In message , 
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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:07:15 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:38:28 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:50:55 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Exactly, so why ask me to come up with an example of an unmanaged
>>>>>>>>>>>>woodland? You're the one that claims there are "many" of them,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>unable to name a single example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I have,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You have not. You claim that you own a woodland which isn't 
>>>>>>>>>>managed, but
>>>>>>>>>>have not said whether it is fenced and what the adjoining land use is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have and it is not "managed".  To manage is a verb and requires a
>>>>>>>>>positive activity on the land in question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Err, no, that's where you're wrong. The activity does not have to be
>>>>>>>>*on* the land in question, it can take place adjacent to it or even some
>>>>>>>>distance away. You really ought to get outdoors and explore the
>>>>>>>>countryside a little more. You might learn about land management by
>>>>>>>>doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You obviously don't know what management is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.

The problem appears to that Angus doesn't fully understand the use of 
English (again).

One dictionary definition for management is "the technique of treating a 
disease etc."

If Angus' techniques of treating his woodland is to do nothing it is 
then management.

He appears to be unable to grasp this.   (Note for Angus treating can 
mean many more things than medical treatment.  I realise you will try to 
avoid admitting management by narrow use of words).


-- 
Malcolm Kane