michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
[...]
Here's what you posted -

a) as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial
College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals
around
the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for
plants
either."


According to Brasier (and you) we don't move large numbers of
animals around the world for disease reasons.

I claimed we don't do it, but for other reasons.

You then turned round and claimed b)

we do in fact move large numbers of animals around the world,
namely
NZ lamb to the Middle East.

Which I claim is for religious reasons and so not relevant.

I really don't understand this. I doubt if many NZ sheep farmers
are
Muslims, and even if they were, they'd still be selling sheep for
the
money: I call that economic reasons.

So which is it? Which of your previous claims do you still agree
with, a) or b)

Do we, or don't we, move large numbers of animals around the
world?

To the best of my knowledge, _we_ don't. I said "people do".


But we don't anyway, do we ?
^^^
Even if we had the chance, you or me, I doubt if either of us
would start moving large numbers of animals around the world.

Or are you saying you personally would?

And that the only thing stopping you, are disease considerations ?


And the exact same applies to Brazier's audience on that occasion.

I very much doubt if many of those present had any intention of
moving
large numbers of animals around the world. Even if given the
chance.

So if that's what he meant, as you claim, then that was a rather
silly thing for him to say really, wasn't it?


Oh dear. This is not an ordinary wilful misunderstanding, but a
wilful misunderstanding of the word "we": you no doubt have your
reasons, so enjoy it.


When we do
move animals, there are controls.

...

Acording to Brazier, it's because there are controls that we don't
move animals.

" We don't move large numbers of animals around the world for
disease reasons"

What he is not saying there is that we do move animals around the
world ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
subject to controls,

...

The question is whether comparable
controls should be applied to plant movements; or, if such
controls
are already in place, whether they are adequately enforced.


...

That's an interesting question but it has no relation to what you
quote Brazier as saying. Which by analogy, is that we shouldn't
move
large numbers of plants around the world for disease reasons.

Yes, it's because it's an interesting question that I raised the
matter.


but I confess that you do seem to have
been trying to close down the discussion rather than contribute to
it. I'm going to switch off if your reply doesn't follow a chain
of
relevant reasoning I can follow.

...

You may do as you wish.

As to any "discussion", you have yet to supply one single argument
or
piece of evidence provided either by Brazier, yourself, or anyone
else as to why the UK in 2005 should be particularly vulnerable to
the importation of foreign pathogens or pests.[...]

Have a nice day.

--
Mike.