RSPB fascista kill ferral goats!
AMacmil304
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/15686-print.shtml
Angus Macmillan
Roots-of-Blood Campaign
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org.uk
www.con-servation.org.uk
" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then they lose". Mahatma Gandhi.
Malcolm
In article <20040511120316...@mb-m14.aol.com>, AMacmil304
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>Read about thae RSPB's latest killings at Loch Lomond in the Herald
>
>http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/15686-print.shtml
>
The statement from Tracy Livingstone, Scottish area representative of
the British Feral Goat Research Group, that "numbers of feral goats had
fallen from about 4000 in 1993 to fewer than 400 today in Scotland" is
ludicrously wrong. A recent survey found over 700 on Islay alone. A 1995
estimate concluded that there were "over 2650" in Scotland, with the
comment that "the Scottish population has remained constant since the
late 1960s".
This makes her other comments somewhat suspect, to say the least, though
I do agree with her statement that "Goats eat trees".
--
Malcolm
AMacmil304
>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>Date: 11/05/04 19:52 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <OwR2stNn...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040511120316...@mb-m14.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>Read about thae RSPB's latest killings at Loch Lomond in the Herald
>>
>>http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/15686-print.shtml
>>
>Read the facts about goats in Scotland.
>
>The statement from Tracy Livingstone, Scottish area representative of
>the British Feral Goat Research Group, that "numbers of feral goats had
>fallen from about 4000 in 1993 to fewer than 400 today in Scotland" is
>ludicrously wrong. A recent survey found over 700 on Islay alone. A 1995
>estimate concluded that there were "over 2650" in Scotland, with the
>comment that "the Scottish population has remained constant since the
>late 1960s".
If there were 4000 in 1993 and 2650 in1995 it points to a serious decline in
numbers. She could be quite right about 400 today. And she's probably
referring to mainland Scotland.
If Islay has 700 then why should Scotland no have many thousands without them
being persecuted by fascists.
>This makes her other comments somewhat suspect, to say the least, though
>I do agree with her statement that "Goats eat trees".
Not suspect at all.
So what if goats eat trees?
They eat to survive; so do you, but nobody's shooting you.
I suppose that could be arranged :-)) A joke, Malcolm; before you say it's
harassment. Poor thing.
BAC
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vOKeTvKI...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
<snip>
>
> Of course they do. Everything does. Trees produce seeds in order to
> survive. If animals eat all the seedlings and saplings, when the tree
> dies there is nothing to succeed it.
>
You mean that trees produce seeds in order to reproduce - they consume
nutrients to 'survive' in the context that animals 'eat to survive'. An
individual tree is unlikely to die because all its seedlings or saplings are
destroyed by grazing, whereas an animal denied food will eventually starve.
It may be true that an individual tree of particular species is unlikely to
be replaced by another of the same species, when it eventually dies, if all
the seedlings or saplings of that species fail to thrive in the locality,
for whatever reason, but that is not to say it will be replaced by
'nothing'. It will almost certainly be replaced by 'something', but possibly
not by something human managers wish to see there (at the time).
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <9aka2QQx...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <108434967...@doris.uk.clara.net>, BAC
><cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>and woodland, it is, I would have thought, fairly obvious, that while
>the trees will, usually, be replaced by 'something', that replacement
>won't be more trees. In a situation where grazing animals are eating
>tree bark, shoots, seedlings and saplings, woodland is eventually
>replaced by grass, moorland, or, if soil erosion takes place subsequent
>to the disappearance of the trees, bare ground. Examples can be found on
>a very large scale throughout Scotland.
So what about arable land for your benefit? You eat what's grown there instead
of regeneration of trees.
The RSPB's and other fake conservationists' attitude is f**k the wildlife if it
gets in our way.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <vOKeTvKI...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040512030358...@mb-m24.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <OwR2stNn...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040511120316...@mb-m14.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>Read about thae RSPB's latest killings at Loch Lomond in the Herald
>>>>
>>>>http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/15686-print.shtml
>>>>
>>>Read the facts about goats in Scotland.
>>>
>>>The statement from Tracy Livingstone, Scottish area representative of
>>>the British Feral Goat Research Group, that "numbers of feral goats had
>>>fallen from about 4000 in 1993 to fewer than 400 today in Scotland" is
>>>ludicrously wrong. A recent survey found over 700 on Islay alone. A 1995
>>>estimate concluded that there were "over 2650" in Scotland, with the
>>>comment that "the Scottish population has remained constant since the
>>>late 1960s".
>>
>>If there were 4000 in 1993 and 2650 in1995 it points to a serious decline in
>>numbers.
>
>Review of British Mammals) states that "the Scottish population has
>remained constant since the late 1960s". As her "400 today in Scotland"
>is so obviously completely wrong, why are you believing the first
>figure?
Where is your evidence that the book is correct? Read what I said and you'll
see the trend is downwards if the figures are correct.
>
>> She could be quite right about 400 today. And she's probably
>>referring to mainland Scotland.
>>
>The phrase "400 today in Scotland" doesn't include the word "mainland"
>that I can see. And I find it very hard to believe that the "Scottish
>area representative of the British Feral Goat Research Group" is unaware
>of the sizeable population of goats on Islay, not to mention those on
>Arran, Jura, Colonsay and Mull.
She should know. That's why I'm suggesting mainland Scotland. The omission of
a word doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
Unless you are implying that she was
>being deliberately misleading.
Not at all. She can speak for herself.
>
>>If Islay has 700 then why should Scotland no have many thousands without
>them
>>being persecuted by fascists.
>>
>The feral goats on Islay are doing the job for which they were
>deliberately released 100-150 years ago, namely grazing on the steep
>coastal cliffs and, by keeping the grass there very short, reducing the
>temptation for the much less sure-footed sheep to venture down the
>cliffs. Whether or to what extent it reduces actual sheep losses is not
>known, but it probably helps.
>
>The feral goats in many other parts of Scotland were probably encouraged
>for exactly the same reason. Unfortunately, in some areas the goats are
>not out on the cliffs as they are on Islay but living in woodland and
>forestry and doing severe damage by barking trees and browsing off
>shoots, seedlings and saplings, thus preventing regeneration.
So what!
>>
>>>This makes her other comments somewhat suspect, to say the least, though
>>>I do agree with her statement that "Goats eat trees".
>>
>>Not suspect at all.
>>
>Very suspect. See above.
>
>>So what if goats eat trees?
>>
>If you want a woodland to survive, it must not have too many browsing
>animals in it. Otherwise, the woodland disappears, which can be seen all
>across Scotland where sheep, cattle, deer and goats have all played
>their part in the removal of enormous tracts of woodland.
>
>>They eat to survive;
>
>Of course they do. Everything does. Trees produce seeds in order to
>survive. If animals eat all the seedlings and saplings, when the tree
>dies there is nothing to succeed it.
>
>>so do you, but nobody's shooting you.
>>
>>I suppose that could be arranged :-)) A joke, Malcolm; before you say
>it's
>>harassment. Poor thing.
>>
>Hmm, you're not very good at jokes, are you???
Hmm, your not very good at conservation. Are you Malcolm?
You support the fakes :-(
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <nUC8Vxbq...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040512095307...@mb-m23.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>may have heard in connection with many studies of mammals in the UK. The
>detail of how the population was calculated is given. As I've already
>said, the Scottish population is given as 2,650 in 1995 and stated as
>being stable since the 1960s. Tracey Livingstone's total of 4,000 in
>1993 does not fit into that picture and nor does her 400 today.
>>>
>>>> She could be quite right about 400 today. And she's probably
>>>>referring to mainland Scotland.
>>>>
>>>The phrase "400 today in Scotland" doesn't include the word "mainland"
>>>that I can see. And I find it very hard to believe that the "Scottish
>>>area representative of the British Feral Goat Research Group" is unaware
>>>of the sizeable population of goats on Islay, not to mention those on
>>>Arran, Jura, Colonsay and Mull.
>>
>>She should know. That's why I'm suggesting mainland Scotland. The omission
>of
>>a word doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
>>
>have been referring to mainland Scotland for the 4000, for which there
>is no evidence at all.
What evidence do you have that there's no evidence?
>
>> Unless you are implying that she was
>>>being deliberately misleading.
>>
>>Not at all. She can speak for herself.
>>
>>>
>>>>If Islay has 700 then why should Scotland no have many thousands without
>>>them
>>>>being persecuted by fascists.
>>>>
>>>The feral goats on Islay are doing the job for which they were
>>>deliberately released 100-150 years ago, namely grazing on the steep
>>>coastal cliffs and, by keeping the grass there very short, reducing the
>>>temptation for the much less sure-footed sheep to venture down the
>>>cliffs. Whether or to what extent it reduces actual sheep losses is not
>>>known, but it probably helps.
>>>
>>>The feral goats in many other parts of Scotland were probably encouraged
>>>for exactly the same reason. Unfortunately, in some areas the goats are
>>>not out on the cliffs as they are on Islay but living in woodland and
>>>forestry and doing severe damage by barking trees and browsing off
>>>shoots, seedlings and saplings, thus preventing regeneration.
>>
>>So what!
>>
>So, it is a fact.
Let them eat what they want.
>
>>>>
>>>>>This makes her other comments somewhat suspect, to say the least, though
>>>>>I do agree with her statement that "Goats eat trees".
>>>>
>>>>Not suspect at all.
>>>>
>>>Very suspect. See above.
>>>
>>>>So what if goats eat trees?
>>>>
>>>If you want a woodland to survive, it must not have too many browsing
>>>animals in it. Otherwise, the woodland disappears, which can be seen all
>>>across Scotland where sheep, cattle, deer and goats have all played
>>>their part in the removal of enormous tracts of woodland.
>>>
>>>>They eat to survive;
>>>
>>>Of course they do. Everything does. Trees produce seeds in order to
>>>survive. If animals eat all the seedlings and saplings, when the tree
>>>dies there is nothing to succeed it.
>>>
>>>>so do you, but nobody's shooting you.
>>>>
>>>>I suppose that could be arranged :-)) A joke, Malcolm; before you say
>>>it's
>>>>harassment. Poor thing.
>>>>
>>>Hmm, you're not very good at jokes, are you???
>>
>>Hmm, your not very good at conservation. Are you Malcolm?
>>
>>You support the fakes :-(
>>
>There are no "fakes" to support, Angus.
Of course there are Malcolm. Have a look at the website
www.con-servation.org.uk and you'll see the cons first hand.
And whereas I most definitely am
>good at conservation, you not only boast frequently of not being a
>conservationist but you are woefully ignorant of the subject.
I don't "boast" about not being a conservationist; I'm just not - and I'm
honest enought to say it. OTOH the fakes aren't either but continue to screw
the natural environment for what it's worth to keep themselves in jobs.
mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>But if she was referring to mainland Scotland for the 400, she must also
>>have been referring to mainland Scotland for the 4000, for which there
>>is no evidence at all.
>
>What evidence do you have that there's no evidence?
>
Mainly the lack of evidence :-)
--
Malcolm Kane
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <qyefcOeY...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040512112650...@mb-m23.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <nUC8Vxbq...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040512095307...@mb-m23.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>Message-id: <vOKeTvKI...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>>>that I can see. And I find it very hard to believe that the "Scottish
>>>>>area representative of the British Feral Goat Research Group" is unaware
>>>>>of the sizeable population of goats on Islay, not to mention those on
>>>>>Arran, Jura, Colonsay and Mull.
>>>>
>>>>She should know. That's why I'm suggesting mainland Scotland. The
>omission
>>>of
>>>>a word doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
>>>>
>>>have been referring to mainland Scotland for the 4000, for which there
>>>is no evidence at all.
>>
>>What evidence do you have that there's no evidence?
>>
>
>Read the book. The senior author was Prof. Stephen Harris, of whom you
>may have heard in connection with many studies of mammals in the UK. The
>detail of how the population was calculated is given. As I've already
>said, the Scottish population is given as 2,650 in 1995 and stated as
>being stable since the 1960s. Tracey Livingstone's total of 4,000 in
>1993 does not fit into that picture and nor does her 400 today.
>
I like the bit " how the population was calculated" which infers inaccuracy.
Guestimate?
>
>>>>>The feral goats on Islay are doing the job for which they were
>>>>>deliberately released 100-150 years ago, namely grazing on the steep
>>>>>coastal cliffs and, by keeping the grass there very short, reducing the
>>>>>temptation for the much less sure-footed sheep to venture down the
>>>>>cliffs. Whether or to what extent it reduces actual sheep losses is not
>>>>>known, but it probably helps.
>>>>>
>>>>>The feral goats in many other parts of Scotland were probably encouraged
>>>>>for exactly the same reason. Unfortunately, in some areas the goats are
>>>>>not out on the cliffs as they are on Islay but living in woodland and
>>>>>forestry and doing severe damage by barking trees and browsing off
>>>>>shoots, seedlings and saplings, thus preventing regeneration.
>>>>
>>>>So what!
>>>>
>>>So, it is a fact.
>>
>>Let them eat what they want.
>>
>There is only about 1% left of the pine forest which used to cover much
>of the northern half of Scotland because animals have been allowed to
>eat what they want.
So what's the problem? It so happens I would rather have live goats than pine
forests; and there's no reason why forests couldn't be protected.
>
>>>>>Hmm, you're not very good at jokes, are you???
>>>>
>>>>Hmm, your not very good at conservation. Are you Malcolm?
>>>>
>>>>You support the fakes :-(
>>>>
>>>There are no "fakes" to support, Angus.
>>
>>Of course there are Malcolm. Have a look at the website
>>www.con-servation.org.uk and you'll see the cons first hand.
>>
>No, all I have seen there is your usual mixture of lies, half-truths and
>innuendos.
How predictable.
>
>> And whereas I most definitely am
>>>good at conservation, you not only boast frequently of not being a
>>>conservationist but you are woefully ignorant of the subject.
>>
>>I don't "boast" about not being a conservationist; I'm just not - and I'm
>>honest enought to say it. OTOH the fakes aren't either but continue to screw
>>the natural environment for what it's worth to keep themselves in jobs.
>>
>Of course you "boast" about it. Your constant statements to that effect
>come across as if you are positively proud of it.
Not at all. If i said I was i'd be as dishonest as the fakes.
>
>And as there are no "fakes" but only genuine conservationists, the
>natural environment is a great deal better off for their attentions.
How do you work that out?
Let's have some evidence.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <MQx2kpAn...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040512172943...@mb-m05.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>figures from different areas is a "calculation", as even your knowledge
>of maths would surely confirm.
>
>On one hand there is the book, which sets out counts from different
>areas and gives a Scotland total, and also states that the population
>has been stable since the 1960s, and on the other the completely
>unsupported figures given by Tracey Livingstone suggesting a 90% decline
>in the last ten years to a total which is clearly wrong, given the
>numbers I've quoted from Islay.
>
>>>>>So, it is a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Let them eat what they want.
>>>>
>>>There is only about 1% left of the pine forest which used to cover much
>>>of the northern half of Scotland because animals have been allowed to
>>>eat what they want.
>>
>>So what's the problem? It so happens I would rather have live goats than
>pine
>>forests; and there's no reason why forests couldn't be protected.
>
No flaw at all. A different opinion based outside the fake conservation ethos.
>>>>>There are no "fakes" to support, Angus.
>>>>
>>>>Of course there are Malcolm. Have a look at the website
>>>>www.con-servation.org.uk and you'll see the cons first hand.
>>>>
>>>No, all I have seen there is your usual mixture of lies, half-truths and
>>>innuendos.
>>
>>How predictable.
>>
>Unfortunately, they are. You have been spouting them for years without
>being able to produce any evidence in support.
>
>>>
>>>> And whereas I most definitely am
>>>>>good at conservation, you not only boast frequently of not being a
>>>>>conservationist but you are woefully ignorant of the subject.
>>>>
>>>>I don't "boast" about not being a conservationist; I'm just not - and I'm
>>>>honest enought to say it. OTOH the fakes aren't either but continue to
>screw
>>>>the natural environment for what it's worth to keep themselves in jobs.
>>>>
>>>Of course you "boast" about it. Your constant statements to that effect
>>>come across as if you are positively proud of it.
>>
>>Not at all. If i said I was i'd be as dishonest as the fakes.
>
>There are no "fakes", which just leaves you as being dishonest :-(
>
>>>
>>>And as there are no "fakes" but only genuine conservationists, the
>>>natural environment is a great deal better off for their attentions.
>>
>>How do you work that out?
>>
>>Let's have some evidence.
>>
>Open your eyes and look around you.
Ha! ha! The "self evident" you say doesn't exist :-))
You're a fraud, Malcolm
So on your own terms, do you have "real" evidence?
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
BAC
> and woodland, it is, I would have thought, fairly obvious, that while
> the trees will, usually, be replaced by 'something', that replacement
> won't be more trees. In a situation where grazing animals are eating
> tree bark, shoots, seedlings and saplings, woodland is eventually
> replaced by grass, moorland, or, if soil erosion takes place subsequent
> to the disappearance of the trees, bare ground. Examples can be found on
> a very large scale throughout Scotland.
>
Quite so - it is human observers who form opinions on whether the eventual
outcome is 'good' or 'bad', and also on whether the 'end' of modifying the
expected outcome justifies any particular 'means' proposed. Naturally, there
are bound to be a range of (often strongly held) opinions on all those
questions :-)
BAC
>
> >
> Read the book. The senior author was Prof. Stephen Harris, of whom you
> may have heard in connection with many studies of mammals in the UK. The
> detail of how the population was calculated is given. As I've already
> said, the Scottish population is given as 2,650 in 1995 and stated as
> being stable since the 1960s. Tracey Livingstone's total of 4,000 in
> 1993 does not fit into that picture and nor does her 400 today.
