On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:05:04 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:08:18 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:59:27 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:01:39 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:36:07 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do you think your reply is worth a response?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And what evidence do you have that the "pox-like disease" that you claim
>>>>>>>>>was "endemic" in red squirrels before contact with greys is the same
>>>>>>>>>disease with which the greys are now indisputably infecting the reds?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Do your own research.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You wouldn't know where to start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>LOL!  Is that the best you can do to avoid producing your evidence?
>>>>
>>>>If you've done the research you'd know what I say is true.
>>>
>>>ROFL!!! Is that the best you can do to avoid producing your evidence?
>
>So, no evidence.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which is why I asked you what evidence you have that the
>>>>>>>"pox-like disease" that you claim was "endemic" in red squirrels before
>>>>>>>contact with the greys is the same disease with which the greys are now
>>>>>>>indisputably infecting the greys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You haven't a clue, Malcolm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Is that the best you can do to avoid producing your evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Confirms you haven't a clue
>>>>
>>>ROFL!!! Is that the best you can do to avoid producing your evidence?
>>>>
>
>So, no evidence.
>
>>>>>>Where did I ever say that it was the same disease?
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's just one instance, from one of your "A letter I agree with"
>>>>>posted here last December:
>>>>>
>>>>>"It is quite wrong to say that grey squirrels are responsible for
>>>>>squirrel poxvirus disease. Recently, I wrote to the Forestry Commission
>>>>>under the Freedom of Information Act asking what evidence existed that
>>>>>red squirrels were not immune to SQPV.  I was subsequently advised that
>>>>>no routine testing of live red squirrels is undertaken and they are not
>>>>>aware of any scientific evidence one way or another as to whether or not
>>>>>there is a resistant population of reds out there.  On this basis, the
>>>>>claim that reds squirrels have no immunity or resistance has no
>>>>>foundation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Add to this, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's admission that
>>>>>the origin of the virus is "unknown" and that early in the last century,
>>>>>out of forty-four districts where red squirrels had the disease only
>>>>>four  had grey squirrels present, confirms that greys squirrels are not
>>>>>to blame."
>>>>
>>>>This comes from the freely available evidence I have.  Look it up and
>>>>you'll find it.  I'll give you a hint.  Page nineteen.
>>>>
>>>So you do admit that you have said that it was the same disease which
>>>makes one wonder why you bothered to ask "where did I ever say that it
>>>was the same disease?"
>>>
>>>So, having admitted it, now please produce your evidence that it was the
>>>same disease.
>>>
>>
>>I'm only quoting what others have said.  Look it up like I did and
>>you'll see that.
>>
>So why did you bother to ask "where did I ever say that it was the same 
>disease?"?
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You and your
>>>>>>sloppy fellow scientists don't know whether it was or not  but for
>>>>>>convenience assume it wasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, being scientists, we don't leap to the conclusion that you have
>>>>>leapt to that the disease which affected red squirrels in the past
>>>>>definitely was the same as the present SQPV.
>>>>
>>>>What McInnes and all have done is dispute a pox virus was earlier
>>>>reported.
>>>>
>>>Pardon? Please try again so that it makes sense.
>>>
>>
>>Your problem, not mine.
>>
>Only if you prefer not to make sense. Your letters to the press might 
>have more impact if you took note of this point.
>
>>>>Is that what you call pretty duff research?
>>>>
>>>>I would.
>>>>
>>>Yes, but what you call things doesn't really matter, does it?
>>
>>Seems to catch on.
>>
>Does it? I know of instances where it hasn't.
>
>>Are you saying that red squirrels didn't have pox virus before they
>>came into contact with reds?
>>
>>I bet you're not :-))
>>
>I will merely point out, yet again, that you should make sure that what 
>you write makes sense, as the above certainly doesn't :-))


And yours does?  What  a laugh :-))

Sorry I don't have time to indulge you at the moment as I'm too busy.
Go and annoy Rab 

You've been sucked dry for the last few years and have little to offer
now.  Strange you haven't realised it.

Like and old pair of socks you been binned.

Be back next week if I've time.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)