In article <flvrqu$ft8$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
<URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> Be so kind as to tell me how to cahange the follow-ups,
> moody, so that every time I can change it to alt.troll.

I always change it if there are more than two in the crosspost.

I've no idea how you would go about it with Outlook.

> "Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant0722061cbBxcK@stronga
> rm.dereks.pad...
> > In article <flt5t9$j8a$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
> > <URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > > "Adenoid Hynkel ."  wrote in message news:n854o39mahun6h
> if9h
> > > gmme6l42v339cdle@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:44:12 -0000, "pearl" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant0702560b0BxcK@
> stro
> > > ngarm.dereks.pad...
> > > > >> In article <flrev2$d7a$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
> > > > >> <URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > > > >> > "Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant0607241cbB
> xcK@
> > > stronga
> > > > >> > rm.dereks.pad...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I have always agreed that edible plants can be and are grown on arable la
> nd.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > If you say so..
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > What you want to grow them on is not arable land.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That isn't true.  Also, note that this is what I'm looking at:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes it is.  You want to grow on grazing land.
> > > > >
> > > > >Quote?  Bear in mind that a vegan requires a fraction of the land
> > > > >needed by the typical 'omnivore'.  Look at those figures again.
> >
> > No thank you.  Vegans *need* more land than omnivores.
> 
> ' According to the USDA and the United Nations, using an acre
> of land to raise cattle for slaughter yields 20 pounds of usable
> protein. That same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein if
> soybeans were grown instead more than 17 times as much!7

Yes again you copy and paste what you don't understand.

Vegans *need* more land than omnivores.
Why?
Because if, for example, a fluffy bunny rabbit wanders into the cabbage
patch and nibbles a few, those carrots are a dead loss to the vegan whilst
the omnivore can kill and eat the fluffy bunny and so recoup some of the
lost nutrient.

IF, and only if, the vegan were able to ensure not a single bite was lost to
wandering wildlife then, yes, in theory it might require less land. In practice
the eggs from the chickens that ate the spiders that ate the greenfly that
took the nutrint from the sap of the vegetables is a waste minimisation and
recovery system.

> > > > >> > 'The present-day cultivation of large areas of single annual crops
> > > > >> > such as wheat might seem, on the surface, to be a very productive
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It is.
> > > > >
> > > > >'Annual crops, grown in conventional systems, demand that the soil
> > > > >is cultivated. The very act of cultivating the soil serves to destroy
> >
> > No.  Once established it is trivial to drill into the stubble of the
> > previous crop (if it was a root crop then lifting is equivalent to
> > cultivation I suppose, but harvesting any root has the same effect.)
> 
> 'UK Agriculture four seasons
> ..
> February
> Ploughing ground for spring cereal crops normally takes place in

That's one way, on a few soils it's the only workable way.  On other soils it
can be arranged differently and some may be left unploughed for many years
in a row.

> Predictable evasion noted.
> 
> > > > >> > and efficient use of land (average wheat yields this century have
> > > > >> > increased more than three-fold to over 3 tons per acre). When
> > > > >> > other factors are taken into account, however, it can be argued
> > > > >> > that this is a very unproductive and unsustainable use of the land.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > A woodland, on the other hand, might seem to be a very
> > > > >> > unproductive area for human food (unless you happen to like
> > > > >> > eating acorns). By choosing the right species, however, a
> > > > >> > woodland garden can produce a larger crop of food than the
> > > > >> > same area of wheat, will require far less work to manage it and
> > > > >> > will be able to be sustainably harvested without harm to the soil
> > > > >> > or the environment in general.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Go on.  Try it.
> > > > >
> > > > >'Robert Hart got things going for backyard folks with his
> > > > >inspirational book Forest Gardening, first published in Britain in 1991.
> > > > >Hart's vision of temperate climate forest gardening was the result of
> > > > >his work with tropical agroforestry systems, his Gandhian beliefs and
> > > > >his backyard experiments. His forest garden in Shropshire, England is
> > > > >an incredibly beautiful testament to his vision, and the oldest known
> > > > >temperate climate forest garden in the world (started in 1981). Patrick
> > > > >Whitefield followed Hart's book with his more practical How to Make
> > > > >a Forest Garden, a solid book with a British focus. These two pieces,
> > > > >combined with Bill Mollison and David Holmgren's works on
> > > > >permaculture ("permanent culture"), have sparked widespread interest
> > > > >in and planting of forest gardens throughout Britain. These gardens all
> > > > >demonstrate the potential of edible forest gardens, if not the actual
> > > > >benefits.
> >
> > Sure, loads of potential - but if you're going to make it work you're going
> > to have to do a lot of hard work - far more than the conventional farmer -
> 
> Apparently not.