> >>
See also http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/stat-ses/sest6-27.htm (which
must be true, because these are Govt. statistics...) which appear to be a
1998 estimate of 2650, stable, plus or minus 25%. Whether that is merely a
carry forward of the earlier estimate to which you refer, I do not know. Nor
do I know what independent studies may have been made by the goat pressure
group. I'd be surprised if they haven't done some :-)
BAC
<mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7cK5VHCm...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
As the lady hasn't (as far as I know) even been questioned about it, that
isn't 'evidence' of lack of evidence, it's speculation. Personally, I'd be
very surprised if some 'evidence' hadn't been gathered by the pressure
group, although there are bound to be questions as to its methodology,
degree of accuracy and the conclusions drawn from it.
After all, the 'official' estimate was 2650, plus or minus 25%, suggesting a
maximum of 3313. Postulate another estimate, say of 4000, again with a plus
or minus 25% range, and the minimum would be 3,000. So if the actual
population were approx. 3000 they could both claim to be 'right'. You can
prove just about anything with statistics :-)
BAC
>
> In article <10844354...@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net>, BAC
> <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
> do.
If her claim of 4000 in 1993 is correct, or at least within the
> limits of accuracy, her claim that there were only 400 today most
> certainly is not, and there is excellent evidence from a census here
> last summer that it is wildly wrong.
>
You are indeed fortunate to reside in such a 'goat haven'. Or all your
cliffs would be covered in trees and dead sheep :-)
Seriously, I suspect it is a common temptation for people who passionately
espouse a cause to interpret and express analyses of statistics available to
them in the way they judge will best serve their purpose. It's the old 'ends
justifies the means' conundrum, viewed from a different angle.
Personally, I think it's a good thing there are enough people out there with
sufficiently different views about what is worthy of conservation to ensure
most things get a helping hand in the hour of need.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <a1XjNsA9...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
It's the 14 that heve been shot by the RSPB fascists that I'm objecting to.
The total number doesn't particularly concern me.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <WiYQ4bEA...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040513024640...@mb-m17.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <MQx2kpAn...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040512172943...@mb-m05.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>Message-id: <qyefcOeY...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>>>natural environment is a great deal better off for their attentions.
>>>>
>>>>How do you work that out?
>>>>
>>>>Let's have some evidence.
>>>>
>>>Open your eyes and look around you.
>>
>>Ha! ha! The "self evident" you say doesn't exist :-))
>>
>>You're a fraud, Malcolm
>>
>>So on your own terms, do you have "real" evidence?
>>
>about conservation that you don't recognise it when you see it :-(
I see, you don't have any evidence.
Sounds like the "self evident" you condemn, Malcolm. But like all the fakes
you want your cake and eat it :-(
BAC
>
> In article <10844479...@lotis.uk.clara.net>, BAC
> <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
> was well wooded with few or no grazing animals
>
> The good thing about dead sheep (or goats for that matter) is that they
> feed the local Golden Eagles :-)
>
So that's why we have no Golden Eagles in my back garden (although we did
have a visit from a raven last week).
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <3JCoSJDq...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040513094740...@mb-m29.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>Message-id: <a1XjNsA9...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>The total number doesn't particularly concern me.
>>
>the case, 14 out of over 2,500?
Absolutely.
I hope you also appreciate that this is
>the first cull carried out at Inversnaid for three years and that the
>RSPB are merely controlling the numbers within set parameters and not
>attempting to remove the goats altogether.
That makes no difference whatsoever. The phrase "controlling numbers within
set parametres" smacks of the worst nazi-style principles of the fake
conservationists.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <vpGuakC4...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040513095043...@mb-m29.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>Message-id: <WiYQ4bEA...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040513024640...@mb-m17.aol.com>, AMacmil304>>>>>Message-id: <MQx2kpAn...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>In article <20040512172943...@mb-m05.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>
>>>>>>>And as there are no "fakes" but only genuine conservationists, the
>>>>>>>natural environment is a great deal better off for their attentions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you work that out?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let's have some evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Open your eyes and look around you.
>>>>
>>>>Ha! ha! The "self evident" you say doesn't exist :-))
>>>>
>>>>You're a fraud, Malcolm
>>>>
>>>>So on your own terms, do you have "real" evidence?
>>>>
>>>Open your eyes and look around you. Unfortunately, you are so ignorant
>>>about conservation that you don't recognise it when you see it :-(
>>
>>I see, you don't have any evidence.
>>
>>Sounds like the "self evident" you condemn, Malcolm. But like all the fakes
>>you want your cake and eat it :-(
>>
>Scotland, and the rest of the UK, is either walking around with their
>eyes shut or doesn't want to see it. In your case, both apply.
Like what?
>
>There are excellent examples of successful conservation within a few
>miles of where you live, but you are so unlikely to accept the facts
>about them that it really isn't worth trying to explain to you what has
>been done and why and with what results.
Like what?
mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>>It's the 14 that heve been shot by the RSPB fascists that I'm objecting to.
>>>The total number doesn't particularly concern me.
>>>
>>So you would take the same attitude if it was 14 out of 14, or, as is
>>the case, 14 out of over 2,500?
>
>Absolutely.
>
>I hope you also appreciate that this is
>>the first cull carried out at Inversnaid for three years and that the
>>RSPB are merely controlling the numbers within set parameters and not
>>attempting to remove the goats altogether.
>
>That makes no difference whatsoever. The phrase "controlling numbers within
>set parametres" smacks of the worst nazi-style principles of the fake
>conservationists.
>
Which only goes to show that if you were being honest you would admit
that your stance had nothing what ever to do with conservation and is
purely an AR attitude.
Why not take the AR argument to a more suitable NG?
--
Malcolm Kane
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <5boL2PDD...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040513120808...@mb-m19.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <3JCoSJDq...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040513094740...@mb-m29.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>to.
>>>>The total number doesn't particularly concern me.
>>>>
>>>So you would take the same attitude if it was 14 out of 14, or, as is
>>>the case, 14 out of over 2,500?
>>
>>Absolutely.
>>
Why?
>
>>I hope you also appreciate that this is
>>>the first cull carried out at Inversnaid for three years and that the
>>>RSPB are merely controlling the numbers within set parameters and not
>>>attempting to remove the goats altogether.
>>
>>That makes no difference whatsoever. The phrase "controlling numbers within
>>set parametres" smacks of the worst nazi-style principles of the fake
>>conservationists.
>>
>No, it doesn't, Angus, it shows good management practice, conserving the
>native woodland of the east side of Loch Lomond while at the same time
>having feral goats living in the woodland.
If you want native woodland you could fence it to protect it from the goats
instead of getting your thugs to kill them.
>
>If the feral goats were not controlled, there would, in due course, be
>no woodland left.
Not if you fenced it.
If you had the eyes to see you would already be aware
>that there are great expanses of land on the east side of the loch which
>have been completely denuded of trees by grazing animals. Maybe you
>would like to see bare hillside running down to the loch all along the
>east shore. Unfortunately, we already know that you do not understand
>the concept of biodiversity and therefore are unable to recognise the
>difference in the biological richness of native woodland compared with
>over-grazed rough grassland.
What I understand is that the concept of biodiversity is a fake
conservationists' dream for making money and who don't mind damaging the
natural environment to fulfill their fanaticism.
Still, at least some of the others opposed
>to the culling of the goats recognise the damage they do and also
>realise that fencing them out of the woodland is not a practical option.
Who and why not?
BAC
>
<snip>
> >
> >>If the feral goats were not controlled, there would, in due course, be
> >>no woodland left.
> >
> >Not if you fenced it.
> >
> save the lives of 14 goats every three years? And how much are you
> prepared to contribute?
>
> £50,000, £100,000?
>
For the past few years, Angus has been contributing a considerable amount of
time and money to a campaign which, amongst other things, seems to be aimed
at making the use of 'lethal' means of wild animal population control more
expensive. The logic, presumably, is that if a wave of revulsion about such
measures were to sweep the public and the political community, such that
more income would be lost if alternatives were not pursued, than it would
cost to pursue those alternatives, a re-think of policies might become
inevitable.
That may be why the WT reacted so strongly against the remarks on Angus'
website - they wanted to nullify a potential threat to their income.
However, given that the Govt. won the last election very comfortably, in the
aftermath of the F & M debacle, which generated widespread distaste for the
very public cull and disposal of thousands of animals, the discreet shooting
of unwanted and 'surplus' wild animals seems unlikely to be viewed as very
much of a political hot potato, for the time being, at least.
Angus has been maintaining his Quixotic campaign in the face of continuing
denigration and ridicule, so he cannot be criticised validly for lack of
effort or determination.
BAC
"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040513184828...@mb-m11.aol.com...
<snip>
>
> If you want native woodland you could fence it to protect it from the
goats
> instead of getting your thugs to kill them.
>
> >
> >If the feral goats were not controlled, there would, in due course, be
> >no woodland left.
>
> Not if you fenced it.
>
I don't think it's quite as simple as that, because if one fences
grazing/browsing animals out of an area indefinitely, there is, obviously,
no grazing or browsing at all, and this can have an effect on the nature of
the woodland, e.g. different rate of survival of competing species, in
comparison with the situation where there is some browsing.
So, conservationists may well want some grazing/browsing of 'their'
woodlands, but neither too much nor too little. One of the simplest ways of
achieving this is to control the grazing/browsing population density, and
keep them moving about.
IF you want 'native woodlands', that is ...
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <5HsLxWBV...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040513184828...@mb-m11.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <5boL2PDD...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040513120808...@mb-m19.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>Message-id: <3JCoSJDq...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>In article <20040513094740...@mb-m29.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>
>>>>>>
>>>to.
>>>>>>The total number doesn't particularly concern me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So you would take the same attitude if it was 14 out of 14, or, as is
>>>>>the case, 14 out of over 2,500?
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely.
>>>>
>>>Amazing.
>>
>>Why?
>>
No it doesn't. It demonstrates your lack of concern for the animals that have
been killed. Taking your line of thinking, was it right that one American was
beheaded in Iraq because there's plenty more Americans there?
>>>
>>>>I hope you also appreciate that this is
>>>>>the first cull carried out at Inversnaid for three years and that the
>>>>>RSPB are merely controlling the numbers within set parameters and not
>>>>>attempting to remove the goats altogether.
>>>>
>>>>That makes no difference whatsoever. The phrase "controlling numbers
>within
>>>>set parametres" smacks of the worst nazi-style principles of the fake
>>>>conservationists.
>>>>
>>>No, it doesn't, Angus, it shows good management practice, conserving the
>>>native woodland of the east side of Loch Lomond while at the same time
>>>having feral goats living in the woodland.
>>
>>If you want native woodland you could fence it to protect it from the goats
>>instead of getting your thugs to kill them.
>>
>>>If the feral goats were not controlled, there would, in due course, be
>>>no woodland left.
>>
>>Not if you fenced it.
>>
>OK, Angus, how much money do you think it is worth spending in order to
>save the lives of 14 goats every three years? And how much are you
>prepared to contribute?
>
>£50,000, £100,000?
I wondered when you'd come round to money; the fake conservationists' God. If
they can't afford to protect the trees they shouldn't plant them in the first
place. All other businesses have to protect their assets with warehouuses and
fencing etc.
I'm not prepared to contribute anything; they're not my trees. If they were
I'd fence them.
>
>And that's just the capital cost. Regular inspection and maintenance has
>to be added on top.
Never heard fof gates? :-(
>
>And suppose one area was fenced and the goats kept out, that just pushes
>them into the next area of woodland which will very likely already have
>goats, so the problem of their grazing pressure is just compounded.
Gosh! Aren't you beginning to learn something after all this time. Remeber my
letter about the deer which says the same thing.
Here's a reminder:
______________________________
Letters to the Editor
The Herald
Glasgow
Dear Sir
As the subject of your article "Animal Activist's Claims Outlawed by Judge" (17
Aug.) I am not overly surprised by the verdict as the "establishment" protects
its own.
However, I feel I should make some comments about the killing of deer by
conservation charities such as the Woodland Trust.
Hunters and conservationists would have us believe that it is necessary to
reduce deer numbers to an acceptable population level that doesn't cause
ecological damage. When asked why the population has increased so rapidly, they
tell us that deer reproduce prolifically and that there are no large predators,
namely the wolf, left to control their numbers. On the face of it, that seems a
reasonable explanation but it is more of a plausible excuse for hunters to
enjoy their grizzly fun and conservationists to employ them to hunt in almost
exactly the same way under the more respectable guise of culling.
There is no doubt that wolves were predators of deer, but not for a very long
time. The last wolf was killed in the UK around 1750, more than 250 years ago,
and their numbers were in serious decline for many decades before that. So it
is reasonable to assume that wolves have had little impact on deer for the past
300 - 350 years. With that in mind one could be excused for thinking that deer
numbers would have escalated at an enormous rate over that period. But it is
only in the last 50-60 years that their numbers have increased significantly,
coinciding with a thriving hunting industry and reforestation that provides
shelter.
So is there a connection? Of course there is!
To understand the whole sorry mess, one must examine the structure and covert
allegiances between hunters and conservationists who, including the Woodland
Trust, form alliances within "deer management groups" that are overseen by the
Deer Commission to maintain an artificially high deer population to satisfy the
requirements of hunting estates. But as deer know no boundaries, the population
expands to other areas unchecked, where they can damage unprotected saplings,
ground flora and ground nesting habitats.
This is when the deceit of the conservationists comes to the fore. Having
supped with the hunters, they now tell us they need to cull deer to reduce the
increase in population that the hunters were responsible for in the first
place. The horrid cycle continues year after year.
Why don't the conservationists abandon their hunting friends and join forces
with the animal activists who oppose hunting? No chance - it's all about
money. The government via the Deer Commission wishes to maintain the hunting
industry as an economic benefit to rural areas and the conservationists depend
on grants via the Forestry Authority to plant their trees.
The conservationists won't bite the hand that feeds them and the deer are the
losers.
Animal rights and welfare activists, together with our MSPs, have rid this
country of the scourge of hunting with dogs. The next target should be the
hunting estates.
________________________________
So
>what do you propose? A further £100,000 spent on fencing? That will just
>push even more goats into the next area of woodland, and so on, and so
>on.
What I propose is that the fake conservationists should leave the goats alone
and if they want to plant trees make sure they have the money to protect them.
>It is not just very expensive, it is not practical.
Of course it's practical. Why not?
>
>> If you had the eyes to see you would already be aware
>>>that there are great expanses of land on the east side of the loch which
>>>have been completely denuded of trees by grazing animals. Maybe you
>>>would like to see bare hillside running down to the loch all along the
>>>east shore. Unfortunately, we already know that you do not understand
>>>the concept of biodiversity and therefore are unable to recognise the
>>>difference in the biological richness of native woodland compared with
>>>over-grazed rough grassland.
>>
>>What I understand is that the concept of biodiversity is a fake
>>conservationists' dream for making money and who don't mind damaging the
>>natural environment to fulfill their fanaticism.
>>
>Firstly, as you have come out with your usual lie about conservationists
>"making money", perhaps you would like to suggest where the money should
>come from for fencing the goats out of the east side of Loch Lomond.
Of course they make money; How do they exist?
From the £1m a week budget of the RSPB
>
>And you've also avoided answering the question: would you like to see
>bare hillside running down to the loch all along its east shore, or do
>you prefer the present woodland?
There was woodland along the east of Loch Lomond long before the RSPB thugs
came on the scene and started killing the goats.
>>
>>Still, at least some of the others opposed
>>>to the culling of the goats recognise the damage they do and also
>>>realise that fencing them out of the woodland is not a practical option.
>>
>>Who and why not?
>>
>Some of the others opposed to the culling of goats, and see above about
>practicality.
Some? Who?
There's no practical reason why trees cannot be protected from goats.
mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>>If it's survived that long without the RSPB thugs' interference then it
>>should
>>>be left alone.
>>>
>>But it hasn't been surviving, has it?
>
>Of course it has.
>
>It has been steadily decreasing in
>>size and the remainder steadily deteriorating because of overgrazing. It
>>is easy to see where there are areas which are now rough grass which
>>were once covered in trees.
>
>So what!
Angus do try to be consistent. If it has been surviving as the first
part of your answer suggests the so what admits that it hasn't been
surviving. Also if you have any understanding of conservation you will
not be saying so what. if this an animal rights argument why don't you
take it to a NG concerned with animal rights and not the environment?
>>>>>
>>>>They are part of Scotland's natural heritage. You are a citizen of
>>>>Scotland. Therefore they are your trees.
>>>
>>>Don't show your ignorence! I'm not a citizen of Scotland, I'm a subject of
>>the
>>>UK
>>>
>>You are, indeed, a subject of the UK. You are also a citizen, in the
>>sense of being a resident, of Scotland and, as such, the woodland is
>>part of *your* natural heritage.
>
>No Malcolm, You idiot. I don't hold citizenship and being a resident doesn't
>make me a "citizen". Thick!
Try looking it up in a dictionary.
>
>>>>
>>>>So, supposing you had 400 hectares of woodland to fence, how much would
>>>>you be prepared to pay to save the lives of 14 goats every three years?
>>>>
>>>
>>>As much as it takes or I wouldn't own the woodland. The goats have just as
>>>much right to life as trees.
Why?
>
>>
>>Would you like to consider the practicality of protecting "with frames"
>>the lower trunks of thousands of mature trees. And as I doubt you've
>>been to Inversnaid, you won't know that much of it is on very steep and
>>rocky ground.
>
>No problem. Frames can be fitted very easily.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is not just very expensive, it is not practical.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it's practical. Why not?
Have you ANY experience of practical conservation? If you had you
wouldn't ask such infantile questions.
>>>
>>>It's these animals' home. They should be allowed to eat what they want. Why
>>>should some fake conservation cranks come along and deprive them of their
>>>heritage?
>>>
>>Their "heritage", as you so quaintly call it, is some ancient woodland
>>into which the goats moved after being released from farms in the area.
