"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"BAC" wrote in message
...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
snip

OK, I'll stop trying to read between the lines, too. Kay was
expressing a cautious view, and I took your response as pretending
her view was an extreme one. This manoeuvre is not unknown on Usenet.

I thought you suspected me of employing 'Tu Quoque', the well known
sub-fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi which can be used to justify almost
anything. Not intentionally.


Of _course_ I wouldn't plant alien species which I knew were likely to
establish themselves in numbers in the wild, or interbreed with native
species: I hope you aren't suggesting that _you would_.

I have made no suggestions about my actions. I was trying to ascertain
whether Kay's views about the close relationship between gardens and the
environment and her expressed concern about the possible effects of
gardening on the environment led her to limit species in her garden to
native plants alone, and presumably, to advise others not to plant non
native species, too.

The tone suggested to me -- reading fatally between the lines -- that
you might think normal caution about invasive foreign plants was as
unreasonable as a total objection to chemicals. I made the error of
taking a straight question to be a rhetorical one. But the context of
my error was that somebody appeared to be objecting to Kay's entirely
conventional and uncontroversial cautionary attitude to chemical use
in the garden; such a context would have made the error a reasonable
one.

Indeed. I think that the original objection was to what the objector clearly
perceived as 'preaching', as opposed to the advice requested.



But I'll admit that I'm worried by those quotation marks you put round
'damaging': they're not entirely promising.

Why should it worry you that I put quotation marks round 'damaging'? One
person's 'damage' can be another person's 'improvement' or a third
person's
'modification'. Further, damage may be significant, or insignificant.
It's a
very subjective term. I put quotes round 'damaging' to denote I was
'borrrowing' it from Kay, for the purposes of the discussion. Nothing
sinister in that, I hope.

No, not necessarily sinister. But you didn't put quotes round other
words you used which Kay had also used. It was, therefore, reasonable
to assume that you were making an intentional distinction between
'damaging' and other words by using 'scare quotes'. This assumption is
now reinforced by your mentioning that you were 'borrowing it...for
the purposes of discussion'.

And actually, 'damage' isn't a subjective term in this context (though
some people will use it subjectively).

It may be splitting hairs, but I disagree - 'damage' *is* a subjective term
in this context. Most definitions of damage centre around harm to the value
or utility of whatever is damaged, or loss of something preferred.
Obviously, all judgement calls. For example, I might think that felling a
mature Turkey Oak because it is non-native is 'damage', because I think it
is a magnificent specimen, whereas others might think it isn't damage,
because it clears the way for a 'native' replacement they consider
preferable, on biodiversity grounds. Either opinion is 'right' depending on
one's POV. Similarly, many people like the current heather clad appearance
of the 'deer forest', which is maintained by a high level of grazing,
whereas other people consider it to be badly damaged.

It's often quite easy to
estimate, even to measure, the ecological impact of an environmental
change, including species-invasion. For a crude example, we have
Rhodo. ponticum in Snowdonia. (I wish I could remember the fascinating
case of strains of primrose on a Scottish island for a subtle example:
something to do with a fortnight's difference in flowering time and
its effect on invertebrate reproduction. I'm sure you know plenty of
examples, though.)

Yes, it can be straightforward to record changes, however, the question of
whether or not the changes constitute 'damage' is a matter of opinion which
depends on what the person or organisation concerned considers to be the
preferred state. Claiming that a change constitutes 'damage' because quite a
few people think it does could be another of those fallacies (band-wagon)
you warned about :-)

snip

I'm sorry this is so long; and I'm sorry if I've misread the white
strips on the screen. snip

No need to apologise, on either count. It's refreshing to discuss something
with someone who does not resort to abuse :-)