|
|
|
date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:05:50 +0000,
group: uk.environment.conservation
back
Re: Chimps grieving for the dead
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:27:06 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:
>
>In article ,
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:31:46 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:29:43 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:44:25 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:34:49 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Snip Malcolm's repetitive rubbish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The discussion has always been about agricultural damage. However, you
>>>>>>>>>>>are wrong to believe that all landing on/grazing/trampling of grass by
>>>>>>>>>>>whatever animal/bird is damaging. It isn't. I'm sorry you are having
>>>>>>>>>>>difficulty grasping this simple fact, but keep trying. It may get
>>>>>>>>>>>through to you in the end.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No. I have stated repeatedly that geese damage grass whether it's
>>>>>>>>>>agricultural of not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, I know, and not only is this not what the discussion has always
>>>>>>>>>been about, you're wrong. Grass can benefit from being grazed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No Malcolm, if it damages agricultural grass it damages all grass. The
>>>>>>>>geese don't know the difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I gave you two simple examples of how grass is damaged by trampling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And you were given an example of beneficial grazing by geese.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which you said didn't compensate for the damage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, I didn't. This is what I said:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Nice idea, but that would only work if the good the geese do by
>>>>>tillering the wheat always occurred on the same farms where they do
>>>>>damage, which it doesn't. And where it does occur together, benefit and
>>>>>damage would need to be exactly equal."
>>>>>
>>>>>Please point to the words that say that the grazing "didn't compensate
>>>>>for the damage".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Amounts to the same thing.
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, it does not. I know you love to invent meanings for words
>>>that they don't have and to use a different word from the one given in a
>>>report, but on this occasion what I said can in no way be translated
>>>into "didn't compensate for the damage".
>>
>>"Nice idea, but that would only work if the good the geese do by
>>tillering the wheat always occurred on the same farms" means it
>>doesn't compensate for the damage.
>>
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:05:50 +0000
author: unknown
|
Re: Chimps grieving for the dead
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:19:39 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:
>
>In article ,
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:27:06 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:31:46 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:29:43 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:44:25 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:34:49 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Snip Malcolm's repetitive rubbish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The discussion has always been about agricultural damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>However, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>are wrong to believe that all landing on/grazing/trampling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>whatever animal/bird is damaging. It isn't. I'm sorry you are having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>difficulty grasping this simple fact, but keep trying. It may get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>through to you in the end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No. I have stated repeatedly that geese damage grass whether it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>agricultural of not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I know, and not only is this not what the discussion has always
>>>>>>>>>>>been about, you're wrong. Grass can benefit from being grazed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No Malcolm, if it damages agricultural grass it damages all grass. The
>>>>>>>>>>geese don't know the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I gave you two simple examples of how grass is damaged by trampling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And you were given an example of beneficial grazing by geese.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Which you said didn't compensate for the damage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I didn't. This is what I said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Nice idea, but that would only work if the good the geese do by
>>>>>>>tillering the wheat always occurred on the same farms where they do
>>>>>>>damage, which it doesn't. And where it does occur together, benefit and
>>>>>>>damage would need to be exactly equal."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please point to the words that say that the grazing "didn't compensate
>>>>>>>for the damage".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Amounts to the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, Angus, it does not. I know you love to invent meanings for words
>>>>>that they don't have and to use a different word from the one given in a
>>>>>report, but on this occasion what I said can in no way be translated
>>>>>into "didn't compensate for the damage".
>>>>
>>>>"Nice idea, but that would only work if the good the geese do by
>>>>tillering the wheat always occurred on the same farms" means it
>>>>doesn't compensate for the damage.
>>>>
>>>No, it doesn't.
>>
>>
>>Yes, it does.
>>
>I think anyone making an objective assessment of our respective
>knowledge of geese and agriculture would have little difficulty in
>coming to the conclusion that I know more about both than you do, as
>well as about the interactions between them.