>
>Hundreds of years ago.
>
>>Left alone, they are fully capable of destroying that woodland, which is
>>also *our* heritage and some of the most species-rich and most diverse
>>habitat in Scotland.
>
>Not any more than a million other places.
Care to name a few?
--
Malcolm Kane
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <RUsx1GSV...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040514135558...@mb-m10.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <sd0u3MP0...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040514114420...@mb-m15.aol.com>, AMacmil304>>>>>Message-id: <d7rCOXKK...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>>>You really do go out of your way to expose your ignorance, don't you?
>>>>>The woodland at Inversnaid, where the 14 goats were culled, hasn't been
>>>>>"planted" by anyone. It is native woodland that has been there for
>>>>>hundreds, if not thousands, of years. In order for it to carry on being
>>>>>there for more hundreds of years it is necessary to stop it being
>>>>>destroyed by the goats, and the deer.
>>>>
>>>>If it's survived that long without the RSPB thugs' interference then it
>>>should
>>>>be left alone.
>>>>
>>>But it hasn't been surviving, has it?
>>
>>Of course it has.
>>
>to look for yourself? If not, then you can't possibly know.
>
>>It has been steadily decreasing in
>>>size and the remainder steadily deteriorating because of overgrazing. It
>>>is easy to see where there are areas which are now rough grass which
>>>were once covered in trees.
>>
>>So what!
>>
No Malcolm, it exposes yours. You're quite happy for the fake conservationists
to carry out environmentally damaging activities and encourage other to do the
same but throw up your hands in horror of the effect of a few wild goats eating
to survive.
>
>> And this is not just on the RSPB's land but
>>>widely along the east side of the loch. That wasn't done just by goats,
>>>of course, but also by sheep and deer.
>>
>>What about humans?
>>
>What about them? They don't eat trees.
They do much worse than that. They are the planet's most damaging mammal.
>
>>The sheep have been largely
>>>removed from large areas of the east side of the loch, and both deer and
>>>goat numbers are being controlled. Only in that way can the woodland
>>>start to regenerate and spread again.
>>
>>No. If areas are protected it they can regenerate.
>>
>Exactly so. They are being protected by reduction in the number of
>goats. There is no other practical method of protecting the woodland.
>
Of course there is; fencing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not prepared to contribute anything; they're not my trees. If they
>>>were
>>>>>>I'd fence them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>They are part of Scotland's natural heritage. You are a citizen of
>>>>>Scotland. Therefore they are your trees.
>>>>
>>>>Don't show your ignorence! I'm not a citizen of Scotland, I'm a subject of
>>>the
>>>>UK
>>>>
>>>You are, indeed, a subject of the UK. You are also a citizen, in the
>>>sense of being a resident, of Scotland and, as such, the woodland is
>>>part of *your* natural heritage.
>>
>>No Malcolm, You idiot. I don't hold citizenship and being a resident doesn't
>>make me a "citizen". Thick!
>>
>Try looking the word up in a dictionary. I know you have one because
>you've been forced to use it in the past.
And I'm not a "citizen" of Scotland.
>
>>>>>So, supposing you had 400 hectares of woodland to fence, how much would
>>>>>you be prepared to pay to save the lives of 14 goats every three years?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As much as it takes or I wouldn't own the woodland. The goats have just
>as
>>>>much right to life as trees.
>>>>
>>>The goats are feral animals which were released. Would you be happy to
>>>give them a home either on your land or on land purchased/rented for the
>>>purpose?
>>
>>Thay have a home and have had for hundreds of years. They are not captive
>>animals.
>>
>They were captive animals, kept on farms, until sometime in the late
>18th or early 19th centuries, certainly NOT "for hundreds of years".
So you don't know. you're only guessing.
If
>you know differently, then produce the evidence that they have been at
>large in the Loch Lomond woodlands for that length of time.
You produce the veidence that your not guessing.
>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And that's just the capital cost. Regular inspection and maintenance
>has
>>>>>>>to be added on top.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Never heard fof gates? :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>How do gates reduce the cost of regular inspection and maintenance of
>>>>>fencing?
>>>>
>>>>Allows access.
>>>>
>>>Yes, that's what gates often do. But in what way do they reduce the
>>>regular inspection and maintenance of several miles of fencing? Just in
>>>case you don't understand what this means, it involves the regular
>>>walking of the entire fenceline, checking every post and checking that
>>>the netting is still in good condition and that holes have not appeared
>>>either in it or under it. How does the presence/absence of gates aid
>>>this?
>>
>>It enables checks and repairs to be made from both sides which can be
>>beneficial in rough terrain.
>>
>Well done, Angus. But it doesn't in any way reduce the cost of the
>regular inspection and maintenance which is what you were implying by
>your remark "Never heard of gates?".
Of course it does. That just shows how thick you really are. For instance, if a
fence runs along the top of a cliff it's much cheaper to maintain it if access
al available to the none face side. Your ignorance astounds me!
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And suppose one area was fenced and the goats kept out, that just
>pushes
>>>>>>>them into the next area of woodland which will very likely already have
>>>>>>>goats, so the problem of their grazing pressure is just compounded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gosh! Aren't you beginning to learn something after all this time.
>>>Remeber
>>>>>my
>>>>>>letter about the deer which says the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Your letter did not answer the question about how you prevent more
>>>>>serious damage in the woodland next door to the one out of which you
>>>>>have fenced the goats.
>>>>
>>>>What it did was to expose the fakes in cionservation that kill deer and
>>>won't
>>>>condemn the reason for the rise in deer numbers.
>>>>
>>>No, it didn't. It showed you up as a bad loser.
>>>
>>No Malcolm. I've never considered myself a loser. In fact, although not
>known
>>to the WT, I'm ahead on points :-))
>>
>But well down financially and in court cases won or lost.
Not at all. On the contrary, I'm pleased to say :-)
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So
>>>>>>>what do you propose? A further £100,000 spent on fencing? That will
>just
>>>>>>>push even more goats into the next area of woodland, and so on, and so
>>>>>>>on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What I propose is that the fake conservationists should leave the goats
>>>>>alone
>>>>>>and if they want to plant trees make sure they have the money to protect
>>>>>them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>See above. The woodland at Inversnaid is natural not planted.
>>>>
>>>>Mature trees are less affected if that's the case and the lower trunks can
>>>be
>>>>protected with frames.
>>>>
>>>Do you know what the word "regeneration" means? You can have thousands
>>>of mature trees, but unless their seedlings are allowed to sprout and
>>>grow into saplings and then trees themselves, the wood will disappear as
>>>the mature trees die.
>>
>>Exactly. Like everything else in nature. If the food source for the goats
>dies
>>then they will die out naturally and the trees will regenerate. You're
>>remarkably ignorant of the natural cycle.
>>
>If the goats destroy an area of woodland they move on to the next area
>of woodland. In the meantime, hundreds if not thousands of species
>dependent on that woodland have died out.
No Malcolm, They don't necessarily die out, some move on and will return when
the goats have insufficient to eat and have moved on themselves. Your
ignorance is amazing!
>
>>>
>>>Would you like to consider the practicality of protecting "with frames"
>>>the lower trunks of thousands of mature trees. And as I doubt you've
>>>been to Inversnaid, you won't know that much of it is on very steep and
>>>rocky ground.
>>
>>No problem. Frames can be fitted very easily.
>>
>No, Angus, they cannot. But then you have not only not seen the area of
>woodland, you have not considered the practicalities of fitting frames
>to thousands of trees.
Of course, it's not rocket science and it would create employment.
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is not just very expensive, it is not practical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course it's practical. Why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>See above about merely pushing the problem on to the next wood and the
>>>>>next and the next and the next.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly like the surplus deer generated by the shooring industry. See my
>>>>letter.
>>>>
>>>So are you suggesting that "surplus goats" are being generated?
>>
>>No I'm not. i'm saying the same thing happens to woodlands by animals that
>>wander from place to place.
>>
>Then you are admitting that it has nothing whatsoever to do with
>"surplus deer generated by the shooting industry". Thought not.
I'm saying that the effects on woodlands are similar but the fake
conservationists won't condemn their hunting friends for causing the problem.
>
>>If so,
>>>by whom and why? And your answer anyway does not in any way produce a
>>>solution to the problem of pushing the goats from one wood to the next
>>>and the next. Presumably, you haven't a solution.
>>>
>>See above. The solution is to leave them alone and stop the thuggery against
>>them
>>
>No, Angus, the solution of leaving them alone destroys the woodland.
>That is not a solution.
Not if you fence the trees.
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course they make money; How do they exist?
>>>>>>From the £1m a week budget of the RSPB
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you know how much fencing costs and how much would be needed on the
>>>>>east side of Loch Lomond, let alone every other wood which is being
>>>>>destroyed by grazing animals?
>>>>
>>>>It's these animals' home. They should be allowed to eat what they want.
>Why
>>>>should some fake conservation cranks come along and deprive them of their
>>>>heritage?
>>>>
>>>Their "heritage", as you so quaintly call it, is some ancient woodland
>>>into which the goats moved after being released from farms in the area.
>>
>>Hundreds of years ago.
>>
>If you have evidence that the goats were released "hundreds of years
>ago", perhaps you would be good enough to produce that evidence.
I have been told they have been around for at least two hundred years.
>
>>>Left alone, they are fully capable of destroying that woodland, which is
>>>also *our* heritage and some of the most species-rich and most diverse
>>>habitat in Scotland.
>>
>>Not any more than a million other places.
>>
>>The main form of wildlife around east Loch Lomond is in trainers and shell
>>suits :-(
>>
>Oh dear. Your anti-tourism stance is getting the better of your
>rationality :-(
Are you disputing it?
>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And you've also avoided answering the question: would you like to see
>>>>>>>bare hillside running down to the loch all along its east shore, or do
>>>>>>>you prefer the present woodland?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There was woodland along the east of Loch Lomond long before the RSPB
>>>thugs
>>>>>>came on the scene and started killing the goats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Correction. There was damaged and declining woodland along the east side
>>>>>of Loch Lomond.
>>>>
>>>>Correction. There was natural woodland along the east side of Loch Lomond
>>>until
>>>>the fake conservationists got their hands on it and converted it into
>>>>recreation areas for everyman and his car and dog.
>>>>
>>>Correction. There was damaged and declining woodland along the east side
>>>of Loch Lomond.
>>
>>Correction there was natural woodland.
>>
>No, Angus, there was damaged and declining woodland. Both the damage and
>the decline is visible for all to see, or at least all who bother to
>visit the area and do so with their eyes open. Your continued refusal to
>acknowledge the obvious merely signifies that you are both ignorant and
>unwilling to inform yourself.
Damaged and dying trees are a habitat in themselves and your obsession with
order is part of your support for the naziism that is prevalent in the fake
conservation industry.
>
>>>>Now, thanks to the conservation action of the RSPB and
>>>>>other organisations, the woodland is regenerating.
>>>>
>>>>And along with their other activities contributing to damaging the natural
>>>>environment.
>>>>
>>>Not to mention your own activities.
>>
>>But Malcolm, I'm NOT a conservationist.
>>
>And apparently happy to damage the natural environment :-(
I'm honest about it.
Not dishonest like the fakes who solicit money to protect the very environment
they are damaging :-(
AMacmil304
>Date: 14/05/04 23:14 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <LuAV5RBK...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
>
>In message <20040514135558...@mb-m10.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>If it's survived that long without the RSPB thugs' interference then it
>>>should
>>>>be left alone.
>>>>
>>>But it hasn't been surviving, has it?
>>
>>Of course it has.
>>
>>It has been steadily decreasing in
>>>size and the remainder steadily deteriorating because of overgrazing. It
>>>is easy to see where there are areas which are now rough grass which
>>>were once covered in trees.
>>
>>So what!
>
>Angus do try to be consistent. If it has been surviving as the first
>part of your answer suggests the so what admits that it hasn't been
>surviving.
I has been surviving for centuries. What I'm saying is "So what" in response to
Malcolm's claim that goats have damagesd the trees to complete destruction.
They were probably cut down for other reasons.
Also if you have any understanding of conservation you will
>not be saying so what. if this an animal rights argument why don't you
>take it to a NG concerned with animal rights and not the environment?
No. The goats are part of our environment as well as trees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>They are part of Scotland's natural heritage. You are a citizen of
>>>>>Scotland. Therefore they are your trees.
>>>>
>>>>Don't show your ignorence! I'm not a citizen of Scotland, I'm a subject of
>>>the
>>>>UK
>>>>
>>>You are, indeed, a subject of the UK. You are also a citizen, in the
>>>sense of being a resident, of Scotland and, as such, the woodland is
>>>part of *your* natural heritage.
>>
>>No Malcolm, You idiot. I don't hold citizenship and being a resident doesn't
>>make me a "citizen". Thick!
>
>Try looking it up in a dictionary.
If you don't understand perhaps you should look up "subject".
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So, supposing you had 400 hectares of woodland to fence, how much would
>>>>>you be prepared to pay to save the lives of 14 goats every three years?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As much as it takes or I wouldn't own the woodland. The goats have just
>as
>>>>much right to life as trees.
>
>Why?
Why not?
>>
>>>
>>>Would you like to consider the practicality of protecting "with frames"
>>>the lower trunks of thousands of mature trees. And as I doubt you've
>>>been to Inversnaid, you won't know that much of it is on very steep and
>>>rocky ground.
>>
>>No problem. Frames can be fitted very easily.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is not just very expensive, it is not practical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course it's practical. Why not?
>
>Have you ANY experience of practical conservation? If you had you
>wouldn't ask such infantile questions.
Of course it's practical. It's certainly not difficult.
>>>>
>>>>It's these animals' home. They should be allowed to eat what they want.
>Why
>>>>should some fake conservation cranks come along and deprive them of their
>>>>heritage?
>>>>
>>>Their "heritage", as you so quaintly call it, is some ancient woodland
>>>into which the goats moved after being released from farms in the area.
>>
>>Hundreds of years ago.
>>
>>>Left alone, they are fully capable of destroying that woodland, which is
>>>also *our* heritage and some of the most species-rich and most diverse
>>>habitat in Scotland.
>>
>>Not any more than a million other places.
>
>Care to name a few?
Look around the parts of the countryside not ravaged by the fake conservation
industry and you'll find plenty.
Andy Mabbett
mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk quoted MACmilllan the liar:
>>You idiot. I don't hold citizenship and being a resident doesn't
>>make me a "citizen". Thick!
>
>Try looking it up in a dictionary.
Or on Google:
<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=citizen&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qd
r=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=gov.uk&safe=images>
or <http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2FC53E48>
Results 1 - 10 of about 81,700 from gov.uk for citizen.
and includes:
<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/ncs04-00.asp>
"The basic premise for this acknowledges that each
citizen of Scotland should have equity of access to
cultural activity"
<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/environment/biom-01.asp>
"we hope will in time reach out to every citizen of
Scotland"
<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library4/FCSD/ESF7/00015471.aspx>
"one of the few possibilities for the citizen of
Scotland to see at first hand"
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
Derek Moody
<usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In message <LuAV5RBK...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>,
>mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk quoted MACmilllan the liar:
>
>>>You idiot. I don't hold citizenship and being a resident doesn't
>>>make me a "citizen". Thick!
>>
>>Try looking it up in a dictionary.
>
>Or on Google:
>
> <http://www.google.com/search?as_q=citizen&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qd
>r=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=gov.uk&safe=images>
Wouldn't it be nice if this prick, poof muppett would learn how to
post a url complete!!"""""""""""""""
.
*************************************************************************************
Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.
- Sir Winston Churchill
The Eagle Has Landed.
/T /I
/ |/ | .-~/
T\ Y I |/ / _
/T | \I | I Y.-~/
I l /I T\ | | l | T /
T\ | \ Y l /T | \I l \ ` l Y
__ | \l \l \I l __l l \ ` _. |
\ ~-l `\ `\ \ \\ ~\ \ `. .-~ |
\ ~-. "-. ` \ ^._ ^. "-. / \ |
.--~-._ ~- ` _ ~-_.-"-." ._ /._ ." ./
>--. ~-. ._ ~>-" "\\ 7 7 ]
^.___~"--._ ~-{ .-~ . `\ Y . / |
<__ ~"-. ~ /_/ \ \I Y : |
^-.__ ~(_/ \ >._: | l______
^--.,___.-~" /_/ ! `-.~"--l_ / ~"-.
(_/ . ~( /' "~"--,Y -=b-. _)
(_/ . \ : / l c"~o \
\ / `. . .^ \_.-~"~--. )
(_/ . ` / / ! )/
/ / _. '. .': / '
~(_/ . / _ ` .-<_
/_/ . ' .-~" `. / \ \ ,z=.
~( / ' : | K "-.~-.______//
"-,. l I/ \_ __{--->._(==.
//( \ < ~"~" //
/' /\ \ \ ,v=. ((
.^. / /\ " }__ //===- ` Roy!/ASC
/ / ' ' "-.,__ {---(==-
.^ ' : T ~" ll
/ . . . : | :! \\
(_/ / | | j-" ~^
So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?
I understand.
/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
GOOD SIGS wanted. APPLY WITHIN.
Please Note: I am not the forger-troll Derek Moody who posts with
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk>
<po...@half-baked-idea.co.uk>
<ba...@farm-direct.co.uk>
<misswh...@derekm.plus.com> and who continues to stalk me, ensuring he is at the top of my hit list
and who also published child porn websites and kinky sex outlets in the UK, not to mention deviant holidays.
AMacmil304
Date: 15/05/04 12:51 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: <zRNpkSDS...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
In article <20040515043112...@mb-m28.aol.com>, AMacmil304
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>Message-id: <RUsx1GSV...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>In article <20040514135558...@mb-m10.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>Message-id: <sd0u3MP0...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>>In article <20040514114420...@mb-m15.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>>Message-id: <d7rCOXKK...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>>>>>You really do go out of your way to expose your ignorance, don't you?