Yoy can't even run a machine down the rows in a mixed setup so it's harder
and more dangerous than orchard, vineyard or hedgerow maintenance.

> > and you will battle continually against the local wildlife which will strip
> > the place if it begins to crop to plan.
> 
> You're forgetting that wildlife will also have their own habitat back.

If so it'll be worse - you're creating a refuge for them from which they
will raid.

> > > > >> I'm certain I eat more wild foods that you and I know just how much effort
> > > > >> it takes to garner a meal.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Acquiring the bread to go with it is by far the easier part of the process.
> > > > >
> > > > >'Of course, if you try to depend on a typical British woodland to
> > > > >provide you with all your food for the year, then you are either
> > > > >going to die fairly quickly of starvation, or you are going to have to
> > > > >learn to eat a lot of rather unpleasant tasting foods such as acorns.
> >
> > No thank you.  Feed the acorns to a pig and you get a far more palatable
> > harvest.
> 
> Fat fix.

Sure tha fat's useful but there's lean among the streaky too.

> > > > >It is quite probable that neither of these possibilities appeal to you
> > > > >- but there is an alternative. It is possible to plan out a woodland,
> > > > >using the guidelines that nature has shown us, but using species
> > > > >that can provide us with tasty fruits, seeds, leaves, roots and
> > > > >flowers. When well designed, such a system can:-
> > > > >
> > > > >be far more productive than a field of annuals
> > > > >produce a much wider range of foods
> > > > >require far less work
> > > > >require far less inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides
> > > > >provide valuable habitats for wildlife
> > > > >be very pleasing aesthetically.
> > > > >
> > > > >It all comes down to selecting the right mixture of species .There
> > > > >are over 5,000 species of edible plants that can be grown outdoors
> > > > >in Britain and about 2,100 of these can be grown in a woodland so
> > > > >there really is no lack of variety to choose from.
> >
> > A few posts back you were against agriculture, diverting land usage from
> > wildlife and establishing boundaries - why the sudden change of heart?
> >
> > This orchard will be no more natural than the farmer's field.
> 
> This enables and promotes widespread restoration of wildlife habitat.
> 
> > > > >> > > Go back a couple of hundred years and the 'previous generations' were in
> > > > >> > > dire straits.  The seven year famine and overpopulation contributed to th
> e
> > > > >> > > start of the Hundred Years' War and the Black Death swept through every f
> ew
> > > > >> > > years right up to the seventeenth century.  The population crashed and it
> > > > >> > > wasn't until a hundred years before Stubbes that it began to rise again.
> > > > >> > > Two million were living on land that had supported seven million. Of cour
> se
> > > > >> > > they did well - especially as meat became available cheaply and in quanti
> ty -
> > > > >> > > grazed on the thousands of abandoned fields...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Warm Period that coincided with the onset of the Great Famine.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <Snip. Why on earth did you include that screed you copy and paste maniac?
> > > > >> *I* told *you* about it - so you *know* that I already know.>
> > > > >
> > > > >If you knew it, you didn't tell the whole story.  You have no credibility.
> >
> > The whole story - as you put it - is vastly more complex then your pasting
> > exercise - but for the purpose of refuting your previous copy and paste
> > contention a few lines sufficed.
> 
> You were caught with your pants down, and on fire too, as ever.

Curious how you equate  a basic knowledge of history with blazing lingerie.
That which you copy from the net must be verified, checked and understood
before it is pasted.