Not when it's clear you don't know that geese will damage all grass by
landing and trampling on it.
date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:58:53 +0000
author: unknown
|
Re: Chimps grieving for the dead
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:21:11 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:
>
>In article ,
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:19:39 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:27:06 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:31:46 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:29:43 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:44:25 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:34:49 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Snip Malcolm's repetitive rubbish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The discussion has always been about agricultural damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>However, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>are wrong to believe that all landing on/grazing/trampling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whatever animal/bird is damaging. It isn't. I'm sorry you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>difficulty grasping this simple fact, but keep trying. It may get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through to you in the end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No. I have stated repeatedly that geese damage grass whether it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>agricultural of not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I know, and not only is this not what the discussion has always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>been about, you're wrong. Grass can benefit from being grazed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No Malcolm, if it damages agricultural grass it damages all
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>geese don't know the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I gave you two simple examples of how grass is damaged by trampling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And you were given an example of beneficial grazing by geese.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Which you said didn't compensate for the damage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, I didn't. This is what I said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Nice idea, but that would only work if the good the geese do by
>>>>>>>>>tillering the wheat always occurred on the same farms where they do
>>>>>>>>>damage, which it doesn't. And where it does occur together, benefit and
>>>>>>>>>damage would need to be exactly equal."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Please point to the words that say that the grazing "didn't compensate
>>>>>>>>>for the damage".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Amounts to the same thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, Angus, it does not. I know you love to invent meanings for words
>>>>>>>that they don't have and to use a different word from the one given in a
>>>>>>>report, but on this occasion what I said can in no way be translated
>>>>>>>into "didn't compensate for the damage".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Nice idea, but that would only work if the good the geese do by
>>>>>>tillering the wheat always occurred on the same farms" means it
>>>>>>doesn't compensate for the damage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it does.
>>>>
>>>I think anyone making an objective assessment of our respective
>>>knowledge of geese and agriculture would have little difficulty in
>>>coming to the conclusion that I know more about both than you do, as
>>>well as about the interactions between them.
>>
>>Not when it's clear you don't know that geese will damage all grass by
>>landing and trampling on it.
>>
>>
>Except that that subject comes within the knowledge I have and you don't
>and your contention is not true.
Seems not.
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.humanewildlifecontrol.com/images/issues_geese2_big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.humanewildlifecontrol.com/issues_geese.htm&usg=__TLtS6eYMXizPWQ9zVpjTu3AiBNA=&h=602&w=583&sz=171&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=AJgP95NgUZrMlM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgrass%2Bdamage%2Bby%2Bgeese%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:44:53 +0000
author: unknown
|
Re: Chimps grieving for the dead
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:07:03 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:
>
>In article ,
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:21:11 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:19:39 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>>I think anyone making an objective assessment of our respective
>>>>>knowledge of geese and agriculture would have little difficulty in
>>>>>coming to the conclusion that I know more about both than you do, as
>>>>>well as about the interactions between them.
>>>>
>>>>Not when it's clear you don't know that geese will damage all grass by
>>>>landing and trampling on it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Except that that subject comes within the knowledge I have and you don't
>>>and your contention is not true.
>>
>>
>>Seems not.
>>
>>http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.humanewildlifecontro
>>l.com/images/issues_geese2_big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.humanewildlifeco
>>ntrol.com/issues_geese.htm&usg=__TLtS6eYMXizPWQ9zVpjTu3AiBNA=&h=602&w=58
>>3&sz=171&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=AJgP95NgUZrMlM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=131&pre
>>v=/images%3Fq%3Dgrass%2Bdamage%2Bby%2Bgeese%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
>
>So what? To coin a phrase.
They damage grass.
>
>You've found some evidence of goose damage to grass. There's lots more
>out there - I'm surprised you haven't been posting URL after URL about
>it.
More to do.
>
>However, nothing on that webpage contradicts what I have said. Not all
>geese will damage all grass by landing and trampling on it.
>
Of course they will.
>Like I said, I know more about it than you do.
>
Seems not.
>By the way, for very long URLs I can recommend the website
>
>tinyurl.com
I have used it on occasions and I do keep its icon on my desktop.
Much easier just to copy and paste.
date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:34:29 +0000
author: unknown
|
Re: Chimps grieving for the dead
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:03:19 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:
>
>In article ,
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:07:03 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:21:11 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:19:39 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>I think anyone making an objective assessment of our respective
>>>>>>>knowledge of geese and agriculture would have little difficulty in
>>>>>>>coming to the conclusion that I know more about both than you do, as
>>>>>>>well as about the interactions between them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not when it's clear you don't know that geese will damage all grass by
>>>>>>landing and trampling on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Except that that subject comes within the knowledge I have and you don't
>>>>>and your contention is not true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems not.
