In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:22:48 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:24:59 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:36:08 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>Ah, the classic Macmillan ploy. He patently doesn't understand something
>>>>>>so instead of trying to learn about it, accuses the person who is trying
>>>>>>to inform him of not knowing either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, Angus, you've just exposed your ignorance of management.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Absolute rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell me something, the railway from Euston to Glasgow is fenced all
>>>>>the way up.  Does Railtrack manage all the land on each side of the
>>>>>railway for the 400 miles and does the fence just outside Glasgow
>>>>>manage the land just outside London?   All of it adjoins the fence.
>>>>>
>>>>Your suggestions are not based on commonsense, in particular your
>>>>assumption that the owner of the fence directly manages the land. The
>>>>fence *affects* the land management, as you yourself have admitted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The lack of any sense is yours.  It doesn't affect land management
>>>that isn't there.
>>>
>>Of course it does. How can it not? A fence round a woodland affects what
>>is happening within the woodland. A woodland without a fence is being
>>*affected* in completely different ways. The effect of a fence or of no
>>fence is therefore to *influence", *control*, *manage* what is going on
>>inside the woodland.
>>
>
>Absolute garbage.  It can't affect management that isn't there.
>
Continuing to demonstrate your lack of understanding by just repeating 
the word "garbage" isn't going to get you anywhere.

A fence round a woodland automatically introduces management to that 
woodland, in the form of control of, e.g., the amount of grazing that 
can take place. Controlling grazing is management.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your other response is meaningless. I'm not asking where the woodland
>>>>>>is, merely whether or not it is fenced and what the adjacent land use
>>>>>>is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>See above.
>>>>>
>>>>There is nothing "above" which says whether or not your land is fenced
>>>>or what the adjacent land use is.
>>>>
>>>>Please answer my questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>See my previous post on this.
>>>
>>But your previous post on this doesn't answer those two very
>>straightforward questions.
>>
>>
>
>See my explanation.
>
>
You haven't posted an "explanation". You've posted an "excuse", which is 
not the same at all. And it was a particularly feeble excuse, too.

Goodness me, this thread is doing wonders for your word power :-)

>>>>>>Anywhere where there is land which is not managed, influenced or
>>>>>>controlled by man. You claim there are *many* woodlands in such a state,
>>>>>>yet can't name even one. Why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>I have told you that I own a woodland that is not managed at all.  It
>>>>>is affected by adjacent property but that doesn't make it managed by
>>>>>adjacent owners.
>>>>>
>>>>Who ever said it was "managed by adjoining owners". I never did.
>>>>However, their actions may *affect* what happens in the woodland and
>>>>therefore you cannot say that it is "not managed at all".
>>>
>>>Of course I can.  I see "affect" has now crept in which is what I've
>>>been saying from the beginning.
>>>
>>Of course you have, that's because it is the same as influence.
>>
>
>It's no influencing management that isn't there for a purpose.
>
All fences are there for a purpose. Sometimes the purpose is for 
deliberate management of an area of land, but there will always be an 
influence on land the other side of the fence. How can there not be?
>
>>Remember this?
>>Influence: Affect the condition of, have an effect on.
>>Control: Exercise power or influence over.
>>Manage: Control the use or exploitation of (land etc.).
>>
>
>But management is an activity with a purpose in mind.
>
Yes, and that purpose can be to do nothing - it's called passive 
management, as I've already said.

>>>
>>>>If there is a
>>>>fence round your woodland (is there, by the way?) then that is affecting
>>>>the management.
>>>
>>>Not if there's no management
>>>
>>The presence or absence of a fence is
>>affecting/influencing/controlling/managing what is happening in the
>>woodland.
>>
>
>Garbage.  I have already given you an example of Railtrack.
>
Oh dear, there's that uncomprehending word again :-(

Your example of Railtrack merely confirms what I said. The presence of 
the fence influences the land on either side of it. Railtrack merely 
want to keep animals (and people) off the tracks. But the presence of 
their fences influences the land on the other side of their fences. How 
can they not?

>>>
>>>>And if there is a fence, then someone must have erected
>>>>it thereby changing the management of the woodland from what it was
>>>>before the fence was there.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But not necessarily to enclose or manage the site in question.
>>
>>Duh!  The fence doesn't have to have been put up specifically to enclose
>>or manage the woodland, but the result is exactly the same as if it had
>>been.
>
>Not unless the action was specifically done or not done for a purpose.
>
The intention has nothing to do with it. It's the result which we are 
discussing.

>>The effect of a fence or of no fence is therefore to
>>affect/influence/control/manage what is going on inside the woodland.
>
>Garbage.
>
Third example of incomprehension :-(

>>
>>
>>> Re
>>>Railtrack
>>>
>>The railtrack example was no different from any another. The effect of a
>>fence is to affect/influence/control/manage what is going on either side
>>of it.
>>
>
>How far along the fence and what distance from it?
>
The distance will depend, among other things, on the distance to the 
next physical boundary.

>>>>>>Which means you have taken the conscious decision that it should be
>>>>>>"left to its own devices". That's management. By the way, the fact that
>>>>>>you have admitted that it is being "left to its own devices" must mean
>>>>>>that there is a fence round it. Thank you for confirming that you are,
>>>>>>indeed, managing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have confirmed that I don't manage it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>If it has a fence round it excluding grazing animals, then it is being
>>>>managed as an ungrazed woodland.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If I put a fence up to exclude anything I accept I would be managing
>>>it.
>>
>>If there is a fence round your wood - or any other wood - the result is
>>to exclude some animals. So, having excluded some animals, you do now, I
>>see, accept that you would be managing it. At last!
>>
>
>Not at all.  Management must have an aim.
>
And that aim can be to do nothing. You will find it written into many 
management plans. It is an excellent form of management for some animals 
and habitats, but it is definitely management.