>>>>>>The woodland at Inversnaid, where the 14 goats were culled, hasn't been
>>>>>>"planted" by anyone. It is native woodland that has been there for
>>>>>>hundreds, if not thousands, of years. In order for it to carry on being
>>>>>>there for more hundreds of years it is necessary to stop it being
>>>>>>destroyed by the goats, and the deer.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it's survived that long without the RSPB thugs' interference then it
>>>>should
>>>>>be left alone.
>>>>>
>>>>But it hasn't been surviving, has it?
>>>
>>>Of course it has.
>>>
>>No, it hasn't. Have you ever been to Inversnaid or the surrounding area
>>to look for yourself? If not, then you can't possibly know.
>>
I take it that your failure to answer this question means that you have
never been to Inversnaid or the surrounding area and that therefore you
can't possibly know.
Do you now.
>>>It has been steadily decreasing in
>>>>size and the remainder steadily deteriorating because of overgrazing. It
>>>>is easy to see where there are areas which are now rough grass which
>>>>were once covered in trees.
>>>
>>>So what!
>>>
>>Now that really does expose your wilful disregard for biodiversity.
>
>No Malcolm, it exposes yours. You're quite happy for the fake
conservationists
>to carry out environmentally damaging activities and encourage other to do the
>same but throw up your hands in horror of the effect of a few wild goats
eating
>to survive.
>
I have no knowledge of any "fake" conservationists and therefore
couldn't possibly be happy or otherwise with their activities.
Most others I talk to seem to know of them.
I haven't
anywhere "thrown up my hands in horror" about the goats. I'm just
sufficiently well-informed, unlike you, to know that too many goats
eating will cause the woodland to fail to survive.
So as they can be exploited for money:-(
>>
>>> And this is not just on the RSPB's land but
>>>>widely along the east side of the loch. That wasn't done just by goats,
>>>>of course, but also by sheep and deer.
>>>
>>>What about humans?
>>>
>>What about them? They don't eat trees.
>
>They do much worse than that. They are the planet's most damaging mammal.
>
Especially those who boast about not being conservationists and drive
Range Rovers :-(
So am I or all Range Rover banned from visiting a RSPB reserve and causing all
that damage? Or do they welcome us for the money?
>>
>>>The sheep have been largely
>>>>removed from large areas of the east side of the loch, and both deer and
>>>>goat numbers are being controlled. Only in that way can the woodland
>>>>start to regenerate and spread again.
>>>
>>>No. If areas are protected it they can regenerate.
>>>
>>Exactly so. They are being protected by reduction in the number of
>>goats. There is no other practical method of protecting the woodland.
>>
>
>Of course there is; fencing.
>
I said "practical". Fencing the areas involved is not "practical".
Of course it is. Most businesses protect their assets with fences including
landowners like farmers and estates.
But
then as you don't know the area and you refuse to understand that
fencing a piece of woodland merely concentrates the goat problem on the
next area of woodland, you aren't really competent to comment, are you?
So reduce the concentration and let them roam freely if you are worried. That
would be my first option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not prepared to contribute anything; they're not my trees. If they
>>>>were
>>>>>>>I'd fence them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>They are part of Scotland's natural heritage. You are a citizen of
>>>>>>Scotland. Therefore they are your trees.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't show your ignorence! I'm not a citizen of Scotland, I'm a subject of
>>>>the
>>>>>UK
>>>>>
>>>>You are, indeed, a subject of the UK. You are also a citizen, in the
>>>>sense of being a resident, of Scotland and, as such, the woodland is
>>>>part of *your* natural heritage.
>>>
>>>No Malcolm, You idiot. I don't hold citizenship and being a resident doesn't
>>>make me a "citizen". Thick!
>>>
>>Try looking the word up in a dictionary. I know you have one because
>>you've been forced to use it in the past.
>
>And I'm not a "citizen" of Scotland.
Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? It means "inhabitant or
occupant". Are you claiming that you don't live in Scotland?
Have you looked up the word "subject" ? It applies here; not citizen.
>>
>>>>>>So, supposing you had 400 hectares of woodland to fence, how much would
>>>>>>you be prepared to pay to save the lives of 14 goats every three years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>As much as it takes or I wouldn't own the woodland. The goats have just
>>as
>>>>>much right to life as trees.
>>>>>
>>>>The goats are feral animals which were released. Would you be happy to
>>>>give them a home either on your land or on land purchased/rented for the
>>>>purpose?
>>>
>>>Thay have a home and have had for hundreds of years. They are not captive
>>>animals.
>>>
>>They were captive animals, kept on farms, until sometime in the late
>>18th or early 19th centuries, certainly NOT "for hundreds of years".
>
>So you don't know. you're only guessing.
>
No, Angus. There is no guess involved in the above.
So you don't know even enought to guess :-( Thought so!
>If
>>you know differently, then produce the evidence that they have been at
>>large in the Loch Lomond woodlands for that length of time.
>
>You produce the veidence that your not guessing.
>
Oh, here we go again :-(
You make a wild and unsubstantiated claim and then, when asked for
evidence to support it, you turn the claim round into a question to the
person who challenged you.
Well, as you have always failed to provide any evidence when you attempt
to play that trick, I think everyone can take it that you have no such
evidence that the goats have been there for hundreds of years. If you
have, produce the evidence. If you haven't, then have the honesty to
admit it.
Here we go again!
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And that's just the capital cost. Regular inspection and maintenance
>>has
>>>>>>>>to be added on top.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Never heard fof gates? :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do gates reduce the cost of regular inspection and maintenance of
>>>>>>fencing?
>>>>>
>>>>>Allows access.
>>>>>
>>>>Yes, that's what gates often do. But in what way do they reduce the
>>>>regular inspection and maintenance of several miles of fencing? Just in
>>>>case you don't understand what this means, it involves the regular
>>>>walking of the entire fenceline, checking every post and checking that
>>>>the netting is still in good condition and that holes have not appeared
>>>>either in it or under it. How does the presence/absence of gates aid
>>>>this?
>>>
>>>It enables checks and repairs to be made from both sides which can be
>>>beneficial in rough terrain.
>>>
>>Well done, Angus. But it doesn't in any way reduce the cost of the
>>regular inspection and maintenance which is what you were implying by
>>your remark "Never heard of gates?".
>
>Of course it does. That just shows how thick you really are. For instance, if
a
>fence runs along the top of a cliff it's much cheaper to maintain it if access
>al available to the none face side. Your ignorance astounds me!
>
More childish abuse. You made the claim that gates would reduce the cost
of regular inspection and maintenance as if this was some brainwave of
your own. And now you appear to believe that someone would erect a fence
round a piece of woodland and NOT provide gates. Perhaps you would like
to indicate where, anywhere in the whole of the UK, a fence has ever
been put up round a piece of woodland without gates being provided. BTW,
if you had ever been in the Inversnaid area you would know that any
fencing erected there would *have* to have gates.
Ah so you agree. Good!
Your own ignorance would be much improved, and you wouldn't make
ill-informed remarks such as the above, if you had ever actually seen an
area of former woodland that has been completely destroyed by grazing
animals, or knew the slightest thing about oak woodland ecosystems, but
then you have steadfastly refused to read recommended books on the
subject.
I must say that If you "improve" ignorance you make someone more ignorant not
less so. I think you're lost in your own maze of confusion :-))
>>
>>>>
>>>>Would you like to consider the practicality of protecting "with frames"
>>>>the lower trunks of thousands of mature trees. And as I doubt you've
>>>>been to Inversnaid, you won't know that much of it is on very steep and
>>>>rocky ground.
>>>
>>>No problem. Frames can be fitted very easily.
>>>
>>No, Angus, they cannot. But then you have not only not seen the area of
>>woodland, you have not considered the practicalities of fitting frames
>>to thousands of trees.
>
>Of course, it's not rocket science and it would create employment.
So, are you prepared to contribute to the funding required, which would
run into hundreds of thousands of pounds if not millions?
Not at all. They're not my trees to protect. I think I've answered that
already but you seem confused.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is not just very expensive, it is not practical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course it's practical. Why not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>See above about merely pushing the problem on to the next wood and the
>>>>>>next and the next and the next.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly like the surplus deer generated by the shooring industry. See my
>>>>>letter.
>>>>>
>>>>So are you suggesting that "surplus goats" are being generated?
>>>
>>>No I'm not. i'm saying the same thing happens to woodlands by animals that
>>>wander from place to place.
>>>
>>Then you are admitting that it has nothing whatsoever to do with
>>"surplus deer generated by the shooting industry". Thought not.
>
>I'm saying that the effects on woodlands are similar but the fake
>conservationists won't condemn their hunting friends for causing the problem.
>
>>
>>>If so,
>>>>by whom and why? And your answer anyway does not in any way produce a
>>>>solution to the problem of pushing the goats from one wood to the next
>>>>and the next. Presumably, you haven't a solution.
>>>>
>>>See above. The solution is to leave them alone and stop the thuggery against
>>>them
>>>
>>No, Angus, the solution of leaving them alone destroys the woodland.
>>That is not a solution.
>
>Not if you fence the trees.
>
Fencing the trees is not a solution. Perhaps if you had more practical
knowledge, both of the area we are discussing and the problems involved,
you would stop making impractical suggestions.
Are you saying it's impossible to fence trees?
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course they make money; How do they exist?
>>>>>>>From the £1m a week budget of the RSPB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you know how much fencing costs and how much would be needed on the
>>>>>>east side of Loch Lomond, let alone every other wood which is being
>>>>>>destroyed by grazing animals?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's these animals' home. They should be allowed to eat what they want.
>>Why
>>>>>should some fake conservation cranks come along and deprive them of their
>>>>>heritage?
>>>>>
>>>>Their "heritage", as you so quaintly call it, is some ancient woodland
>>>>into which the goats moved after being released from farms in the area.
>>>
>>>Hundreds of years ago.
>>>
>>If you have evidence that the goats were released "hundreds of years
>>ago", perhaps you would be good enough to produce that evidence.
>
>I have been told they have been around for at least two hundred years.
>
Ah, just "two" hundred years. Well, I suppose this can just be squeezed
into "hundreds of years".
Of course it can. No squeezing necessary.
Yet when I challenged that claim, above, and
pointed out that they were captive animals, kept on farms, until
sometime in the late 18th or early 19th centuries, certainly NOT "for
hundreds of years", you asked me for my evidence and claimed I was
guessing, yet now you are agreeing with me.
No. You were guessing as it patently obvious from what you said you don't know.
>>
>>>>Left alone, they are fully capable of destroying that woodland, which is
>>>>also *our* heritage and some of the most species-rich and most diverse
>>>>habitat in Scotland.
>>>
>>>Not any more than a million other places.
>>>
>>>The main form of wildlife around east Loch Lomond is in trainers and shell
>>>suits :-(
>>>
>>Oh dear. Your anti-tourism stance is getting the better of your
>>rationality :-(
>
>Are you disputing it?
>
Yes, because your knowledge of tourism around the east side of Loch
Lomond is very obviously incomplete. Ever heard of the West Highland
Way?
Yes, and people moved houses because of the problem with the "wildlife".
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And you've also avoided answering the question: would you like to see
>>>>>>>>bare hillside running down to the loch all along its east shore, or do
>>>>>>>>you prefer the present woodland?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There was woodland along the east of Loch Lomond long before the RSPB
>>>>thugs
>>>>>>>came on the scene and started killing the goats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Correction. There was damaged and declining woodland along the east side
>>>>>>of Loch Lomond.
>>>>>
>>>>>Correction. There was natural woodland along the east side of Loch Lomond
>>>>until
>>>>>the fake conservationists got their hands on it and converted it into
>>>>>recreation areas for everyman and his car and dog.
>>>>>
>>>>Correction. There was damaged and declining woodland along the east side
>>>>of Loch Lomond.
>>>
>>>Correction there was natural woodland.
>>>
>>No, Angus, there was damaged and declining woodland. Both the damage and
>>the decline is visible for all to see, or at least all who bother to
>>visit the area and do so with their eyes open. Your continued refusal to
>>acknowledge the obvious merely signifies that you are both ignorant and
>>unwilling to inform yourself.
>
>Damaged and dying trees are a habitat in themselves
Well done, you've actually learnt something about ecology. However, you
should take it one step further and try and understand that if you see
damaged and dying trees without any regeneration taking place you are
witnessing the death of the woodland.
You've obviously not learned much. Regeneration will take place once the goats
have moved on to pastures new.
>and your obsession with
>order is part of your support for the naziism that is prevalent in the fake
>conservation industry.
>
What "order" am I supposed to be obsessed with?
The nazi style order of a place for everything - except of course the paying
public to keep the fakes in jobs :-(
AMacmil304
>Date: 15/05/04 11:58 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <H1gWUdoO...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
>
>In message <LuAV5RBK...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>,
>mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk quoted MACmilllan the liar:
>
>>>You idiot. I don't hold citizenship and being a resident doesn't
>>>make me a "citizen". Thick!
>>
>>Try looking it up in a dictionary.
>
>Or on Google:
>
>
><http://www.google.com/search?as_q=citizen&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Goo
gle+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qd
>r=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=gov.uk&safe=images>
>
> or <http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2FC53E48>
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 81,700 from gov.uk for citizen.
>
>and includes:
>
> <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/ncs04-00.asp>
>
> "The basic premise for this acknowledges that each
> citizen of Scotland should have equity of access to
> cultural activity"
>
> <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/environment/biom-01.asp>
>
> "we hope will in time reach out to every citizen of
> Scotland"
>
> <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library4/FCSD/ESF7/00015471.aspx>
>
> "one of the few possibilities for the citizen of
> Scotland to see at first hand"
Try looking up "subject" instead, and don't depend on anything the Scottish
Regional Council says they don't even know the difference between £50m and
£430m :-(
AMacmil304
>Date: 15/05/04 15:06 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1ClYgwGz...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040515084630...@mb-m03.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>Message-id: <zRNpkSDS...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>In article <20040515043112...@mb-m28.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>Message-id: <RUsx1GSV...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>>In article <20040514135558...@mb-m10.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>>Message-id: <sd0u3MP0...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>>to look for yourself? If not, then you can't possibly know.
>>>>
>>I take it that your failure to answer this question means that you have
>>never been to Inversnaid or the surrounding area and that therefore you
>>can't possibly know.
>>
>>Do you now.
>>
>surrounding area and therefore I do know.
>
>What about you?
Are you drunk? Read what I wrote!
>
>MAO
>>I haven't
>>anywhere "thrown up my hands in horror" about the goats. I'm just
>>sufficiently well-informed, unlike you, to know that too many goats
>>eating will cause the woodland to fail to survive.
>>
>AM
>>So as they can be exploited for money:-(
>>
>And exactly what evidence do you have that the goats are being exploited
>for money? None, of course, because there isn't any. You never have any
>evidence for your wilder statements, born out of your obsession.
I never said the goats were exploited for money. It's the natural environment -
including the goats; they're part of it, that the fakes are exploiting for
money.
>
>>>>
>>>>> And this is not just on the RSPB's land but
>>>>>>widely along the east side of the loch. That wasn't done just by goats,
>>>>>>of course, but also by sheep and deer.
>>>>>
>>>>>What about humans?
>>>>>
>>>>What about them? They don't eat trees.
>>>
>>>They do much worse than that. They are the planet's most damaging mammal.
>>>
>MAO
>>Especially those who boast about not being conservationists and drive
>>Range Rovers :-(
>>
>AM
>>So am I or all Range Rover banned from visiting a RSPB reserve and causing
>all
>>that damage? Or do they welcome us for the money?
>>
>What money? Only a handful of RSPB reserves charge an entrance fee.
No response about damaging Range Rover drivers visiting reserves I see. Does
Inversnaid charge?
>>>>
>>>>>The sheep have been largely
>>>>>>removed from large areas of the east side of the loch, and both deer and
>>>>>>goat numbers are being controlled. Only in that way can the woodland
>>>>>>start to regenerate and spread again.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. If areas are protected it they can regenerate.
>>>>>
>>>>Exactly so. They are being protected by reduction in the number of
>>>>goats. There is no other practical method of protecting the woodland.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Of course there is; fencing.
>>>
>MAO
>>I said "practical". Fencing the areas involved is not "practical".
>>
>AM
>>Of course it is. Most businesses protect their assets with fences including
>>landowners like farmers and estates.
>>
>No, Angus, fencing the areas involved is NOT practical, but then you
>don't know the areas involved, do you?
>
>MAO
Of course it is practical. Just as practical as the protection fencing affords
to other businesses.
>>But
>>then as you don't know the area and you refuse to understand that
>>fencing a piece of woodland merely concentrates the goat problem on the
>>next area of woodland, you aren't really competent to comment, are you?
>>
>AM
>>So reduce the concentration and let them roam freely if you are worried.
>That
>>would be my first option.
>>
>Fine, I'm glad you now agree that the concentration must be reduced. So
>does the RSPB.
That's not what I said. Read it in context and stop twisting my words.
>
>And the goats are allowed to "roam freely", but this doesn't, in any
>way, reduce the damage to the woodland because the goats don't bother to
>roam. Why should they?
Why indeed! But they would move on when their food ran out.
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are, indeed, a subject of the UK. You are also a citizen, in the
>>>>>>sense of being a resident, of Scotland and, as such, the woodland is
>>>>>>part of *your* natural heritage.
>>>>>
>>>>>No Malcolm, You idiot. I don't hold citizenship and being a resident
>doesn't
>>>>>make me a "citizen". Thick!
>>>>>
>>>>Try looking the word up in a dictionary. I know you have one because
>>>>you've been forced to use it in the past.
>>>
>>>And I'm not a "citizen" of Scotland.
>>
>MAO
>>Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? It means "inhabitant or
>>occupant". Are you claiming that you don't live in Scotland?