> > > > >> In effect, your analagous wall
> > > > >
> > > > >Your hedges.
> >
> > No. The hedges were properly banked and laid.  You need to keep track of
> > your analogies and remember in which order the bits came.
> 
> I do, your idiotic gymnastics notwithstanding.
> 
> > > > >> was without foundation, even the ragged pile
> > > > >> youaped up out of the rubble
> > > > >
> >
> > No.
> 
> No - what?  You've snipped my reply, clown.
> 
> > At this point I think you're trying to refer to the pile of hedge
> > grubbings you wanted to make but could not as the farmer had already done so
> > before you.
> 
> Incomprehensible claptrap.
> 
> > > > >> was gathered without your bothering to check
> > > > >> whether the supporting structures you were copying and pasting were appriate
> > > > >> to the task in hand.  Like this one, they were taken wholesale from someone
> > > > >> else's work and shoved in where they did no good.  No wonder your analagous
> > > > >> wall has now sunk into a morass.
> >
> > > > >You're completely off the rails, moody.  Give up.  You can't win.
> >
> > I won in my first post - you just haven't understood it yet.
> 
> How dare you object to the destruction of the wall that *we* made
> with some remnants of your original home which we (er) destroyed.
> So what if it was your last place to shelter and live.  *We* built it..

Rather too late to protest our complaint now.  You starved to death waiting
for your orchard to fruit so we've been running pigs and chickens in there. 
Once we've collected up all the stones you scattered we'll be able to get a
plough in...

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:08:29 +0000, Derek Moody
 wrote:

>In article <flvrqu$ft8$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
><URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> Be so kind as to tell me how to cahange the follow-ups,
>> moody, so that every time I can change it to alt.troll.
>
>I always change it if there are more than two in the crosspost.
>
>I've no idea how you would go about it with Outlook.
>
>> "Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant0722061cbBxcK@stronga
>> rm.dereks.pad...
>> > In article <flt5t9$j8a$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
>> > <URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> > > "Adenoid Hynkel ."  wrote in message news:n854o39mahun6h
>> if9h
>> > > gmme6l42v339cdle@4ax.com...
>> > > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:44:12 -0000, "pearl" 
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >"Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant0702560b0BxcK@
>> stro
>> > > ngarm.dereks.pad...
>> > > > >> In article <flrev2$d7a$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
>> > > > >> <URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> > > > >> > "Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant0607241cbB
>> xcK@
>> > > stronga
>> > > > >> > rm.dereks.pad...
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > I have always agreed that edible plants can be and are grown on arable la
>> nd.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > If you say so..
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > What you want to grow them on is not arable land.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > That isn't true.  Also, note that this is what I'm looking at:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Yes it is.  You want to grow on grazing land.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Quote?  Bear in mind that a vegan requires a fraction of the land
>> > > > >needed by the typical 'omnivore'.  Look at those figures again.
>> >
>> > No thank you.  Vegans *need* more land than omnivores.
>> 
>> ' According to the USDA and the United Nations, using an acre
>> of land to raise cattle for slaughter yields 20 pounds of usable
>> protein. That same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein if
>> soybeans were grown instead more than 17 times as much!7
>
>Yes again you copy and paste what you don't understand.
>
>Vegans *need* more land than omnivores.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of farming will laugh at that!

>Why?
>Because if, for example, a fluffy bunny rabbit wanders into the cabbage
>patch and nibbles a few, those carrots are a dead loss to the vegan whilst
>the omnivore can kill and eat the fluffy bunny and so recoup some of the
>lost nutrient.

Rabbits even on a bad day on the fringes of a huge field will only eat
less than 5%. In areas where there is a known rabbit problem it's easy
to exclude them, and even so sharing a crop with wildlife is part of
nature. You cant have it all and some of us don't want it!

>IF, and only if, the vegan were able to ensure not a single bite was lost to
>wandering wildlife then, yes, in theory it might require less land. In practice
>the eggs from the chickens that ate the spiders that ate the greenfly that
>took the nutrint from the sap of the vegetables is a waste minimisation and
>recovery system.

That's as nonsensical as saying farming doesn't work!

KISS for your benefit we'll only let you state one or two ridiculous
comments at a time. Only when you understand will we move on,
otherwise you only end up confused.

<snip fallacy and spew>









--

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