>>>But if I don't do anything it's not management.
>>>
>>It doesn't matter whether you *do* anything or not.
>
>Of course it does.
>
It doesn't. See above.
>
>>The presence or the
>>absence of a fence both affect/influence/control/manage what happens to
>>the woodland.
>>
>>
>
>Garbage.
>
The fourth example of your complete incomprehension :-(

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, actually, it isn't. It's obvious commonsense. In the case of your
>>>>>>own woodland, leaving it to its own devices is a conscious decision by
>>>>>>you, which equals management.
>>>>>
>>>>>No it doesn't.  Management is an activity and I take no activity in
>>>>>controlling anything in the woodland.
>>>>>
>>>>Management need not include active intervention. Some management
>>>>involves leaving things alone, but it is still management.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Only if it is deliberately left alone for a purpose.  That does not
>>>apply to land left alone for no purpose.  The former is management the
>>>latter is not.
>>>
>>You have clearly taken the decision to leave your wood alone. It doesn't
>>matter whether you have a "purpose", you have still taken a conscious
>>decision that you will do nothing with it. However, if there is a fence
>>round it, you are also accepting that the woodland is being protected
>>from grazing animals, whether or not you erected the fence. If there is
>>no fence, then you will obviously be aware that the woodland will
>>change, not necessarily for the better, as a result of grazing. You are
>>therefore dictating what is going to happen to the wood - whether it
>>will be protected from grazing or subject to it. That's called
>>management.
>
>If one doesn't care whether animals graze in it or not there's no
>management decision.
>
But not caring one way or the other is a decision to do nothing, which 
is an example of management.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:42:47 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>Have you noticed he pumps out his self righteous rubbish on a variety
>>of subjects in other newsgroups as well.  Currently he's on
>>uk.environment.conservation, demon.service, scot.politics,  and
>>uk.business.agriculture
>
>Naturally, after you have indulged in some stalking of me (!)

That's rich coming from the newsgroup pedant stalker!

>> If someone
>>disagrees with him, they're "ignorant" or something similar.
>>
>I'm flattered that you are following me about, Angus. Still worried 
>about me, obviously, and the influence I wield. And the fact that I am a 
>conservationist and proud of it. All your silly jibes about fakes and 
>CONs have got you nowhere. How many deer have you saved from being 
>culled in 2007? Or ruddy ducks? Or grey squirrels? And I don't include 
>calling yourself one, of course. LOL!!

Well for a start he has saved me thousands of pounds. I no longer
donate to CONservation hooligans. I feel sure my donations and the
many others are missed.

Then there is the loss of prestige and contempt from society that
people like you and the other CONservation hooligans have attracted.

In your case you have suffered a huge fall from grace, with no one
prepared to engage you or employ you because you have been exposed for
the fake you are! Why in the old days you were almost as popular as
dear old Chris Mead who really earned his spurs. You can no longer
leech or bloodsuck popular figures as we are all aware just what a
dickhead you are. You stalking and pedantry merely confirms it.

Nice to see you getting touchy about it. I suppose this is where you
threaten us with libel actions etc? Hahahahahahahaha

You're all washed up fatso and it shows.









--

My greatest speech to the peasants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7LWuP0T7Q

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk



England / Angelic Upstarts 

The red in the flag is the blood that was spilt
In the way that your forefathers tell
And never a country has been so great
The stories Britannia could tell 

I never want to live my life
Away from the golden shores
There's never a country in the world
With the scent of an English rose 

England oh England a country so great
A land that's so fair and so true
There'll never be any colours like
The red the white and the blue 

Whenever you go to a far off land
There's something goes with you
The pride and the joy and the love that comes
For your mother of red white and blue 

You could never be born under a flag that's like
The one of the Union Jack
St.Georges spirit has never died
It all keeps coming back

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:43:05 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article 
>, 
>patgardiner@btinternet.com writes
>>On 30 Dec, 15:32, "Jill"  wrote:
>>> Malcolm wrote:
>>> >> I notice, not that I suggest they do so, that they have not
>>> >> circulated or published the evidence, which rather suggests that
>>> >> they have taken my view that it may be dodgy legally as being more
>>> >> reliable than his bucketing about and bluster. It is nice to be
>>> >> taken seriously.
>>> > It's nice to see that you are still living in cloud-cuckoo land.
>>>
>>> It was not worth publishing ANYWHERE by anyone -- it said nowt.
>>> There are thousands of similar letters written to parliament committees
>>> every year.
>>> Those that have content worthy of note, however small or controversial, are
>>> printed with the reports.
>>> This was not, and its easy to see why. Incoherent bluster of no consequence
>>> and content is being kind.
>>
>>well that confirms that you claim to have received a copy presumably
>>from Malcolm.
>>
>No, it doesn't, you very strange man.

Your history of nefarious deeds including conspiracy speaks out
against you there old chum. 

Not very good at this game are you Ogilvie?

You could try losing some weight, might sharpen the mind somewhat.










--

My greatest speech to the peasants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7LWuP0T7Q

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk



England / Angelic Upstarts 

The red in the flag is the blood that was spilt
In the way that your forefathers tell
And never a country has been so great
The stories Britannia could tell 

I never want to live my life
Away from the golden shores
There's never a country in the world
With the scent of an English rose 

England oh England a country so great
A land that's so fair and so true
There'll never be any colours like
The red the white and the blue 

Whenever you go to a far off land
There's something goes with you
The pride and the joy and the love that comes
For your mother of red white and blue 

You could never be born under a flag that's like
The one of the Union Jack
St.Georges spirit has never died
It all keeps coming back