>>
>AM
>>Have you looked up the word "subject" ? It applies here; not citizen.
>>
>Nonense, the two words are not mutually exclusive. You are a subject of
>the crown and of Britain, but you are also a citizen of Scotland as well
>as of Britain.
No. I am a subject of a state ruled by a monarch. Your dictionary definition
of "citizen" does not apply to the above; "subject" does.
>
>>>>>Thay have a home and have had for hundreds of years. They are not captive
>>>>>animals.
>>>>>
>>>>They were captive animals, kept on farms, until sometime in the late
>>>>18th or early 19th centuries, certainly NOT "for hundreds of years".
>>>
>>>So you don't know. you're only guessing.
>>>
>MAO
>>No, Angus. There is no guess involved in the above.
>>
>AM
>>So you don't know even enought to guess :-( Thought so!
>>
>See below.
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Their "heritage", as you so quaintly call it, is some ancient woodland
>>>>>>into which the goats moved after being released from farms in the area.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hundreds of years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>If you have evidence that the goats were released "hundreds of years
>>>>ago", perhaps you would be good enough to produce that evidence.
>>>
>>>I have been told they have been around for at least two hundred years.
>>>
>MAO
>>Ah, just "two" hundred years. Well, I suppose this can just be squeezed
>>into "hundreds of years".
>>
>AM
>>Of course it can. No squeezing necessary.
>>
>MAO
>>Yet when I challenged that claim, above, and
>>pointed out that they were captive animals, kept on farms, until
>>sometime in the late 18th or early 19th centuries, certainly NOT "for
>>hundreds of years", you asked me for my evidence and claimed I was
>>guessing, yet now you are agreeing with me.
>>
>AM
>>No. You were guessing as it patently obvious from what you said you don't
>know.
>>
>No, Angus, it was no guess but very probably the same source as your
>information. You say you have been told that they have been around for
>at least two hundred years, I have read an authoritative book which
>states that they were released sometime in the late 18th or early 19th
>centuries. At least you've retracted your highly misleading "hundreds of
>years ago".
Not misleading at all. Two hundred is "hundreds".
>>>>
>>>>>>Left alone, they are fully capable of destroying that woodland, which is
>>>>>>also *our* heritage and some of the most species-rich and most diverse
>>>>>>habitat in Scotland.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not any more than a million other places.
>>>>>
>>>>>The main form of wildlife around east Loch Lomond is in trainers and
>shell
>>>>>suits :-(
>>>>>
>>>>Oh dear. Your anti-tourism stance is getting the better of your
>>>>rationality :-(
>>>
>>>Are you disputing it?
>>>
>MAO
>>Yes, because your knowledge of tourism around the east side of Loch
>>Lomond is very obviously incomplete. Ever heard of the West Highland
>>Way?
>>
>AM
>>Yes, and people moved houses because of the problem with the "wildlife".
>>
>Others took their place and offered services to the tourists, thus
>benefiting themselves and the local economy, something you've expressed
>keenness about in the past.
Yes those who bought them for B&B. When have I expressed keenness in the past
about tourist development? What I have said is that local produce and services
should be encouraged to supply to local markets. Not opportunists catering for
people from all over the world and spending their money in the off-season in
the Canaries.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Correction there was natural woodland.
>>>>>
>>>>No, Angus, there was damaged and declining woodland. Both the damage and
>>>>the decline is visible for all to see, or at least all who bother to
>>>>visit the area and do so with their eyes open. Your continued refusal to
>>>>acknowledge the obvious merely signifies that you are both ignorant and
>>>>unwilling to inform yourself.
>>>
>>>Damaged and dying trees are a habitat in themselves
>>
>MAO
>>Well done, you've actually learnt something about ecology. However, you
>>should take it one step further and try and understand that if you see
>>damaged and dying trees without any regeneration taking place you are
>>witnessing the death of the woodland.
>>
>AM
>>You've obviously not learned much. Regeneration will take place once the
>goats
>>have moved on to pastures new.
>>
>Whereupon the goats will move back and graze off all the regenerating
>seedlings.
And the pastures new will regenerate.
Your argument is theoretical nonsense.
>
>>>and your obsession with
>>>order is part of your support for the naziism that is prevalent in the fake
>>>conservation industry.
>>>
>MAO
>>What "order" am I supposed to be obsessed with?
>>
>AM
>>The nazi style order of a place for everything - except of course the paying
>>public to keep the fakes in jobs :-(
>>
>The meaningless remark of an obsessive.
Not at all. Very apt in the circumstances.
>
>
>
>I've added initials to the sequences above as your newsreader has failed
>to add a set of chevrons to my last set of remarks :-(
One of the hazards of AOL.
BAC
>
<snip>
> >>
> >See above. The solution is to leave them alone and stop the thuggery
against
> >them
> >
> No, Angus, the solution of leaving them alone destroys the woodland.
> That is not a solution.
>
It (leaving them alone and risking prevention of regeneration of the
woodland in a particular manner) *is* a solution, it is merely a solution
which those humans controlling the land for the time being do not happen to
like. Hence they take actions they deem to be necessary, efficient,
affordable, and, in their eyes, morally and politically acceptable. I doubt
they would expect everybody to agree, either with their aims, or with their
methods.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <cQwy0tAn...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040515195221...@mb-m12.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>Message-id: <1ClYgwGz...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>MAO
>>>>I haven't
>>>>anywhere "thrown up my hands in horror" about the goats. I'm just
>>>>sufficiently well-informed, unlike you, to know that too many goats
>>>>eating will cause the woodland to fail to survive.
>>>>
>>>AM
>>>>So as they can be exploited for money:-(
>>>>
>>>And exactly what evidence do you have that the goats are being exploited
>>>for money? None, of course, because there isn't any. You never have any
>>>evidence for your wilder statements, born out of your obsession.
>>
>>I never said the goats were exploited for money.
>>It's the natural environment -
>>including the goats; they're part of it, that the fakes are exploiting for
>>money.
>>
>many goats".
>
>If you had meant "the natural environment" you would have used "it", as
>you've now done. What a wriggle.
The wriggling's all yours, Malcolm.
>
>>>>
>>>AM
>>>>So am I or all Range Rover banned from visiting a RSPB reserve and causing
>>>all
>>>>that damage? Or do they welcome us for the money?
>>>>
>>>What money? Only a handful of RSPB reserves charge an entrance fee.
>>
>>No response about damaging Range Rover drivers visiting reserves I see.
>Does
>>Inversnaid charge?
>>
>No. And if you had been there you would know why not.
>
So they don't mind people driving Range Rovers to their reserves?
>>>>>
>>>MAO
>>>>I said "practical". Fencing the areas involved is not "practical".
>>>>
>>>AM
>>>>Of course it is. Most businesses protect their assets with fences
>including
>>>>landowners like farmers and estates.
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, fencing the areas involved is NOT practical, but then you
>>>don't know the areas involved, do you?
>>>
>>>MAO
>>
>>Of course it is practical. Just as practical as the protection fencing
>affords
>>to other businesses.
>>
>Perhaps if you had even a little knowledge about the area you would come
>to accept that fencing is not practical.
How do you mean " not practical"? I'm sure any fencing contractor worth his
salt would be more that willing to undertake the job.
>
>>
>>>
>>>And the goats are allowed to "roam freely", but this doesn't, in any
>>>way, reduce the damage to the woodland because the goats don't bother to
>>>roam. Why should they?
>>
>>Why indeed! But they would move on when their food ran out.
>>
>And, as has already been pointed out, destroy the next piece of woodland
>they selected to live in which you don't seem to care about. You would,
>apparently, prefer to live in a treeless landscape populated by deer,
>sheep and goats.
"Landscaping". That's what this is all about. Nothing to do with conserving the
natural environment or the planet's natural resources. It's about the fakes
creating an Eden where they can screw the natural environment for what it's
worth to keep themselves in jobs.
>
>>>>
>>>MAO
>>>>Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? It means "inhabitant or
>>>>occupant". Are you claiming that you don't live in Scotland?
>>>>
>>>AM
>>>>Have you looked up the word "subject" ? It applies here; not citizen.
>>>>
>>>Nonense, the two words are not mutually exclusive. You are a subject of
>>>the crown and of Britain, but you are also a citizen of Scotland as well
>>>as of Britain.
>>
>>No. I am a subject of a state ruled by a monarch. Your dictionary
>definition
>>of "citizen" does not apply to the above; "subject" does.
>>
>I suggest you buy yourself a better dictionary. You are just plain
>wrong. But then that's nothing new :-(
No Malcolm. Look up subject.
>
>>>MAO
>>>>Yes, because your knowledge of tourism around the east side of Loch
>>>>Lomond is very obviously incomplete. Ever heard of the West Highland
>>>>Way?
>>>>
>>>AM
>>>>Yes, and people moved houses because of the problem with the "wildlife".
>>>>
>>>Others took their place and offered services to the tourists, thus
>>>benefiting themselves and the local economy, something you've expressed
>>>keenness about in the past.
>>
>>Yes those who bought them for B&B. When have I expressed keenness in the
>past
>>about tourist development? What I have said is that local produce and
>services
>>should be encouraged to supply to local markets. Not opportunists catering
>for
>>people from all over the world and spending their money in the off-season in
>>the Canaries.
>>
>You really have got it bad, haven't you? And it's not as if you never
>go abroad, is it?
People I know have been forced to sell their homes adjacent to the West
Highland Way because of the problems they have experienced. Not everyone wants
to make money off tourists.
>
>>>>
>>>MAO
>>>>Well done, you've actually learnt something about ecology. However, you
>>>>should take it one step further and try and understand that if you see
>>>>damaged and dying trees without any regeneration taking place you are
>>>>witnessing the death of the woodland.
>>>>
>>>AM
>>>>You've obviously not learned much. Regeneration will take place once the
>>>goats
>>>>have moved on to pastures new.
>>>>
>>>Whereupon the goats will move back and graze off all the regenerating
>>>seedlings.
>>
>>And the pastures new will regenerate.
>>
>And will be grazed off again. You really don't understand, do you?
>
Exactly. That's what animals do but some trees do survive and continue to
grow.
>>Your argument is theoretical nonsense.
>>
>How can you possibly know? You have neither theoretical nor practical
>experience of conservation.
You don't even know what conserving natural resources means. You're out of
date and support the fakes.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>I've added initials to the sequences above as your newsreader has failed
>>>to add a set of chevrons to my last set of remarks :-(
>>
>>One of the hazards of AOL.
>>
>:-((
:-))
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <9nqKZbKM...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040516044912...@mb-m17.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <cQwy0tAn...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040515195221...@mb-m12.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>
>>>affords
>>>>to other businesses.
>>>>
>>>Perhaps if you had even a little knowledge about the area you would come
>>>to accept that fencing is not practical.
>>
>>How do you mean " not practical"? I'm sure any fencing contractor worth his
>>salt would be more that willing to undertake the job.
>>
>
>>>>>And the goats are allowed to "roam freely", but this doesn't, in any
>>>>>way, reduce the damage to the woodland because the goats don't bother to
>>>>>roam. Why should they?
>>>>
>>>>Why indeed! But they would move on when their food ran out.
>>>>
>>>And, as has already been pointed out, destroy the next piece of woodland
>>>they selected to live in which you don't seem to care about. You would,
>>>apparently, prefer to live in a treeless landscape populated by deer,
>>>sheep and goats.
>>
>>"Landscaping". That's what this is all about. Nothing to do with conserving
>the
>>natural environment or the planet's natural resources. It's about the
>fakes
>>creating an Eden where they can screw the natural environment for what it's
>>worth to keep themselves in jobs.
>>
>have put in quotes as if I did. I used the word "landscape", something
>which you are clearly unable to either understand or appreciate. The
>*landscape* of Scotland is as much a part of our natural heritage and
>natural environment as a single tree or a single bird.
>
>Get out there, drive, or better still walk, up to the north end of the
>loch and have a look at the difference between the native oak woodland
>and the grassland where grazing animals have removed the former tree
>cover. Have a look at the enormous diversity of species in the woodland
>(plant, invertebrate, bird, etc), and then compare it to the variety you
>can see in the grassland. Then have a look at the extent of the woodland
>and compare it with the extent of what was once woodland but is now
>grassland. And then try and realise why the former needs protecting so
>that it doesn't become the latter.
Absolute nonsense. Said like a true obsessive. Animal life can attract other
wildlife and can contribute to a better diversity than just a tree. Flies and
other insects are attracted to animals and are food for birds. Don' t give me
the bullshit that weed trees are the only way forward. Grassland has it's own
value in biodiversity but doesn't fit with the grants and cranks.
>
>>>>No. I am a subject of a state ruled by a monarch. Your dictionary
>>>definition
>>>>of "citizen" does not apply to the above; "subject" does.
>>>>
>>>I suggest you buy yourself a better dictionary. You are just plain
>>>wrong. But then that's nothing new :-(
>>
>>No Malcolm. Look up subject.
>>
>I have looked up both words and repeat that they are not mutually
>exclusive. You are both a subject *and* a citizen.
Rubbish. Subject is exclusive to countries ruled by a monarch.
>
>>>>Yes those who bought them for B&B. When have I expressed keenness in the
>>>past
>>>>about tourist development? What I have said is that local produce and
>>>services
>>>>should be encouraged to supply to local markets. Not opportunists catering
>>>for
>>>>people from all over the world and spending their money in the off-season
>in
>>>>the Canaries.
>>>>
>>>You really have got it bad, haven't you? And it's not as if you never
>>>go abroad, is it?
>>
>>People I know have been forced to sell their homes adjacent to the West
>>Highland Way because of the problems they have experienced. Not everyone
>wants
>>to make money off tourists.
>>
>"Forced" to sell. Who has "forced" them?
The walking scum who camp and defecate on their property and who are never away
from their door. That's the reality of living next to the WHW.
>>>>And the pastures new will regenerate.
>>>>
>>>And will be grazed off again. You really don't understand, do you?
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. That's what animals do but some trees do survive and continue to
>>grow.
>>
>Go and have a look before you make such statements. There are vast areas
>of Scotland which are denuded of trees because of grazing animals.
>
Because they are unprotected. There's enough room in Scotland for the animals
and trees.
>>>>Your argument is theoretical nonsense.
>>>>
>>>How can you possibly know? You have neither theoretical nor practical
>>>experience of conservation.
>>
>>You don't even know what conserving natural resources means. You're out of
>>date and support the fakes.
>>
>A lying statement based wholly on prejudice, ignorance and obsession.
No Malcolm. You show yourself up time and again as being out of touch and
supporting a concept that is damaging to the natural environment. Just look
through the "Birds" magazine and you'll learn something about damaging
activities.
You vision is obstructed by the narrowness of your mind :-((
AMacmil304
Garbage! You're promoting landscaping by regeneration and what heritage is
there in car parks and visitor centres?
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <eIWySkF+...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040516093500...@mb-m28.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <9nqKZbKM...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040516044912...@mb-m17.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>
>conserving
>>>the
>>>>natural environment or the planet's natural resources. It's about the
>>>fakes
>>>>creating an Eden where they can screw the natural environment for what
>it's
>>>>worth to keep themselves in jobs.
>>>>
>>>What a load of codswallop. I didn't use the word "landscaping" which you
>>>have put in quotes as if I did. I used the word "landscape", something
>>>which you are clearly unable to either understand or appreciate. The
>>>*landscape* of Scotland is as much a part of our natural heritage and
>>>natural environment as a single tree or a single bird.
>>>
>>>loch and have a look at the difference between the native oak woodland
>>>and the grassland where grazing animals have removed the former tree
>>>cover. Have a look at the enormous diversity of species in the woodland
>>>(plant, invertebrate, bird, etc), and then compare it to the variety you
>>>can see in the grassland. Then have a look at the extent of the woodland
>>>and compare it with the extent of what was once woodland but is now
>>>grassland. And then try and realise why the former needs protecting so
>>>that it doesn't become the latter.
>>
>>Absolute nonsense. Said like a true obsessive. Animal life can attract other
>>wildlife and can contribute to a better diversity than just a tree.
>
>mature oak trees: 30 species of birds, 45 different bugs, over 200
>species of moths, hundreds of other invertebrates, plus mosses and
>lichens, not to mention the food for birds and animals provided by the
>thousands of acorns produced by each tree.
Not found elsewhere other than oaks?
>
>Over to you for your examples of the wildlife riches attracted by
>"animal life", whatever that is, and for your evidence that "animal
>life" can contribute to a better diversity than just a tree".
The faeces of wildlife attracts an abundance of other wildlife. It feeds
insects and birds feed from them and the cycle continues.
>
>>Flies and
>>other insects are attracted to animals and are food for birds. Don' t give
>me
>>the bullshit that weed trees are the only way forward. Grassland has it's
>own
>>value in biodiversity but doesn't fit with the grants and cranks.
>>
>Your ignorance is showing, again.
No Malcolm. Your obsession is showing again.
>
>Some types of grassland are indeed protected by SSSI and NNR status
>because of the biological interest. However, the grassland which has
>replaced the trees on the east side of Loch Lomond has never been so
>designated, because it has so little biological interest and only minute
>biodiversity compared with the oak woodland it has replaced.
Oaks look better than grass and attract grants :-(
>
>And what on earth are "weed trees"?
>
Your more ignorant than I thought. Sorry, correction, just as ignorant as I
thought.
>>>>No Malcolm. Look up subject.
>>>>
>>>I have looked up both words and repeat that they are not mutually
>>>exclusive. You are both a subject *and* a citizen.
>>
>>Rubbish. Subject is exclusive to countries ruled by a monarch.
>
>You really, really, are going to have to get yourself a better
>dictionary. Certainly monarchs can call the people in their country
>"subjects", but so can republican governments.
Nonsense.
Just as one can be a
>citizen of a country with or without a monarch.
