In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:43:20 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:08:26 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:52:22 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Just your natural dishonesty with the facts, I suppose :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>Not at all.
>>>>>
>>>>'Fraid so :-(
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As it happens, I got my information from a more detailed source which
>>>>>>accurately introduced the subject of what else they eat and why *some*
>>>>>>martens turn to eating squirrels in *some* years. I've no doubt you will
>>>>>>be able to find it if you look hard enough!
>>>>>
>>>>>So you didn't know the answer yourself?
>>>>>
>>>>What I did know was that your claim that "They are one of the main diets
>>>>for Martens." was a dishonest distortion of the facts. So I went to an
>>>>obvious source for some more detail to put you right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But they are one of the main diets for martens
>>>
>>No, Angus, they "can be" which is not the same.
>
>Can you not read?  "Squirrels are the main mammal in the diet of some
>martens in Finland and Sweden".   Not could be, might be, possibly be,
>can be or anything else you like to mention.  They ARE the main diet.
>And before you mention "some" martens and not in Scotland you might
>like to ponder why.  Most probably the ones that aren't eating red
>squirrels are in areas where there are none.
>
But I will mention it if only to point out that it is only true of 
*some* martens, a fact you ever so carefully forgot to mention until you 
realised that I knew more about it than you did and was quoting a source 
complete with actual figures.

>It is also interesting that the marten likes the same habitat as the
>red squirrel so having a predator in your front room is not going to
>be fun.
>
>However, I can see why there needs to me more research - grants are
>there to be screwed :-(
>
Your warped mind is at work again, I see :-(
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>And here was me thinking that you knew everything about everything
>>>>>:-))
>>>>>
>>>>Good. Keep thinking that, next time you make a claim that you know is
>>>>not true. You'll get found out.
>>>
>>>The laugh is, you really think you do.
>>>
>>The even bigger laugh is that you keep getting caught out because I know
>>more than you and so am able to challenge your claims. You then have to
>>wriggle and dodge, trying desperately to avoid answering, usually ending
>>up by asking me to provide the evidence that you can't. Now, *that* is a
>>big laugh :-))
>
>When have you ever been able to challenge my claims?

Countless times.

> Your stupid
>"management" claims have noticeably died a quick death when you
>realised what an idiot you were being.
>
On the contrary, it was you who refused to give a single example of an 
unmanaged woodland when you claimed there were "many". And don't mention 
your own woodland again because you aren't prepared to say whether it is 
fenced or what the adjacent land use is, which clearly indicates that 
you actually know that it is subject to management.

>
>And you didn't answer my question about the remote cottage with the
>garden fence; or the others for that matter.
>
Yes I did. A fence controls what happens to the land on either side of 
it.

Is your woodland fenced, Angus?

>If your knowledge was equal to your conceit you wouldn't be working as
>a part time adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage.  You'd be doing
>something useful.
>
It is wonderful what nonsense you spout in a vain attempt to disparage 
both my knowledge and the conservation work I have been involved in all 
my working life:-))

-- 
Malcolm