,
with or without actually visiting the House of Lords, is not material
to anything.

No, it isn't material, but the truth is, something you seem to have
great difficulty with. Your attempt to claim that there was a change in
the rules is a perfect example of this. Open your mind, Pat, stir your
two brain cells together and accept some facts, for a change, instead of
entering your usual state of denial.

By the way, take note that your lying, trolling, defaming "friend" has
just proved how right I was about him by repeating lies and defamation
about me. You and he are two of a kind.

I don't even know who he is Malcolm, but perhaps you should be more
careful about needlessly upsetting people.

I shall do as I please, Pat, including correcting you when you spout
lying nonsense about matters on which I know more than you, which is
undoubtedly more than you think. I also take great exception to you
libelling me, which you have done on a number of occasions, whereas your
claim that I have libelled you was a complete fiction. I note that I
still haven't heard from your solicitor.

How times have changed. You used to bully, intimidate and threaten
people with libel prosecution. We laughed, oh how we laughed at you.

You're a real arse Ogilvie, and if you could just stir two brain cells
together, you would see the pleasure we get mocking your kind!

Don't get so upset, it's bad for the heart, and your pocket.

If you do wish to refute any claims that you are, a liar, cheat,
fraud, fat crook, womanizer, poof and troll. You can do it, in no
particular order, by writing to my legal representatives at

Bodgit, scratchit, leggit and scarper.
HMP Wormwood Scrubs
P.O. Box 2757
Du Cane Road
London
W12 OAE

Attn: Mr Archer Esq.

In the meantime I hope you don't mind if we keep yanking your chain?