On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:23:28 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <rgk613h7li3il0fd6cn89e7afrs25kgulk@4ax.com>,
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 07:29:32 +0100, Malcolm
>><Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <opu213tponk4d9oh8lgob62e3ngdqhvr80@4ax.com>,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:00:03 +0100, "C R Fishwick"
>>>><crfishwick@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>news:XeB$DYsTT2DGFw5n@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <5786e7F2boas7U1@mid.individual.net>, C R Fishwick
>>>>>> <crfishwick@nospamhotmail.com> writes
>>>>>>>"Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:J6q46KB5Z5CGFwBB@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <570763F2ar6fkU1@mid.individual.net>, C R Fishwick
>>>>>>>> <crfishwick@nospamhotmail.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>"Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:uTctGDar8uBGFwOm@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>> I've never heard of anyone taking that long. Most universities have
>>>>>>>>>> deadlines of 3 years otherwise they find it harder to get grants to
>>>>>>>>>> support new ones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes and it seems you weren't/aren't that brilliant? I, question, why it
>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>that you only received your Phd in 1983? I assume you got your first
>>>>>>>>>degree
>>>>>>>>>in 1960? Is that correct? If so, you were not that brilliant! A 2/1
>>>>>>>>>should
>>>>>>>>>have been enough to further your studies. Your Phd later? I'd suggest
>>>>>>>>>..........!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You join Angus in making completely wrong assumptions about me because
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> have no facts and are just guessing. But then you're quite like each
>>>>>>>> other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, guessing at all! You aren't that well known for any scientific papers
>>>>>>>ever published under your name. Probably the only one was when you
>>>>>>>eventually gained your PhD! Care to quote any others?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your assumptions about me continue to be as wrong as before. I may not be
>>>>>> well known to you for my scientific publications (of which there are
>>>>>> many), but that doesn't bother me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ibis et al? I, seem to think when I needed to trawl through them your name
>>>>>was not prominent at all;-) Wilkepedia is good though:-( Seems a re-hash of
>>>>>your amateurish personal website! I assume the information supplied to
>>>>>Wilkepedia was done by you:-0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A while ago on this ng Ogilvie tried to bullshit that he was involved
>>>>in DNA experiments. It seems he was the office boy writing up what
>>>>others told him to do :-))
>>>>
>>>A while ago on this ng, Angus Macmillan drew a completely false
>>>conclusion from something I mentioned here - a very usual state of
>>>affairs.
>>
>>You inferred you were involved in DNA experiments but when pushed to
>>elaborate on it, it turned out you weren't.
>>
>Please post my words where I inferred any such thing.
>
>>You're a bullshitter, Malcolm :-))
>>
>And you deliberately distort other people's words.
>
>>>
>>>Perhaps, Angus, you would like to post my words where I claimed either
>>>to have been involved in DNA experiments or to have written such
>>>experiments up. When you can't find any such claims, perhaps you would
>>>be so good as to apologise.
>>
>>Do your own research. I'm not going to trawl through past posts for
>>you.
>>
>In other words, you have realised that you can't post my words where I
>made any such claim.
>
>>Publish them here to back up you denial if you can.
>>
>You're the one making the false claim. You are acknowledging by your
>failure to post my words that they don't exist and you were lying, as
>usual.
Given the fact you are a liar, cheat, fraud, conman and obnoxious
twat, who chooses to deliberately conceal his posts from the google
archives, because he obviously has something to hide! Is it any wonder
the references to DNA cannot easily be found?
I'd suggest your crooked intention has clearly worked.
At least we know one reason you are not prepared to stand by your
false claims!
Perhaps you could also enlighten us as to exactly what scientific
advice SNH are getting from you? I would suggest, as you are an
obvious idiot, you don't have any advice, even if it were free!
--
Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead!
Disclaimer
Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.
It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.
Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.
