On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:05:04 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:04:36 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:08:53 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>No, just demonstrating, as if it needed demonstrating, that I know a
>>>>>great deal more about Britain's wildlife than you do and am only too
>>>>>happy to pass on my knowledge to you, as I have done countless times in
>>>>>the past :-))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Really?
>>>>
>>>>Well since you're in the mood for passin on your knowledge, perhaps
>>>>you couls answer the following questions.
>>>>
>>>>What evidence is there that the red squirrel has existed continuously
>>>>in Britain since the last ice age until the present day.
>>>>
>>>Oh, not this tired, old and pointless attempt to claim that the red
>>>squirrel is a non-native species again :-(
>>>
>>>If you think that it has not existed continuously since the last ice
>>>age, then it is up to you to prove that, firstly, it died out, and,
>>>secondly, that it was reintroduced, including when, where and by whom.
>>
>>It's not me who's saying it's native or non-native.
>
>It's you trying to deny that it is native.

No. I'm just asking for proof that it is native by the criterion set
by you and other so-called conservationists.

And you don't seem to have any evidence to support your claims.

>
>> It's up to thoise
>>who make the claims to provide the evidence - as you have frequently
>>told me.  So what evidence do you have?  None is the answer :-(
>>
>The evidence of the colonisation of Britain by tens of thousands of 
>species after the last ice age and the complete absence of evidence that 
>they then all became extinct and were reintroduced.

So how did plants "colonise" Britain after the last ice age? 

>
>>I
>>>note that you do not ask the same question about any of the other tens
>>>of thousands of species that colonised Britain after the last ice age
>>>and are still here. Why not?
>>
>>Please provise a list.
>>
>If you don't know what other species have existed here since the last 
>ice age then that nicely demonstrates that you have no possible 
>justification whatsoever for singling out the red squirrel.

Of course I do.  It's the one I'm interested in.  

>
>>>
>>>>Is man part of nature or not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>A pointless question not worth answering. Whether or not anyone thinks
>>>man is or isn't "a part of nature", whatever you mean by that, has no
>>>bearing on the consideration of invasive non-native species.
>>
>>You're fudging , Malcolm.  I'm not asking whether it has any bearing
>>on your consideration of what you call invasive non-native species.
>>
>Don't try and be disingenuous, Angus. 

I'm not.

>You started asking this question 
>in the context of what is written on the SNH website regarding 
>non-native species. And you are still asking it with that in mind - see 
>your posts in scot.politics. It remains a pointless question as it has 
>no bearing on the consideration of invasive non-native species.

So the problem you're having is you recognise that SNH are wrong by
treating the activities of man differently from any other mammal but
to agree with me that man is part of nature would be contradictory to
their stance and make a nonsense of the concept of non-nativeness. So
it's you who's being disingenuous; not me.


>>So, is man part of nature or not?
>>
>>Surely that's an easy question for you to answer?
>>
>It's a pointless question. See above.

No it's not.  see above.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:54:19 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:05:04 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:04:36 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:08:53 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, just demonstrating, as if it needed demonstrating, that I know a
>>>>>>>great deal more about Britain's wildlife than you do and am only too
>>>>>>>happy to pass on my knowledge to you, as I have done countless times in
>>>>>>>the past :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well since you're in the mood for passin on your knowledge, perhaps
>>>>>>you couls answer the following questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What evidence is there that the red squirrel has existed continuously
>>>>>>in Britain since the last ice age until the present day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, not this tired, old and pointless attempt to claim that the red
>>>>>squirrel is a non-native species again :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>If you think that it has not existed continuously since the last ice
>>>>>age, then it is up to you to prove that, firstly, it died out, and,
>>>>>secondly, that it was reintroduced, including when, where and by whom.
>>>>
>>>>It's not me who's saying it's native or non-native.
>>>
>>>It's you trying to deny that it is native.
>>
>>No. I'm just asking for proof that it is native by the criterion set
>>by you and other so-called conservationists.
>>
>>And you don't seem to have any evidence to support your claims.
>>
>The criterion is very clear. I fail to see what you problem with it is.

Sure it is. It disregards man,s activities as natural.  That's why you
can't answer my question.

>
>>>
>>>> It's up to thoise
>>>>who make the claims to provide the evidence - as you have frequently
>>>>told me.  So what evidence do you have?  None is the answer :-(
>>>>
>>>The evidence of the colonisation of Britain by tens of thousands of
>>>species after the last ice age and the complete absence of evidence that
>>>they then all became extinct and were reintroduced.
>>
>>So how did plants "colonise" Britain after the last ice age?
>>
>Do you mean to say you've forgotten? I told you how it happened.
>

I can't remember.  Did you say they marched across the channel?

>>>
>>>>I
>>>>>note that you do not ask the same question about any of the other tens
>>>>>of thousands of species that colonised Britain after the last ice age
>>>>>and are still here. Why not?
>>>>
>>>>Please provise a list.
>>>>
>>>If you don't know what other species have existed here since the last
>>>ice age then that nicely demonstrates that you have no possible
>>>justification whatsoever for singling out the red squirrel.
>>
>>Of course I do.  It's the one I'm interested in.
>>
>So that must mean you have no such problem with any of the tens of 
>thousands of other species that are regarded as native. Well, the red 
>squirrel is regarded as native in exactly the same way as all of them 
>are.

Well, they're not are they.  Just another lie.  Such i=s the
dishonesty of the whole concept that different levels of nativeness
have had to be created to suit this flawed aganda. 

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is man part of nature or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>A pointless question not worth answering. Whether or not anyone thinks
>>>>>man is or isn't "a part of nature", whatever you mean by that, has no
>>>>>bearing on the consideration of invasive non-native species.
>>>>
>>>>You're fudging , Malcolm.  I'm not asking whether it has any bearing
>>>>on your consideration of what you call invasive non-native species.
>>>>
>>>Don't try and be disingenuous, Angus.
>>
>>I'm not.
>>
>>>You started asking this question
>>>in the context of what is written on the SNH website regarding
>>>non-native species. And you are still asking it with that in mind - see
>>>your posts in scot.politics. It remains a pointless question as it has
>>>no bearing on the consideration of invasive non-native species.
>>
>>So the problem you're having is you recognise that SNH are wrong by
>>treating the activities of man differently from any other mammal but
>>to agree with me that man is part of nature would be contradictory to
>>their stance and make a nonsense of the concept of non-nativeness. So
>>it's you who's being disingenuous; not me.
>>
>You are being even more disingenuous if you think you can spout a load 
>of nonsense like that and then claim that that is what I think.

So do you think they're right to treat the activities of man as not
being as natural as that of any other mammal?

>>
>>>>So, is man part of nature or not?
>>>>
>>>>Surely that's an easy question for you to answer?
>>>>
>>>It's a pointless question. See above.
>>
>>No it's not.  see above.
>>
>See above.

See above.

I see you stuck again, Malcolm :-))

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:59:08 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>I see you stuck again, Malcolm :-))
>>
>I'm not "stuck", I'm merely not bothering to answer a pointless 
>question.


I can see you problem :-))

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:20:38 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:59:08 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>
>>>>I see you stuck again, Malcolm :-))
>>>>
>>>I'm not "stuck", I'm merely not bothering to answer a pointless
>>>question.
>>
>>
>>I can see you problem :-))
>>
>You appear to have a repeated one with literacy :-)


I keep missing the "r" key.