In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:19:39 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:27:06 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:31:46 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:29:43 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:44:25 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:34:49 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Snip Malcolm's repetitive rubbish.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The discussion has always been about agricultural damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>However, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>are wrong to believe that all landing on/grazing/trampling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whatever animal/bird is damaging. It isn't. I'm sorry you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>difficulty grasping this simple fact, but keep trying. It may get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through to you in the end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No.  I have stated repeatedly that geese damage grass whether it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>agricultural of not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I know, and not only is this not what the discussion has always
>>>>>>>>>>>>been about, you're wrong. Grass can benefit from being grazed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No Malcolm, if it damages agricultural grass it damages all 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>geese don't know the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I gave you two simple examples of how grass is damaged by trampling.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And you were given an example of beneficial grazing by geese.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Which you said didn't compensate for the damage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I didn't. This is what I said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Nice idea, but that would only work if the good the geese do by
>>>>>>>>tillering the wheat always occurred on the same farms where they do
>>>>>>>>damage, which it doesn't. And where it does occur together, benefit and
>>>>>>>>damage would need to be exactly equal."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Please point to the words that say that the grazing "didn't compensate
>>>>>>>>for the damage".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Amounts to the same thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, Angus, it does not. I know you love to invent meanings for words
>>>>>>that they don't have and to use a different word from the one given in a
>>>>>>report, but on this occasion what I said can in no way be translated
>>>>>>into "didn't compensate for the damage".
>>>>>
>>>>>"Nice idea, but that would only work if the good the geese do by
>>>>>tillering the wheat always occurred on the same farms"  means it
>>>>>doesn't compensate for the damage.
>>>>>
>>>>No, it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, it does.
>>>
>>I think anyone making an objective assessment of our respective
>>knowledge of geese and agriculture would have little difficulty in
>>coming to the conclusion that I know more about both than you do, as
>>well as about the interactions between them.
>
>Not when it's clear you don't know that geese will damage all grass by
>landing and trampling on it.
>
>
Except that that subject comes within the knowledge I have and you don't 
and your contention is not true.

-- 
Malcolm