"Someone else" wrote in message
On Sun, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Someone else" wrote in message
On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl


I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the
british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships.

I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period
because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage
done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation
of Ireland...

You really do have a problem.

In your opinion.

Yes, but I note that I'm not the only one with that opinion.

You answer questions not asked and make
repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never
there
in the first place.

In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you are
answering a question that were NEVER asked.

Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that?

viz: "I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland..."

You wrote that. No question about the deforestation of Ireland has been
asked in this thread. You may choose to dribble on about it but it was not
asked.

There has been NO such question
except presumably in your own mind! You have decided to take a contrary
view to what other people have chosen to post, but your contrariness does
not mean that any question has ever been asked nor does it mean that your
posts are relevant to the OPs interest.

Is there some law that specifies that in usenet I must repeatedly
refer to the original poster's point?

Only the sort of 'law' any competent undergraduates should know. It works
like this: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in
those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of
trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?
Discuss"

Read the statement, understand what the statement is about, do research on
the topic, decide which information is pertinent, write a response and
provide evidence to support your stance.

You would rate a fail because you didn't understand the statement and went
on to discuss something unrelated.

For the fun of it, here is the OPs posting:

"TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in
those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative
scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep
and/or other livestock?

My answer is that Ireland was once heavily forested but has been
deforested and that the English ruling class, historically, were the
proximate cause of that deforestation.

And that answer is irrelevant and simply harps back to your failure to
comprehend that the OP is interested in the current time. The interest is
NOT about deforestation. Trees can be grown in 80 years or less. How long
has it been since the Armada sailed?

Reread the OPs post and do TRY (as difficult as you clearly find it) to
read
for comprehension.

Forget the attempts to patronise...and here it is...again...the OP's
post:

"TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in
those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate?
Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?"

I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in Ireland
nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted
for JFK's visit for example.

Do note especially the subject header which includes
more than Ireland.

Yeah, so?

If your lecturers are right about your reading abilities, you wouldn't need
me to explain. I don't spoon feed (your lecturers might).

The OP observed that TV documentaries and travelogues revealed lush
'green'
but a scarcity of trees in both Ireland AND Britain.

So?

Try reading the subject header and try remembering how often you mentioned
any lack of trees in Britain.

The OP wanted to know WHY there were no trees and since you seem to have
missed the point, the mention of TV documentaries and travelogues places
the
OPs interest in our current time. It is about the here and the now, not
something that took place at the time of the Spanish Armada. The OPs
interest also extends beyond just Ireland.

Right. I suppose trees could now be replanted...

Of course they could.

there are forests in
Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum
planted for JFK's visit for example.

The reasons why the trees aren't being replanted now are questions for
the Irish government and private land owners.

See, you can understand the statement when pushed to do so.

Have a nice day

Thank you. So far I've had an expemplary day and it will shortly get even
better.