>
>Here are some definitions for you to ponder over:
>
>Subject. 1 A person bound to another by an obligation of allegiance,
>service, or tribute; spec. a feudal tenant or vassal. b A person under
>the spiritual guidance of a priest or pastor or owing allegiance to a
>religious superior.
>2 A person owing allegiance to and under the protection of a monarch or
>government; a person (other than the monarch) living under a monarchy; a
>member of a State. b A person etc. under the control of or owing
>obedience to another.
>Examples: Lebanese residing in Egypt became French subjects.
>His Majesty replied that he could not possibly sit down with a subject.
The inference through all of that is living under a monarch as a subject.
>
>Citizen. A n. 1 An inhabitant of a city or town; esp. one possessing
>civic rights, as a freeman etc.; a town-dweller.
> 2 A member, native or naturalized, of a (usu. specified) State or
>Commonwealth.. As a title or form of address during the French
>Revolution: supporter of the republican order.
>3 An inhabitant, an occupant, (of).
>Phrases: citizen of the world: a person who is at home anywhere, a
>cosmopolitan. Citizens’ Advice Bureau: a local office giving free
>advice to enquirers concerning their rights or about available aid.
>citizen’s arrest: by a private citizen without a warrant, allowable in
>certain cases, as the witnessing of an arrestable offence. citizens’
>band (designating or pertaining to): a range of radio frequencies
>allocated for local communication by individuals.
No mention of monarchy.
>
>Synonyms of Citizen: national, subject These nouns denote a person owing
>allegiance to a nation or state and entitled to its protection: an
>American citizen; a British national; a French subject.
Wrong. but probably used. The correct would be a British subject.
>
>>>>People I know have been forced to sell their homes adjacent to the West
>>>>Highland Way because of the problems they have experienced. Not everyone
>>>wants
>>>>to make money off tourists.
>>>>
>>>"Forced" to sell. Who has "forced" them?
>>
>>The walking scum who camp and defecate on their property and who are never
>away
>>from their door. That's the reality of living next to the WHW.
>>
>Why does that "force" them to sell? Why don't they have their property
>fenced?
Of course they did but that didn't keep out the scum.
As you have said: "I'm sure any fencing contractor worth his
>salt would be more that willing to undertake the job."
Not applicable.
>
>>>>Exactly. That's what animals do but some trees do survive and continue to
>>>>grow.
>>>>
>>>Go and have a look before you make such statements. There are vast areas
>>>of Scotland which are denuded of trees because of grazing animals.
>>>
>>
>>Because they are unprotected. There's enough room in Scotland for the
>animals
>>and trees.
>>
>Of course there is, but for the last several hundred years, the animals
>have held sway and the trees have lost out. Why are you so against
>redressing the balance?
Gosh, "balance". I thought you said nothing was in balance:-( A fake has to
have a good memory:-((
I'm not. What I'm against is the killing of wildlife to protect trees. if the
fakes want trees to regenerate they should protect the areas from grazing
animals but leave enough for the animals to survive.
>
>>
>>>>>>Your argument is theoretical nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>How can you possibly know? You have neither theoretical nor practical
>>>>>experience of conservation.
>>>>
>>>>You don't even know what conserving natural resources means. You're out
>of
>>>>date and support the fakes.
>>>>
>>>A lying statement based wholly on prejudice, ignorance and obsession.
>>
>>No Malcolm. You show yourself up time and again as being out of touch and
>>supporting a concept that is damaging to the natural environment.
>
>Another lying statement based wholly on prejudice, ignorance and
>obsession.
No Malcolm. You think car parks, footpaths and visitor centres are
"conservation".
>
>> Just look
>>through the "Birds" magazine and you'll learn something about damaging
>>activities.
>>
>I'm surprised you can bring yourself to open it!
No bother. It's packed with fake conservation material.
>
>>You vision is obstructed by the narrowness of your mind :-((
>>
>More childish abuse from someone whose mind, it has to be said, is
>firmly closed.
No Malcolm, I am capable of seeing a broader picture than you are. I can spot
the flaws in your fake conservation ethos without any trouble at all.
AMacmil304
>Date: 14/05/04 09:15 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <108452236...@nnrp-t71-02.news.uk.clara.net>
>
>
>"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040513184828...@mb-m11.aol.com...
><snip>
>>
>> If you want native woodland you could fence it to protect it from the
>goats
>> instead of getting your thugs to kill them.
>>
>> >
>> >If the feral goats were not controlled, there would, in due course, be
>> >no woodland left.
>>
>> Not if you fenced it.
>>
>
>I don't think it's quite as simple as that, because if one fences
>grazing/browsing animals out of an area indefinitely, there is, obviously,
>no grazing or browsing at all, and this can have an effect on the nature of
>the woodland, e.g. different rate of survival of competing species, in
>comparison with the situation where there is some browsing.
That's where the naziism comes in. They want nothing that interferes with their
objective of native trees.
>
>So, conservationists may well want some grazing/browsing of 'their'
>woodlands, but neither too much nor too little. One of the simplest ways of
>achieving this is to control the grazing/browsing population density, and
>keep them moving about.
They could keep some grazing animals within the fencing. I've nothing against
that. They could even bring some in and let some out at will.
>
>IF you want 'native woodlands', that is ...
That's their obsession.
AMacmil304
>Date: 16/05/04 22:10 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vdMu3qFX...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040516165420...@mb-m11.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <9nqKZbKM...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040516044912...@mb-m17.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>Message-id: <cQwy0tAn...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>In article <20040515195221...@mb-m12.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>>>>>Of course it is practical. Just as practical as the protection fencing
>>>>>affords
>>>>>>to other businesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps if you had even a little knowledge about the area you would come
>>>>>to accept that fencing is not practical.
>>>>
>his
>>>>salt would be more that willing to undertake the job.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>And the goats are allowed to "roam freely", but this doesn't, in any
>>>>>>>way, reduce the damage to the woodland because the goats don't bother
>to
>>>>>>>roam. Why should they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why indeed! But they would move on when their food ran out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And, as has already been pointed out, destroy the next piece of woodland
>>>>>they selected to live in which you don't seem to care about. You would,
>>>>>apparently, prefer to live in a treeless landscape populated by deer,
>>>>>sheep and goats.
>>>>
>conserving
>>>the
>>>>natural environment or the planet's natural resources. It's about the
>>>fakes
>>>>creating an Eden where they can screw the natural environment for what
>it's
>>>>worth to keep themselves in jobs.
>>>>
>>>What a load of codswallop. I didn't use the word "landscaping" which you
>>>have put in quotes as if I did. I used the word "landscape", something
>>>which you are clearly unable to either understand or appreciate. The
>>>*landscape* of Scotland is as much a part of our natural heritage and
>>>natural environment as a single tree or a single bird.
>>
>
>meanings of words. First "subject" and "citizen" and now "landscape" and
>"landscaping".
Not at all. Landscaping, by allowing trees to regenerate contributes to the
landscape
It's not difficult :-(
>
>> and what heritage is
>>there in car parks and visitor centres?
>>
>Would you prefer there to be no car parks and no visitor centres
>anywhere in the whole country?
That's not a reply.
So what natural heritage is there in car parks and visitor centres?
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <7nIL57DL...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040516172739...@mb-m11.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>In article <20040516093500...@mb-m28.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>
>other
>>>>wildlife and can contribute to a better diversity than just a tree.
>>>
>>>Here are figures for just some of the different wildlife supported by
>>>mature oak trees: 30 species of birds, 45 different bugs, over 200
>>>species of moths, hundreds of other invertebrates, plus mosses and
>>>lichens, not to mention the food for birds and animals provided by the
>>>thousands of acorns produced by each tree.
>>
>>Not found elsewhere other than oaks?
>>
>such biodiversity.
Care to name them?
>
>>>
>>>Over to you for your examples of the wildlife riches attracted by
>>>"animal life", whatever that is, and for your evidence that "animal
>>>life" can contribute to a better diversity than just a tree".
>>
>>The faeces of wildlife attracts an abundance of other wildlife. It feeds
>>insects and birds feed from them and the cycle continues.
>>
>True, but still nowhere near comparable with what lives in an oak
>woodland.
Well name the wildlife that's exclusive to oak.
You claimed that animals can "contribute to a better diversity
>than just a tree". Please demonstrate this with some facts.
I already have and lets face it they provide more food more often.
>
>>>
>>>>Flies and
>>>>other insects are attracted to animals and are food for birds. Don' t
>give
>>>me
>>>>the bullshit that weed trees are the only way forward. Grassland has it's
>>>own
>>>>value in biodiversity but doesn't fit with the grants and cranks.
>>>>
>>>Your ignorance is showing, again.
>>
>>No Malcolm. Your obsession is showing again.
>>
>No obsession here, Angus. I leave that entirely to you.
No Malcolm You and your fakes are obsessed with native species.
>>>
>>>Some types of grassland are indeed protected by SSSI and NNR status
>>>because of the biological interest. However, the grassland which has
>>>replaced the trees on the east side of Loch Lomond has never been so
>>>designated, because it has so little biological interest and only minute
>>>biodiversity compared with the oak woodland it has replaced.
>>
>>Oaks look better than grass and attract grants :-(
>>
>No, Angus, oak woodland is part of our natural environment and what
>remains after hundreds of years of destruction deserves saving.
So is the parts taken up by your visitor centres and car parks. Why not shut
them down and plant oaks there as well?
>
>>>And what on earth are "weed trees"?
>>>
>>
>>Your more ignorant than I thought. Sorry, correction, just as ignorant as I
>>thought.
>>
>More childish abuse. You've so obviously lost this one.
Not at all.
>
>You used the phrase "the bullshit that weed trees are the only way
>forward". Are you saying that oak trees are "weed trees"? I think you
>will find it very difficult to find a single rational person to agree
>with you.
All trees can be weed trees and you seem to know what they are by referring to
them.
>
>>>>
>>>>Rubbish. Subject is exclusive to countries ruled by a monarch.
>>>
>>>You really, really, are going to have to get yourself a better
>>>dictionary. Certainly monarchs can call the people in their country
>>>"subjects", but so can republican governments.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>No, Angus, it is not nonsense. It is a fact.
>
>>Just as one can be a
>>>citizen of a country with or without a monarch.
>>>
>>>Here are some definitions for you to ponder over:
>>>
>>>Subject. 1 A person bound to another by an obligation of allegiance,
>>>service, or tribute; spec. a feudal tenant or vassal. b A person under
>>>the spiritual guidance of a priest or pastor or owing allegiance to a
>>>religious superior.
>>
>>>2 A person owing allegiance to and under the protection of a monarch or
>>>government; a person (other than the monarch) living under a monarchy; a
>>>member of a State. b A person etc. under the control of or owing
>>>obedience to another.
>>
>>>Examples: Lebanese residing in Egypt became French subjects.
>>>His Majesty replied that he could not possibly sit down with a subject.
>>
>>The inference through all of that is living under a monarch as a subject.
>>
>Read it again. "A person owing allegiance to and under the protection of
>a monarch *or government*". Since when has the British monarchy been
>able to offer "protection"?
Th monarchy offers protection via its government. The monarch is the head of
state the government is subserviant.
>
>And see the first example. The French don't have a monarch.
>
Exactly. That's why it's wrong.
>>>
>>>Citizen. A n. 1 An inhabitant of a city or town; esp. one possessing
>>>civic rights, as a freeman etc.; a town-dweller.
>>> 2 A member, native or naturalized, of a (usu. specified) State or
>>>Commonwealth.. As a title or form of address during the French
>>>Revolution: supporter of the republican order.
>>>3 An inhabitant, an occupant, (of).
>>>Phrases: citizen of the world: a person who is at home anywhere, a
>>>cosmopolitan. Citizens’ Advice Bureau: a local office
giving free
>>>advice to enquirers concerning their rights or about available aid.
>>>citizen’s arrest: by a private citizen without a warrant,
allowable
>in
>>>certain cases, as the witnessing of an arrestable offence.
citizens’
>>>band (designating or pertaining to): a range of radio frequencies
>>>allocated for local communication by individuals.
>>
>>No mention of monarchy.
>>
>Are you saying that the word "citizen" applies solely people in
>countries without a monarch?
>
>>>
>>>Synonyms of Citizen: national, subject These nouns denote a person owing
>>>allegiance to a nation or state and entitled to its protection: an
>>>American citizen; a British national; a French subject.
>>
>>Wrong. but probably used. The correct would be a British subject.
>>
>British subject is correct. British citizen is correct. British national
>is correct. They are NOT mutually exclusive as you appear to be trying
>to claim.
>
The latter two only being accepted through useage. British subject is correct.
>>>>
>>>>The walking scum who camp and defecate on their property and who are never
>>>away
>>>>from their door. That's the reality of living next to the WHW.
>>>>
>>>Why does that "force" them to sell? Why don't they have their property
>>>fenced?
>>
>>Of course they did but that didn't keep out the scum.
>>
>>As you have said: "I'm sure any fencing contractor worth his
>>>salt would be more that willing to undertake the job."
>>
>>Not applicable.
>>
>Why not? It was when you were saying that the woodland on the east side
>of Loch Lomond should be fenced.
>
Thick! I told you they had fences.
>>>>
>>>>Because they are unprotected. There's enough room in Scotland for the
>>>animals
>>>>and trees.
>>>>
>>>Of course there is, but for the last several hundred years, the animals
>>>have held sway and the trees have lost out. Why are you so against
>>>redressing the balance?
>>
>>Gosh, "balance". I thought you said nothing was in balance:-( A fake has
>to
>>have a good memory:-((
>>
>>I'm not. What I'm against is the killing of wildlife to protect trees. if
>the
>>fakes want trees to regenerate they should protect the areas from grazing
>>animals but leave enough for the animals to survive.
>>
>Yes, that sounds all very wonderful, but it is neither practical nor
>necessary.
I note you don't deny saying there is no balance in nature - and thn use it
yourself. What a guy :-((
>>>>
>>>>No Malcolm. You show yourself up time and again as being out of touch and
>>>>supporting a concept that is damaging to the natural environment.
>>>
>>>Another lying statement based wholly on prejudice, ignorance and
>>>obsession.
>>
>>No Malcolm. You think car parks, footpaths and visitor centres are
>>"conservation".
>>
>Don't be silly, Angus. Your statements just get wilder and wilder, the
>more you become divorced from reality.
So do you think car parks, footpaths and visitor centres are not conservation?
>
>>>
>>>> Just look
>>>>through the "Birds" magazine and you'll learn something about damaging
>>>>activities.
>>>>
>>>I'm surprised you can bring yourself to open it!
>>
>>No bother. It's packed with fake conservation material.
>>
>Bwahahahahaha!
>
Malcolm's intelligent response when he's stuck:-((
>>>
>>>>You vision is obstructed by the narrowness of your mind :-((
>>>>
>>>More childish abuse from someone whose mind, it has to be said, is
>>>firmly closed.
>>
>>No Malcolm, I am capable of seeing a broader picture than you are. I can
>spot
>>the flaws in your fake conservation ethos without any trouble at all.
>>
>There is no possibility whatsoever of your spotting such flaws as there
>is no such thing as "fake" conservation and so it doesn't enter into my
>"ethos". Unlike you, I've spent a lifetime involved in conservation and
>can therefore combine a view of the "broader picture" with practical
>knowledge of conservation in action.
No Malcolm, It's quite obvious that you are mentally blinded by your lack of
vision. You think conservation is about landscapes for exploitation by the
tourist industry and don't recognise that mass tourism contribute substantially
to reducing the planet's resources and to global warming. That's what makes
you and your contempories fakes.
Yoiur inability to do either shows
>in your every post.
This applies to you.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <77OLe2PS...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040517051342...@mb-m16.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <7nIL57DL...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040516172739...@mb-m11.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>Message-id: <eIWySkF+...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>In article <20040516093500...@mb-m28.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>>>>>Absolute nonsense. Said like a true obsessive. Animal life can attract
>>>other
>>>>>>wildlife and can contribute to a better diversity than just a tree.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are figures for just some of the different wildlife supported by
>>>>>mature oak trees: 30 species of birds, 45 different bugs, over 200
>>>>>species of moths, hundreds of other invertebrates, plus mosses and
>>>>>lichens, not to mention the food for birds and animals provided by the
>>>>>thousands of acorns produced by each tree.
>>>>
>>>>Not found elsewhere other than oaks?
>>>>
>>>Some of the invertebrates are dependent upon oak. No other tree supports
>>>such biodiversity.
>>
>>Care to name them?
>>
>book, for example: 'The Natural History of the Oak Tree' or "The Life of
>an Oak" and read about them for yourself.
Thought you couldn't. Are you saying they live exclusively on oaks?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Over to you for your examples of the wildlife riches attracted by
>>>>>"animal life", whatever that is, and for your evidence that "animal
>>>>>life" can contribute to a better diversity than just a tree".
>>>>
>>>>The faeces of wildlife attracts an abundance of other wildlife. It feeds
>>>>insects and birds feed from them and the cycle continues.
>>>>
>>>True, but still nowhere near comparable with what lives in an oak
>>>woodland.
>>
>>Well name the wildlife that's exclusive to oak.
>>
>I'm not going to bother to list them. Buy yourself a book, for example:
>'The Natural History of the Oak Tree' or "The Life of an Oak" and read
>about them for yourself.
See above.
>
>Here's a copy of the blurb of the first one: Guide to the oak tree and
>all its interdependent life forms. It describes the life cycle of the
>Common Oak and the Sessile Oak, and explores the complex community of
>fungi, plants, and animals that depend on the tree for their existence.
>There are over 400 illustrations by Richard Lewington depicting birds,
>mammals, beetles, moths, spiders, lichens, mosses and fungi.
see above.
>
>>You claimed that animals can "contribute to a better diversity
>>>than just a tree". Please demonstrate this with some facts.