>>>>
>>>>http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.humanewildlifecontro
>>>>l.com/images/issues_geese2_big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.humanewildlifeco
>>>>ntrol.com/issues_geese.htm&usg=__TLtS6eYMXizPWQ9zVpjTu3AiBNA=&h=602&w=58
>>>>3&sz=171&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=AJgP95NgUZrMlM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=131&pre
>>>>v=/images%3Fq%3Dgrass%2Bdamage%2Bby%2Bgeese%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
>>>
>>>So what? To coin a phrase.
>>
>>They damage grass.
>>
>Yes, well done. Geese CAN damage grass. But that does NOT mean that ALL
>geese damage ALL grass, as you keep claiming.
All geese that land on and trample grass damage it.
>
>>>
>>>You've found some evidence of goose damage to grass. There's lots more
>>>out there - I'm surprised you haven't been posting URL after URL about
>>>it.
>>
>>More to do.
>>
>Right, as you can't be bothered to find the evidence for your claims,
>stop making them.
>
I've provided enough.
>>>
>>>However, nothing on that webpage contradicts what I have said. Not all
>>>geese will damage all grass by landing and trampling on it.
>>>
>>
>>Of course they will.
>>
>Wrong.
Not wrong at all.
>
>>>Like I said, I know more about it than you do.
>>>
>>
>>Seems not.
>>
>Wrong.
Seems not.
>
>>>By the way, for very long URLs I can recommend the website
>>>
>>>tinyurl.com
>>
>>I have used it on occasions and I do keep its icon on my desktop.
>>
>>Much easier just to copy and paste.
>>
>But selfish.
Time saving.
date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:31:14 +0000
author: unknown
|
Re: Chimps grieving for the dead
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:30:13 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:
>
>In article ,
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:03:19 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:07:03 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:21:11 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:19:39 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think anyone making an objective assessment of our respective
>>>>>>>>>knowledge of geese and agriculture would have little difficulty in
>>>>>>>>>coming to the conclusion that I know more about both than you do, as
>>>>>>>>>well as about the interactions between them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not when it's clear you don't know that geese will damage all grass by
>>>>>>>>landing and trampling on it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Except that that subject comes within the knowledge I have and you don't
>>>>>>>and your contention is not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.humanewildlifecontro
>>>>>>l.com/images/issues_geese2_big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.humanewildlifeco
>>>>>>ntrol.com/issues_geese.htm&usg=__TLtS6eYMXizPWQ9zVpjTu3AiBNA=&h=602&w=58
>>>>>>3&sz=171&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=AJgP95NgUZrMlM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=131&pre
>>>>>>v=/images%3Fq%3Dgrass%2Bdamage%2Bby%2Bgeese%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
>>>>>
>>>>>So what? To coin a phrase.
>>>>
>>>>They damage grass.
>>>>
>>>Yes, well done. Geese CAN damage grass. But that does NOT mean that ALL
>>>geese damage ALL grass, as you keep claiming.
>>
>>All geese that land on and trample grass damage it.
>>
>Wrong.
>
All geese that land on and trample grass damage it
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You've found some evidence of goose damage to grass. There's lots more
>>>>>out there - I'm surprised you haven't been posting URL after URL about
>>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>More to do.
>>>>
>>>Right, as you can't be bothered to find the evidence for your claims,
>>>stop making them.
>>>
>>
>>I've provided enough.
>>
>Wrong.
No.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>However, nothing on that webpage contradicts what I have said. Not all
>>>>>geese will damage all grass by landing and trampling on it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course they will.
>>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Not wrong at all.
>>
>Wrong.
No
>>>
>>>>>Like I said, I know more about it than you do.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems not.
>>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>Seems not.
>
>Wrong
No.
>>>
>>>>>By the way, for very long URLs I can recommend the website
>>>>>
>>>>>tinyurl.com
>>>>
>>>>I have used it on occasions and I do keep its icon on my desktop.
>>>>
>>>>Much easier just to copy and paste.
>>>>
>>>But selfish.
>>
>>Time saving.
>>
>Wrong.
Much quicker.
date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:55:21 +0000
author: unknown
|
|
|
