toxoplasma gondii

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

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

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

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.

Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com



--
Malcolm

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:41:18 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

Pat Gardiner wrote:
"Oh No" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pat Gardiner wrote:

The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up,
merely because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health
problem through civil sevice corruption.


I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You
might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you
make charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce
documented evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that
would stand up in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges
of slander. Unless you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence
is solid, you should reduce your accusations to a level that people
can take seriously, otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of
treatment you often get round here.

No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the
small slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations
to ensure the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets
were all that was needed.

Evidence for that accusation? Without credible evidence you could be found
guilty of libel.




I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised
would dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go
suing people when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity.

I suspect they realise you are just another crackpot who is best ignored.

With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe
of libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could
not be guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I
called the SVS a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got
invited back as a result, are always in writing - hence potentially
libellous - not slanderous.

You got that right, even if "potentially" is rather understating it.

In practice, of course, it doesn't matter if the wrong term is used, *until*
legal action is contemplated. Both terms refer to defamation.

However, when it comes to legal action it is important to get the term
right. Not only does it prevent the action being summarily thrown out there
are also differences in the assumptions made by the court and, to a limited
extent, the defences that can be used.

I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous
in the legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of
the usual defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are?
Check.

Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use any of
them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars here for
statements they have made about you. Of the statements that I can readily
recall, they are either obviously true or they are fair comment resulting
from your posts to this group. Conversely, a number of the regulars could
sue you, almost certainly successfully,

LOL wouldn't stand a chance in hell, or the idiots would have done it.
To all of us who call a spade, a spade.

Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the
letter of the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules
of commonsense will always come into play and mitigate against casual
defamation actions.

Indeed, example above.

Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on
uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang
attack.

There is no "politburo" and there was no "gang attack", "all out" or
otherwise.

Yes there was. I am another victim of the spineless bullies. As
they/you found out to your cost, my bite is bigger than my bark.

I'd like to think that you, an old fart, were just being taken
advantage of by the bullies. Who, in case you hadn't noticed are quite
content, to let you fight their battles for them, whilst failing to
support you in any way, shape or form.

You owe the dicks nothing. Condemn them while you can.


snip groveling for the benefit of the bullies

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:35:31 +0100, 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?

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.

You're a bum. No longer employed by the RSPB as you are untouchable,
because you're a fat twerp, who's obsessive stalking has cost you
dearly, very dearly. Still, now you're on state benefits, you may lose
some weight.


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.

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? 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?

You sound like a very angry old man. LOL

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.


Why! Because I posted this truth about you lying, stealing others
works? So much for the old kill filter huh!


Guilty as charged...lol





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%





Malcolm Ogilvie of on the suggestion he
copied Konters book.


" You are making yourself look foolish. The book on Grebes by Andre
Konter that was published in 2001 was entitled 'Grebes of OUR World'.
My book, published only this month, is entitled 'Grebes of THE World',
and as such is entirely different. The similarity of the front covers
is quite coincidental. My book IS the first ever devoted to Grebes.

Malcolm Ogilivie."

...............................................

KONTER (Andre) - Grebes of our World. Visiting all Species on Five
Continents - 2001, 8vo. 187pp. Colour photographs, line drawings. A
description of the 22 species of grebes, their natural history,
ecology
and behaviour.


Grebes of the World
Malcolm Ogilvie
The book starts with an authoritative introduction on the origin,
evolution, distribution, physiology and behaviour of grebes, followed
by
accounts of each of the 22 species


Malcolm it looks as though Konter might dispute that statement!

Rob

"Yes, indeed, what I said was wrong and I apologise to Andre Konter,


Malcolm Ogilvie"

................................................

The error I made was in a chatty piece about the actual writing of the
book which I posted to a non-birdwatching newsgroup

M Ogilvie


You clearly and explicitly stated that yours was the first book on the
subject, in the full knowledge that the topic had recently been
covered very thoroughly in Konter's book.
The facts speak for themselves. You are a liar who only had the grace
to own up when you had been found out - you even persisted in giving
the impression that you were the first to write it *after* I had drawn
attention to your untruth. Your apology comes a little late.
You do yourself no credit in introducing other, wholly irrelevant
matters in order to deflect criticism from your behaviour. Shame on
you.

Paul

©¿© wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:41:18 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use
any of them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars
here for statements they have made about you. Of the statements
that I can readily recall, they are either obviously true or they
are fair comment resulting from your posts to this group.
Conversely, a number of the regulars could sue you, almost certainly
successfully,

LOL wouldn't stand a chance in hell, or the idiots would have done it.
To all of us who call a spade, a spade.

You snipped the bit that gave the reason why it would be pointless suing,
either Pat or you. Just like him you are a troll and have no credibility.

With apologies to the good folks in the cats groups who have had to put up
with all this rubbish.

--
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]

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.

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

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. 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.

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?

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!

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. 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.

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.

Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com

--
Malcolm

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:34:12 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

©¿© wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:41:18 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use
any of them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars
here for statements they have made about you. Of the statements
that I can readily recall, they are either obviously true or they
are fair comment resulting from your posts to this group.
Conversely, a number of the regulars could sue you, almost certainly
successfully,

LOL wouldn't stand a chance in hell, or the idiots would have done it.
To all of us who call a spade, a spade.

You snipped the bit that gave the reason why it would be pointless suing,
either Pat or you.

You seem to have forgotten who the victims are, bullies usually do. If
there is to be any suing, it should be us doing it. You and your bully
boy friends don't have a leg to stand on.

Just like him you are a troll and have no credibility.

Don't hurt me please. You can be so cruel.

With apologies to the good folks in the cats groups who have had to put up
with all this rubbish.

So snip the cross posts you troll.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:08:40 GMT, "Matthew"
wrote:


"©¿©" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:34:12 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

©¿© wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:41:18 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use
any of them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars
here for statements they have made about you. Of the statements
that I can readily recall, they are either obviously true or they
are fair comment resulting from your posts to this group.
Conversely, a number of the regulars could sue you, almost certainly
successfully,

LOL wouldn't stand a chance in hell, or the idiots would have done it.
To all of us who call a spade, a spade.

You snipped the bit that gave the reason why it would be pointless suing,
either Pat or you.

You seem to have forgotten who the victims are, bullies usually do. If
there is to be any suing, it should be us doing it. You and your bully
boy friends don't have a leg to stand on.

Just like him you are a troll and have no credibility.

Don't hurt me please. You can be so cruel.

With apologies to the good folks in the cats groups who have had to put up
with all this rubbish.

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.

wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

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. I got two separate stories as to why it was
not published with the other evidence, so things can go wrong.

It was not published with the other evidence because they did not consider
it of any importance, perhaps they did not believe you.

There probably was a change in the rules

Of course that *must* be the reason you said it could only be viewed in
person and Malcolm received a copy, sent by the authorities, through the
post. Couldn't be that you weren't telling the truth.

and to be honest how you got it, with or without actually visiting
the House of Lords, is not material to anything.


Except to the fact that you said it was impossible.

--
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]

©¿© 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.

--
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]

You're a ****** for dragging this crap onto the cat newsgroups.
*plonk*

"Pat Gardiner" wrote in message
...
garbage snipped