>>
>>I already have and lets face it they provide more food more often.
>>
>Then list the species involved or, if you can't do that, recommend a
>book on the subject.
>>
>>>>No Malcolm. Your obsession is showing again.
>>>>
>>>No obsession here, Angus. I leave that entirely to you.
>>
>>No Malcolm You and your fakes are obsessed with native species.
>>
>No obsession here, Angus. I leave that to you. What I do recognise is
>the importance of native species, not least because they support a
>vastly greater diversity of other wildlife than non-native species, such
>as birds, plants and invertebrates, all of which are worth conserving
>and all of which suffer when, for example, native woodland gets killed
>off by grazing animals. Your failure to accept this truth merely
>highlights your total lack of concern for the natural heritage.
>
My lack of concern pales to insignificance compared with the activities of the
fake who damage the environment whilst soliciting money for its protection.
>>>
>>>>>And what on earth are "weed trees"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your more ignorant than I thought. Sorry, correction, just as ignorant as
>I
>>>>thought.
>>>>
>>>More childish abuse. You've so obviously lost this one.
>>
>>Not at all.
>>
>>>
>>>You used the phrase "the bullshit that weed trees are the only way
>>>forward". Are you saying that oak trees are "weed trees"? I think you
>>>will find it very difficult to find a single rational person to agree
>>>with you.
>>
>>All trees can be weed trees and you seem to know what they are by referring
>to
>>them.
>>
>I was only referring to them in order to ask you what you meant by the
>phrase.
If you're reffering to them you obviously know what they are.
You appeared to be implying that the oak trees in the woodlands
>on the east side of Loch Lomond were "weeds". Are you calling them
>"weeds"?
Any tree can be a weed tree.
>
>>>>>Examples: Lebanese residing in Egypt became French subjects.
>>>>>His Majesty replied that he could not possibly sit down with a subject.
>>>>
>>>>The inference through all of that is living under a monarch as a subject.
>>>>
>>>Read it again. "A person owing allegiance to and under the protection of
>>>a monarch *or government*". Since when has the British monarchy been
>>>able to offer "protection"?
>>
>>Th monarchy offers protection via its government. The monarch is the head
>of
>>state the government is subserviant.
>>
>If the compilers of the SOED had thought that, they would not have used
>the word "or" between monarch and government. You are struggling.
>>>
>>>And see the first example. The French don't have a monarch.
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. That's why it's wrong.
>>
>If the compilers of the SOED had thought that it was wrong, they would
>not have used it as their first example. You really are struggling with
>this one, aren't you?
>>
>>>>No mention of monarchy.
>>>>
>>>Are you saying that the word "citizen" applies solely people in
>>>countries without a monarch?
>>>
>>
>Well, are you?
I'm a British Subject.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Synonyms of Citizen: national, subject These nouns denote a person owing
>>>>>allegiance to a nation or state and entitled to its protection: an
>>>>>American citizen; a British national; a French subject.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. but probably used. The correct would be a British subject.
>>>>
>>>British subject is correct. British citizen is correct. British national
>>>is correct. They are NOT mutually exclusive as you appear to be trying
>>>to claim.
>>>
>>
>>The latter two only being accepted through useage. British subject is
>correct.
>>
>I think it's time you looked in your passport on the next of your
>regular trips abroad, where you will see yourself described as a
>"British citizen".
In a European state without a monarch.
>
>>>>As you have said: "I'm sure any fencing contractor worth his
>>>>>salt would be more that willing to undertake the job."
>>>>
>>>>Not applicable.
>>>>
>>>Why not? It was when you were saying that the woodland on the east side
>>>of Loch Lomond should be fenced.
>>>
>>Thick! I told you they had fences.
>>
>More childish abuse. Obviously the fences weren't adequate. Was that
>because it wasn't practical to fence the areas more securely, perhaps?
>Or they employed the wrong contractor....
No, any scum can climb a fence.
>
>>>>No Malcolm, I am capable of seeing a broader picture than you are. I can
>>>spot
>>>>the flaws in your fake conservation ethos without any trouble at all.
>>>>
>>>There is no possibility whatsoever of your spotting such flaws as there
>>>is no such thing as "fake" conservation and so it doesn't enter into my
>>>"ethos". Unlike you, I've spent a lifetime involved in conservation and
>>>can therefore combine a view of the "broader picture" with practical
>>>knowledge of conservation in action.
>>
>>No Malcolm, It's quite obvious that you are mentally blinded by your lack of
>>vision. You think conservation is about landscapes for exploitation by the
>>tourist industry and don't recognise that mass tourism contribute
>substantially
>>to reducing the planet's resources and to global warming. That's what makes
>>you and your contempories fakes.
>>
>No, Angus, I am neither mentally blinded nor do I think any of the
>things you claim about me. You are blundering around trying to criticise
>conservation organisations and the fine work they carry our purely
>because you are a self-confessed nimby. You have chosen to remain
>blissfully ignorant of the facts about conservation presumably because
>otherwise even you would realise how silly your criticisms really are.
No Malcolm, It's you who is supporting a fake concept that uses the word
conservation to respectablise it's screwing of the natural environment for
money and to keep the perpetrators in jobs.
>
>>Yoiur inability to do either shows
>>>in your every post.
>>
>>This applies to you.
>>
>But I said it first and applied it to you, didn't I?
What did you say about childishness? :-((
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <ZbqDWHHB...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040518031520...@mb-m18.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <77OLe2PS...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040517051342...@mb-m16.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>Message-id: <7nIL57DL...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>>>such biodiversity.
>>>>
>>>>Care to name them?
>>>>
>>>I'm not going to bother to list hundreds of species. Buy yourself a
>>>book, for example: 'The Natural History of the Oak Tree' or "The Life of
>>>an Oak" and read about them for yourself.
>>
>>Thought you couldn't. Are you saying they live exclusively on oaks?
>>
Doesn't look like it :-(
So are you saying they don't live exclusively on oaks?
I repeat that I am not going to type out
>lists of species. If you are really keen to know, then buy one of the
>books.
The opinions of authors do not particularily interest me as scientists change
their views like the wind.
>
>>>>>True, but still nowhere near comparable with what lives in an oak
>>>>>woodland.
>>>>
>>>>Well name the wildlife that's exclusive to oak.
>>>>
>>>I'm not going to bother to list them. Buy yourself a book, for example:
>>>'The Natural History of the Oak Tree' or "The Life of an Oak" and read
>>>about them for yourself.
>>
>>See above.
>>
> If you are really that keen to know what lives on oak trees, either
>have a look for yourself - assuming you can identify an oak tree - or
>buy one of the books.
>
>>>
>>>Here's a copy of the blurb of the first one: Guide to the oak tree and
>>>all its interdependent life forms. It describes the life cycle of the
>>>Common Oak and the Sessile Oak, and explores the complex community of
>>>fungi, plants, and animals that depend on the tree for their existence.
>>>There are over 400 illustrations by Richard Lewington depicting birds,
>>>mammals, beetles, moths, spiders, lichens, mosses and fungi.
>>
>>see above.
>>
>Well, are you going to buy one of the books, or are you afraid you might
>learn too much?
Not if you've read them.
>
>>>
>>>>You claimed that animals can "contribute to a better diversity
>>>>>than just a tree". Please demonstrate this with some facts.
>>>>
>>>>I already have and lets face it they provide more food more often.
>>>>
>>>Then list the species involved or, if you can't do that, recommend a
>>>book on the subject.
>
>No answer, I see. Hardly surprising, really.
>
Well you've not provided an answer to how many species depend exclusively on
oaks.
>>>>>No obsession here, Angus. I leave that entirely to you.
>>>>
>>>>No Malcolm You and your fakes are obsessed with native species.
>>>>
>>>No obsession here, Angus. I leave that to you. What I do recognise is
>>>the importance of native species, not least because they support a
>>>vastly greater diversity of other wildlife than non-native species, such
>>>as birds, plants and invertebrates, all of which are worth conserving
>>>and all of which suffer when, for example, native woodland gets killed
>>>off by grazing animals. Your failure to accept this truth merely
>>>highlights your total lack of concern for the natural heritage.
>>>
>>
>>My lack of concern pales to insignificance compared with the activities of
>the
>>fake who damage the environment whilst soliciting money for its protection.
>>
>Oh look. It's down to a single "fake", now, which I suppose is a step in
>the right direction. Well, it makes no difference as it certainly
>doesn't exist.
Missed the "s"; don't get excited :-)
>
>>>>>You used the phrase "the bullshit that weed trees are the only way
>>>>>forward". Are you saying that oak trees are "weed trees"? I think you
>>>>>will find it very difficult to find a single rational person to agree
>>>>>with you.
>>>>
>>>>All trees can be weed trees and you seem to know what they are by
>referring
>>>to
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>I was only referring to them in order to ask you what you meant by the
>>>phrase.
>>
>>If you're reffering to them you obviously know what they are.
>>
>Your logic mode has gone on the blink - again :-(
Not at all.
>
>>You appeared to be implying that the oak trees in the woodlands
>>>on the east side of Loch Lomond were "weeds". Are you calling them
>>>"weeds"?
>>
>>Any tree can be a weed tree.
>>
>In what circumstances are oaks "weed trees"?
In the same circumstances as any other tree. Too many close together from seed.
>
>>>>>Are you saying that the word "citizen" applies solely people in
>>>>>countries without a monarch?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well, are you?
>>
>>I'm a British Subject.
>>
>Yes, Angus, so you are. You are also a British citizen. Read your
>passport.
>
>>>>>British subject is correct. British citizen is correct. British national
>>>>>is correct. They are NOT mutually exclusive as you appear to be trying
>>>>>to claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The latter two only being accepted through useage. British subject is
>>>correct.
>>>>
>>>I think it's time you looked in your passport on the next of your
>>>regular trips abroad, where you will see yourself described as a
>>>"British citizen".
>>
>>In a European state without a monarch.
>>
>What has that got to do with anything? The description of you in your
>passport as a "British Citizen" doesn't change depending on which
>country you are in. You are exactly the same "British citizen" in the
>Netherlands as you are in France.
>
It's obviously beyond you :-(
>>>>>
>>>>Thick! I told you they had fences.
>>>>
>>>More childish abuse. Obviously the fences weren't adequate. Was that
>>>because it wasn't practical to fence the areas more securely, perhaps?
>>>Or they employed the wrong contractor....
>>
>>No, any scum can climb a fence.
>>
>Just as easily as goats can jump over them.
>
No.
>>>>
>>>>No Malcolm, It's quite obvious that you are mentally blinded by your lack
>of
>>>>vision. You think conservation is about landscapes for exploitation by the
>>>>tourist industry and don't recognise that mass tourism contribute
>>>substantially
>>>>to reducing the planet's resources and to global warming. That's what
>makes
>>>>you and your contempories fakes.
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, I am neither mentally blinded nor do I think any of the
>>>things you claim about me. You are blundering around trying to criticise
>>>conservation organisations and the fine work they carry our purely
>>>because you are a self-confessed nimby. You have chosen to remain
>>>blissfully ignorant of the facts about conservation presumably because
>>>otherwise even you would realise how silly your criticisms really are.
>>
>>No Malcolm, It's you who is supporting a fake concept that uses the word
>>conservation to respectablise it's screwing of the natural environment for
>>money and to keep the perpetrators in jobs.
>>
>Angus, will you please stop making lying statements about me. I do not
>support any "fake" concept for the very simple reason that what you are
>describing doesn't exist, except as a figment of your obsessed mind.
No Malcolm. you support fake conservation organisations that damage the natural
environment and encourage others to do the same. Just look ar the "Birds"
magazine adverts.
>>
>>>
>>>>Yoiur inability to do either shows
>>>>>in your every post.
>>>>
>>>>This applies to you.
>>>>
>>>But I said it first and applied it to you, didn't I?
>>
>>What did you say about childishness? :-((
>>
>I said that when you lose an argument you resort to childish abuse.
No. I state the obvious.
And
>now you have started the even more childish behaviour of repeating
>remarks I make about you back at me, yet another acknowledgement that
>you have lost the argument.
Where did I "repeat" it? You obviously can't read and comprehend:-(
It's too early in the day for booze :-))
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <GDSEQlej...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040518124552...@mb-m21.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <ZbqDWHHB...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040518031520...@mb-m18.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>Message-id: <77OLe2PS...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>>>book, for example: 'The Natural History of the Oak Tree' or "The Life of
>>>>>an Oak" and read about them for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>Thought you couldn't. Are you saying they live exclusively on oaks?
>>>>
>>>Then you are thinking wrong.
>>
>>Doesn't look like it :-(
>>
>>So are you saying they don't live exclusively on oaks?
>>
Not at all. You are hedging again. sos does this wildlife live exclusively on
oaks or can it survive elsewhere? You the supposed expert. You tell me.
If you are so
>interested in what lives on oak trees, buy one of the books I have
>recommended. If, as I suspect, you aren't really interested at all, then
>carry on asking silly questions. The answers to them are in the books.
I'm certainly not interested in reading any books that have contributed to your
opinions when you can't understan that visitor centres and car parks are a
anathema to conservation.
>
>>I repeat that I am not going to type out
>>>lists of species. If you are really keen to know, then buy one of the
>>>books.
>>
>>The opinions of authors do not particularily interest me as scientists
>change
>>their views like the wind.
>>
>The books I have recommended contain *facts* about oak trees and the
>abundant wildlife which lives on them. As you keep asking questions
>about this, the books will inform you with the *facts* you seem to
>crave.
See above and stop avoiding the question..
>
>But, tell me, if you believe that "scientists change their views like
>the wind", why are you so strongly promoting opinions on the Leeds
>scientists, to the extent of only quoting the extreme upper end of the
>range of possibilities concerning extinctions by 2050? Not very
>consistent, are you, if you don't believe scientists "opinions"?
Because everyone can see for themselves that climate change is happening.
>
>>>>>Here's a copy of the blurb of the first one: Guide to the oak tree and
>>>>>all its interdependent life forms. It describes the life cycle of the
>>>>>Common Oak and the Sessile Oak, and explores the complex community of
>>>>>fungi, plants, and animals that depend on the tree for their existence.
>>>>>There are over 400 illustrations by Richard Lewington depicting birds,
>>>>>mammals, beetles, moths, spiders, lichens, mosses and fungi.
>>>>
>>>>see above.
>>>>
>>>Well, are you going to buy one of the books, or are you afraid you might
>>>learn too much?
>>
>>Not if you've read them.
>>
>What a particularly silly remark.
Not at all.
You keep asking me for information
>about what species are dependent upon oak trees. I recommend a couple of
>books to you which, because I have read them I know will give you the
>information you seek, and you say you won't read them because I have. As
>I have said, your logic mode is on the blink - or even non-existent on
>this evidence.
No Malcolm. To spell it out. If they're recommended by you that's enough to
make me not wish to read them as your version of conservation is both out of
date and deeply flawed.
A bit like nazis asking me to read nazi propaganda ;-(
>
>
>>>>>Then list the species involved or, if you can't do that, recommend a
>>>>>book on the subject.
>>>
>>>No answer, I see. Hardly surprising, really.
>>>
>>
>>Well you've not provided an answer to how many species depend exclusively on
>>oaks.
>
>I have recommended two books which will give you all the information you
>need. Why should I copy extracts of them here?
I'm not asking you to copy extracts. I'm asking you if the species you
mentioned live exclusively on oaks. A simple yes or no would do.
>
>And you, of course, have completely failed to provide any evidence at
>all for your claim that grazing animals on rough grassland where
>woodland once grew support the same diversity of wildlife as an oak
>woodland.
Where did I mention diversity?
Are you making that up? :-((
Sounds like one of your many lies.
>
>
>>>>>No obsession here, Angus. I leave that to you. What I do recognise is
>>>>>the importance of native species, not least because they support a
>>>>>vastly greater diversity of other wildlife than non-native species, such
>>>>>as birds, plants and invertebrates, all of which are worth conserving
>>>>>and all of which suffer when, for example, native woodland gets killed
>>>>>off by grazing animals. Your failure to accept this truth merely
>>>>>highlights your total lack of concern for the natural heritage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My lack of concern pales to insignificance compared with the activities of
>>>the
>>>>fake who damage the environment whilst soliciting money for its
>protection.
>>>>
>>>Oh look. It's down to a single "fake", now, which I suppose is a step in
>>>the right direction. Well, it makes no difference as it certainly
>>>doesn't exist.
>>
>>Missed the "s"; don't get excited :-)
>>
>Yes, Angus, I did realise that.
Really?
>
>>>>You appeared to be implying that the oak trees in the woodlands
>>>>>on the east side of Loch Lomond were "weeds". Are you calling them
>>>>>"weeds"?
>>>>
>>>>Any tree can be a weed tree.
>>>>
>>>In what circumstances are oaks "weed trees"?
>>
>>In the same circumstances as any other tree. Too many close together from
>seed.
>>
>Now you really are showing off how ignorant you are about woodland
>ecology. How on earth does "too many close together from seed" turn oak
>trees into "weed trees"? Perhaps you have never heard of natural
>selection. That seems very probable.
Absolute rubbish! What you're trying to say is that only the strongest will
survive. Well, that's not the case. Go into any natrual woodland and you'll see
weed trees.
You really are dumb, Malcolm.
>
>>>>>I think it's time you looked in your passport on the next of your
>>>>>regular trips abroad, where you will see yourself described as a
>>>>>"British citizen".
>>>>
>>>>In a European state without a monarch.
>>>>
>>>What has that got to do with anything? The description of you in your
>>>passport as a "British Citizen" doesn't change depending on which
>>>country you are in. You are exactly the same "British citizen" in the
>>>Netherlands as you are in France.
>>>
>>
>>It's obviously beyond you :-(
>>
>It is obviously something you are, for some reason, unable to admit. You
>are a British citizen, just as it says in your passport. Why are you so
>determined that you aren't? Are you that much of a royalist that you are
>only willing to be regarded as a "subject"?
