In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:

But I don't expect mere facts to have any effect on the hysterics.

I must protest! Opinions were expressed for and against the
introduction of lynx, some strongly felt on both sides. Neither was
any more hysterical than the other, just different. To claim one side
was hysterical is reducing the argument to one of 'ad hominem', which
is second-rate and always best avoided.

Nonsense. A good half of the opinions against were purely emotional,
and the remainder used 'facts' that could readily be disproved (and
often were the converse of the truth). As I said, I could provide
weak and dubious rational arguments against, but I didn't even see
any of them. As a traditional academic-minded person, I regard any
opinion based on deliberate ignorance to be purely emotional.

Let's take one example: there is no room. Lynx are shy, solitary,
woodland hunters which prey on shy, solitary, woodland deer, and
(where present) have the effect of replacing some of the deer with
lynx. So it's obvious nonsense, and can be seen to be so by simple
data searches.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.