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.

-- 
Malcolm