No. I am a British subject.
>
>>>>>No, Angus, I am neither mentally blinded nor do I think any of the
>>>>>things you claim about me. You are blundering around trying to criticise
>>>>>conservation organisations and the fine work they carry our purely
>>>>>because you are a self-confessed nimby. You have chosen to remain
>>>>>blissfully ignorant of the facts about conservation presumably because
>>>>>otherwise even you would realise how silly your criticisms really are.
>>>>
>>>>No Malcolm, It's you who is supporting a fake concept that uses the word
>>>>conservation to respectablise it's screwing of the natural environment for
>>>>money and to keep the perpetrators in jobs.
>>>>
>>>Angus, will you please stop making lying statements about me. I do not
>>>support any "fake" concept for the very simple reason that what you are
>>>describing doesn't exist, except as a figment of your obsessed mind.
>>
>>No Malcolm. you support fake conservation organisations that damage the
>natural
>>environment and encourage others to do the same. Just look ar the "Birds"
>>magazine adverts.
>
>That is just another lying statement about me. Not only do I support
>genuine conservation organisations but there are no such things as
>"fake" conservation organisations to support. Except in your obsessed
>mind, of course.
Plenty in the Birds magazine.
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yoiur inability to do either shows
>>>>>>>in your every post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This applies to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>But I said it first and applied it to you, didn't I?
>>>>
>>>>What did you say about childishness? :-((
>>>>
>>>I said that when you lose an argument you resort to childish abuse.
>>
>>No. I state the obvious.
>>
>Like I said. Childish abuse.
>
>>And
>>>now you have started the even more childish behaviour of repeating
>>>remarks I make about you back at me, yet another acknowledgement that
>>>you have lost the argument.
>>
>>Where did I "repeat" it? You obviously can't read and comprehend:-(
>>
>>It's too early in the day for booze :-))
>>
>If you say so. You've obviously lost the plot as well as the argument.
>Must be your age :-(
No Malcolm, I didn't repeat it. That was another lie.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <nzBMspLt...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040518173415...@mb-m01.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <GDSEQlej...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040518124552...@mb-m21.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>Message-id: <ZbqDWHHB...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't look like it :-(
>>>>
>>>>So are you saying they don't live exclusively on oaks?
>>>>
>>>Your powers of comprehension are definitely on the wane.
>>
>>Not at all. You are hedging again. sos does this wildlife live exclusively
>on
>>oaks or can it survive elsewhere? You the supposed expert. You tell me.
>>
>through the thread for the answer. Or, better still, read one of the
>books.
Your hedging again, Malcolm.
>
>>If you are so
>>>interested in what lives on oak trees, buy one of the books I have
>>>recommended. If, as I suspect, you aren't really interested at all, then
>>>carry on asking silly questions. The answers to them are in the books.
>>
>>I'm certainly not interested in reading any books that have contributed to
>your
>>opinions when you can't understan that visitor centres and car parks are a
>>anathema to conservation.
>>
>ROFL! Your remarks sometimes border on the bizarre.
On the contrary, it's your idea of conservation that's bizarre.
>>>
>>>>I repeat that I am not going to type out
>>>>>lists of species. If you are really keen to know, then buy one of the
>>>>>books.
>>>>
>>>>The opinions of authors do not particularily interest me as scientists
>>>change
>>>>their views like the wind.
>>>>
>>>The books I have recommended contain *facts* about oak trees and the
>>>abundant wildlife which lives on them. As you keep asking questions
>>>about this, the books will inform you with the *facts* you seem to
>>>crave.
>>
>>See above and stop avoiding the question..
>>
>I'm not avoiding any question. I have told you that there are great
>numbers and diversity of wildlife living on oak trees, some of which are
>dependent upon oak trees.
Only some? That's a shift. You're getting there. Now, are the ones that you
say are dependent on oak trees exclusively dependent on them?
I have also recommended two books which will
>give you much more detail on this.
>
>>>But, tell me, if you believe that "scientists change their views like
>>>the wind", why are you so strongly promoting opinions on the Leeds
>>>scientists, to the extent of only quoting the extreme upper end of the
>>>range of possibilities concerning extinctions by 2050? Not very
>>>consistent, are you, if you don't believe scientists "opinions"?
>>
>>Because everyone can see for themselves that climate change is happening.
>>
>
>Certainly, Angus, but only "scientists" have stated that one million
>species might (not will) become extinct by 2050 and it is their opinion
>that you quote both here and on your website. So, please make up your
>mind. It seems that you are prepared to believe scientists when they say
>something which you can use to attempt to criticise conservation
>organisations, but at all other times, they "change their views like the
>wind"?
They may well change but they haven't so far.
>
>>>>>Well, are you going to buy one of the books, or are you afraid you might
>>>>>learn too much?
>>>>
>>>>Not if you've read them.
>>>>
>>>What a particularly silly remark.
>>
>>Not at all.
>>
>>You keep asking me for information
>>>about what species are dependent upon oak trees. I recommend a couple of
>>>books to you which, because I have read them I know will give you the
>>>information you seek, and you say you won't read them because I have. As
>>>I have said, your logic mode is on the blink - or even non-existent on
>>>this evidence.
>>
>>No Malcolm. To spell it out. If they're recommended by you that's enough to
>>make me not wish to read them as your version of conservation is both out of
>>date and deeply flawed.
>>
>So why are you asking me for the details of which species live on oak
>trees?
I'm not. I'm asking you what species depend exclusively on oak trees and you
don't seem to know.
>
>>>>>No answer, I see. Hardly surprising, really.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well you've not provided an answer to how many species depend exclusively
>on
>>>>oaks.
>>>
>>>I have recommended two books which will give you all the information you
>>>need. Why should I copy extracts of them here?
>>
>>I'm not asking you to copy extracts. I'm asking you if the species you
>>mentioned live exclusively on oaks. A simple yes or no would do.
>
>I have already told you, way back up this thread, that there are species
>which is dependent on oaks. Your powers of comprehension are seriously
>on the wane.
You haven't mentioned what species depend exclusively on oaks. Don't you know?
>>>
>>>And you, of course, have completely failed to provide any evidence at
>>>all for your claim that grazing animals on rough grassland where
>>>woodland once grew support the same diversity of wildlife as an oak
>>>woodland.
>>
>>Where did I mention diversity?
>>
>>Are you making that up? :-((
>>
>>Sounds like one of your many lies.
>>
>
>Please apologise to me for that accusation. Your exact words were:
>"Animal life can attract other wildlife and can contribute to a better
>diversity than just a tree.
Ah yes. "contribute to a better diversity" than just a tree. I think that's
obvious. That's not what you said.
Flies and other insects are attracted to
>animals and are food for birds. Don' t give me the bullshit that weed
>trees are the only way forward. Grassland has it's own value in
>biodiversity but doesn't fit with the grants and cranks."
>
>Are you denying you wrote that?
Not at all. But whare did I say the "same diversity"
>
>Not for the first time, your short term memory seems to be getting
>highly selective.
>
>>>>>In what circumstances are oaks "weed trees"?
>>>>
>>>>In the same circumstances as any other tree. Too many close together from
>>>seed.
>>>>
>>>Now you really are showing off how ignorant you are about woodland
>>>ecology. How on earth does "too many close together from seed" turn oak
>>>trees into "weed trees"? Perhaps you have never heard of natural
>>>selection. That seems very probable.
>>
>>Absolute rubbish! What you're trying to say is that only the strongest will
>>survive. Well, that's not the case. Go into any natrual woodland and you'll
>see
>>weed trees.
>>
>The description "weed trees" is meaningless in a natural woodland,
>unless you are using the term for non-natives, of course.....:-))
I thought that might be you opinion :-(
>
>>You really are dumb, Malcolm.
>>
>More childish abuse.
No Malcolm, just an observation.
>
>>>>>What has that got to do with anything? The description of you in your
>>>>>passport as a "British Citizen" doesn't change depending on which
>>>>>country you are in. You are exactly the same "British citizen" in the
>>>>>Netherlands as you are in France.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's obviously beyond you :-(
>>>>
>>>It is obviously something you are, for some reason, unable to admit. You
>>>are a British citizen, just as it says in your passport. Why are you so
>>>determined that you aren't? Are you that much of a royalist that you are
>>>only willing to be regarded as a "subject"?
>>
>>No. I am a British subject.
>>
>Yes, Angus, indeed you are, but, if you read what is stated in your
>passport, that alone is not enough to give you a right of abode in
>Britain. You also need to be a British citizen. So, if I were you, I
>would accept the second appellation. You might find yourself stopped by
>Immigration next time you return from one of your regular trips abroad
>:-))
How regular?
>
>"British citizens have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. No
>right of abode in the United Kingdom derives from the status, as British
>nationals, of British dependent Territories citizens, British Nationals
>(Overseas), British Overseas citizens, British protected persons and
>British subjects."
>
Are you saying that a British subject has no right to live in the UK?
>>>>>Angus, will you please stop making lying statements about me. I do not
>>>>>support any "fake" concept for the very simple reason that what you are
>>>>>describing doesn't exist, except as a figment of your obsessed mind.
>>>>
>>>>No Malcolm. you support fake conservation organisations that damage the
>>>natural
>>>>environment and encourage others to do the same. Just look ar the "Birds"
>>>>magazine adverts.
>>>
>>>That is just another lying statement about me. Not only do I support
>>>genuine conservation organisations but there are no such things as
>>>"fake" conservation organisations to support. Except in your obsessed
>>>mind, of course.
>>
>>Plenty in the Birds magazine.
>>
>Only in your obsessed view.
There's none so blind as those who will not see:-((
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <zUB5ldCo...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040519184008...@mb-m29.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <nzBMspLt...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20040518173415...@mb-m01.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>Message-id: <GDSEQlej...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>In article <20040518124552...@mb-m21.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>>>>From: Malcolm Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>>>>>Message-id: <ZbqDWHHB...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. You are hedging again. sos does this wildlife live
>exclusively
>>>on
>>>>oaks or can it survive elsewhere? You the supposed expert. You tell me.
>>>>
>>>Your powers of comprehension are very definitely on the wane. Read back
>>>through the thread for the answer. Or, better still, read one of the
>>>books.
>>
>>Your hedging again, Malcolm.
>>
>you seek.
>
>>>>>The books I have recommended contain *facts* about oak trees and the
>>>>>abundant wildlife which lives on them. As you keep asking questions
>>>>>about this, the books will inform you with the *facts* you seem to
>>>>>crave.
>>>>
>>>>See above and stop avoiding the question..
>>>>
>>>I'm not avoiding any question. I have told you that there are great
>>>numbers and diversity of wildlife living on oak trees, some of which are
>>>dependent upon oak trees.
>>
>>Only some? That's a shift. You're getting there. Now, are the ones that
>you
>>say are dependent on oak trees exclusively dependent on them?
>>
>tell so many lies? My original words were, in reply to your:
>
>"Not found elsewhere other than oaks?" were "Some of the invertebrates
Which is not the same as depending exclusively on oaks
>
>>>>Because everyone can see for themselves that climate change is happening.
>
>>>Certainly, Angus, but only "scientists" have stated that one million
>>>species might (not will) become extinct by 2050 and it is their opinion
>>>that you quote both here and on your website. So, please make up your
>>>mind. It seems that you are prepared to believe scientists when they say
>>>something which you can use to attempt to criticise conservation
>>>organisations, but at all other times, they "change their views like the
>>>wind"?
>>
>>They may well change but they haven't so far.
>>
>Which is hardly surprising considering that their paper's only been
>published a matter of a few weeks. So, it seems that you are expecting
>them to change in the future. The presentation of their results has
>after all been heavily criticised.
By the fake conservationists who damage the environment?
Do you criticise the results?
>
>>>>No Malcolm. To spell it out. If they're recommended by you that's enough
>to
>>>>make me not wish to read them as your version of conservation is both out
>of
>>>>date and deeply flawed.
>>>>
>>>So why are you asking me for the details of which species live on oak
>>>trees?
>>
>>I'm not. I'm asking you what species depend exclusively on oak trees and you
>>don't seem to know.
>>
>And I have already told you that I am not going to type out lists of
>species names. If you are genuinely interested in what species are
>dependent upon oak trees, you can find out from the two books I have
>recommended.
Seems you can't.
>
>>>>I'm not asking you to copy extracts. I'm asking you if the species you
>>>>mentioned live exclusively on oaks. A simple yes or no would do.
>>>
>>>I have already told you, way back up this thread, that there are species
>>>which is dependent on oaks. Your powers of comprehension are seriously
>>>on the wane.
>>
>>You haven't mentioned what species depend exclusively on oaks. Don't you
>know?
>>
>Yes, Angus. I do know. But, as I've already said twice, I am not going
>to type out extracts from the books.
As I have said you don't need to. Just tell this ng in your own words what
wildlife is exclusively dependent on oak trees?
>
>>>
>>>"British citizens have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. No
>>>right of abode in the United Kingdom derives from the status, as British
>>>nationals, of British dependent Territories citizens, British Nationals
>>>(Overseas), British Overseas citizens, British protected persons and
>>>British subjects."
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying that a British subject has no right to live in the UK?
>>
>Angus, do please *try* and understand what you read even though it
>appears to be getting increasingly difficult for you. The passage quoted
>above is the exact wording from inside the current UK passport.
As issued under EU jurisdiction.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <P+AW$5HunO...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20040520111359...@mb-m26.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>
>I wrote that: "Some of the invertebrates are dependent upon oak."
>
>One of the dictionary definitions of "to depend" is "cannot do without".
>That is true of those invertebrates which are *dependent* upon oak.
>
>Satisfied now?
>
>>>
>>>>>>Because everyone can see for themselves that climate change is
>happening.
>>>
>>>>>Certainly, Angus, but only "scientists" have stated that one million
>>>>>species might (not will) become extinct by 2050 and it is their opinion
>>>>>that you quote both here and on your website. So, please make up your
>>>>>mind. It seems that you are prepared to believe scientists when they say
>>>>>something which you can use to attempt to criticise conservation
>>>>>organisations, but at all other times, they "change their views like the
>>>>>wind"?
>>>>
>>>>They may well change but they haven't so far.
>>>>
>>>Which is hardly surprising considering that their paper's only been
>>>published a matter of a few weeks. So, it seems that you are expecting
>>>them to change in the future. The presentation of their results has
>>>after all been heavily criticised.
>>
>>By the fake conservationists who damage the environment?
>>
>
>>Do you criticise the results?
>>
>one million extinct by 2050 was the extreme upper end. Those who just
>used the latter, such as yourself, are the ones to be criticised.
So that's what's wrong with you scientists; none of you can agree. All seems
rather pointless except that you lot get paid by the taxpayer or by the piper -
if you get my meaning.
>
>>>
>>>>>>No Malcolm. To spell it out. If they're recommended by you that's enough
>>>to
>>>>>>make me not wish to read them as your version of conservation is both
>out
>>>of
>>>>>>date and deeply flawed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So why are you asking me for the details of which species live on oak
>>>>>trees?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not. I'm asking you what species depend exclusively on oak trees and
>you
>>>>don't seem to know.
>>>>
>>>And I have already told you that I am not going to type out lists of
>>>species names. If you are genuinely interested in what species are
>>>dependent upon oak trees, you can find out from the two books I have
>>>recommended.
>>
>>Seems you can't.
>>
>No, Angus, you lying again. I can, but I'm not going to. Why should I
>type out lists of scientific names of invertebrates, none of which will
>mean anything to you?
Common names will do. Don't show your ignorance :-)
If I did, they would likely come from the books
>about which you have already said "I'm certainly not interested in
>reading any books that have contributed to your opinions".
I'm beginning to get the gist of you. Most of your knowledge seems to be
gleaned from other people. You're not really that smart at all. I could do the
same. Indeed, if I wanted to write a book all I'd need to do would be to read
other peoples' work and present it in a manner that didn't suggest plagery.
Then I could be an "expert". Is that how it works? :-))
>
>You do seem to have got yourself in a muddle over this. You are
>repeatedly requesting that I tell you what species are dependent upon
>oak trees, but at the same time seem to reject the sources that I would
>quote from simply because I have read them.
>
>Do make up your mind.
I have. You don't seem to know what species they are that depend exclusively on
oaks.
>
>>>>>I have already told you, way back up this thread, that there are species
>>>>>which is dependent on oaks. Your powers of comprehension are seriously
>>>>>on the wane.
>>>>
>>>>You haven't mentioned what species depend exclusively on oaks. Don't you
>>>know?
>>>>
>>>Yes, Angus. I do know. But, as I've already said twice, I am not going
>>>to type out extracts from the books.
>>
>>As I have said you don't need to. Just tell this ng in your own words what
>>wildlife is exclusively dependent on oak trees?
>>
>See above. I am not going to list lots of scientific names of
>invertebrates.
Common names will do.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>"British citizens have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. No
>>>>>right of abode in the United Kingdom derives from the status, as British
>>>>>nationals, of British dependent Territories citizens, British Nationals
>>>>>(Overseas), British Overseas citizens, British protected persons and
>>>>>British subjects."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying that a British subject has no right to live in the UK?
>>>>
>>>Angus, do please *try* and understand what you read even though it
>>>appears to be getting increasingly difficult for you. The passage quoted
>>>above is the exact wording from inside the current UK passport.
>>
>>As issued under EU jurisdiction.
>>
>As issued by the UK government and, as it says inside, it remains the
>property of Her Majesty's Government. The fact that it gives you easy
>passage throughout the EU is one of the benefits of the UK belonging to
>the EU.
Is that a benefit :-(
>
>You appear not to like the fact, though you haven't explained why you
>don't, that you are a British citizen. If you don't want to be one, then
>I suggest you emigrate.
It's not a question of liking or disliking. I'm a British subject .