Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Apparently the PPP and it acolytes think everyone who question their cooping the god perspective in all things are anti progress, against development, retrogressive and all the associate terms. Here is that nutcase Peter Persaud speaking with the revived wisdom of the PPP in god mode.

 

Janette Bulkan’s nutcase rationality  

Written by PETER PERSAUD  

Wednesday, 26 June 2013 21:15

 

I READ an article in the Sunday Stabroek of June 16, 2013 under the caption ‘Bai Shan Lin Forest holdings prompt Land lording concerns - Forest Commissioner says all arrangements legal’. Permit me to state the following: 1. Reading the article under the mentioned caption, I received the impression that Dr. Janette Bulkan is simply an usually disgruntled woman because she cannot play a constructive role in Guyana’s Forestry development on the basis of her genetic nutcase rationality. But it is important to recognise and accept that in this world of ours there are people like Bulkan who have political agendas based on what they want but cannot get. Bulkan simply wants a forest concession in Guyana but lacks common sense and capital for accessing a concession and, as a result, she attacks companies both local and foreign that get concessions including the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) for issuing those concessions. This is basically Bulkan’s problem.

 

2. Mr. James Singh, Guyana’s Commissioner of Forests made it very clear that “the arrangements between Bai Shan Lin (BSL) and other companies have been done in a transparent manner and have been approved by the GFC’s board.”  Therefore, what illegal Land lording there is by BSL? The problem with Bulkan also is that she runs from the truth  and, like a typical cockroach, appearing only at nights to cover its filth.

 

3. Bulkan calls herself a forest researcher but so far has failed miserably to respond to the Commissioner of Forests invitation to visit the GFC’S headquarters to peruse relevant documentation on her claims against the BSL Company. But Bulkan is simply a bluff. If she tells Stabroek News to publish that forests are black in colour it will so publish. What manner of forest researcher is this?

 

4. Bulkan is claiming that BSL “Is engaged in illegal Land lording.” I am challenging Bulkan to provide the evidence for her claims against the BSL company and if she cannot she must cease her mischievous political agenda of discrediting the company for which she has absolutely no proof. But anyway, Bulkan is simply dream-walking in her sour grapes agenda against the GFC.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Cobra:

The rule is you speak when you have something good to say. 

You would be logically consistent if saying something good would be exclusive to speaking to the inequities of evil doers and identifying the things that is evil.

FM
Originally Posted by Danyael:
Originally Posted by Cobra:

The rule is you speak when you have something good to say. 

You would be logically consistent if saying something good would be exclusive to speaking to the inequities of evil doers and identifying the things that is evil.

You should give it a try sometime..the thread header that is!

FM
Originally Posted by Cobra:

The rule is you speak when you have something good to say. 

No, when you have something constructive to say. D2 and other go on a diatribe without much constructive criticism. 

FM
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:
Originally Posted by Cobra:

The rule is you speak when you have something good to say. 

No, when you have something constructive to say. D2 and other go on a diatribe without much constructive criticism. 

the point is Peter Persaud is a moke and Dr Bulkan is an expert in his field and he does not like what she says or her complaint on in-transparency. He calls her names and advises her to go to the PPP bat cave to find the information as though they have no responsibility to inform the public of their giveaways.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Danyael:
Originally Posted by Cobra:

The rule is you speak when you have something good to say. 

You would be logically consistent if saying something good would be exclusive to speaking to the inequities of evil doers and identifying the things that is evil.

You should give it a try sometime..the thread header that is!

 With you it would be fruitless. You see only through blinders and only the reflective glow of awee pon tap.

FM
Originally Posted by Danyael:
 

the point is Peter Persaud is a moke and Dr Bulkan is an expert in his field and he does not like what she says or her complaint on in-transparency. He calls her names and advises her to go to the PPP bat cave to find the information as though they have no responsibility to inform the public of their giveaways.

Persaud raised some valid points, Bulkan has yet to produce any evidence of what she claims. She is a green activist for preserving the forest, that is for sure. As you know there is no appeasing these types of people other than complete non exploitation of natural resources. 

FM
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:
Originally Posted by Danyael:
 

the point is Peter Persaud is a moke and Dr Bulkan is an expert in his field and he does not like what she says or her complaint on in-transparency. He calls her names and advises her to go to the PPP bat cave to find the information as though they have no responsibility to inform the public of their giveaways.

Persaud raised some valid points, Bulkan has yet to produce any evidence of what she claims. She is a green activist for preserving the forest, that is for sure. As you know there is no appeasing these types of people other than complete non exploitation of natural resources. 

He ignores the points and concentrate on diatribe. We do not know what are the terms of the agreement except th e chinese highlight they get shit duty free, liberal immigration preferences and that allows them to go travel elsewhere, ability to perpetually hold on to their awards ( they have 1million hectares) for multi use.

FM
Originally Posted by Danyael:

Is shutting your mouth constructive these days?

There are apt opportunities to say something constructive and, at the majority of times, to observe.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Danyael:
Originally Posted by Cobra:

The rule is you speak when you have something good to say. 

You would be logically consistent if saying something good would be exclusive to speaking to the inequities of evil doers and identifying the things that is evil.

You should give it a try sometime..the thread header that is!

Baseman....you beat me to it.....

 

 

Ok Dannyboy it's a joke..... I take your serious sense of purpose as admirable....just couldn't help myself

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Danyael:
Originally Posted by Cobra:

The rule is you speak when you have something good to say. 

You would be logically consistent if saying something good would be exclusive to speaking to the inequities of evil doers and identifying the things that is evil.

You should give it a try sometime..the thread header that is!

Baseman....you beat me to it.....

 

 

Ok Dannyboy it's a joke..... I take your serious sense of purpose as admirable....just couldn't help myself

I actually have fun with d2, I do read his postings and have to admit, it's both enlightening and amusing at times.  D2 is actually a good guy.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×