In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:

Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About
8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch,
which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave
of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech,
hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little
to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of
trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available
of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes.
(Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British,
(English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to
build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

Nonsense! : See
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html



http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of
his expeditions."

So? If the estates were his,

Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the conquest
and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount of
resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the
English. You may have heard about it.

then he had every right to do as he pleased. In
any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in
that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? After
all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age.
Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in
Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.


"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."


Your source?

Britain had more than enough
forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!!

Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down
the trees of Ireland.

Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See:
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html


As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from
the Baltic countries

What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?

For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada?

Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in
nearby Ireland?

- that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
various history books.

Which ones precisely?

Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to!

ROTFL
--

Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

J. Clarke wrote:
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be
given
wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest
cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow.
About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the
birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed
by
a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly,
ash, beech, hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had
little
to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting
of trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for
charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was
available
of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests
to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

Nonsense! : See
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html

Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of
increased shipbuilding was most visible in the change of Great
Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries.
Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one
could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts
sharply with
the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before
(Brown, Terry)."

So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense".

No, he is claiming the deforestation was due to the English (or British)
coming into Ireland and removing our forests to supply wood for the fleet
against the Spanish Armada! There is NO proof of that SFAICS, and I doubt
that it happened. How long does it take to build a warship from wood?


http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the
peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one
of
his expeditions."

So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he
pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a
lot
of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger
against the English?

You're the one turning "British" into "English".

Your the one being so specific! English/British, so what? In the context it
means the same thing and everyone knows what I meant.


After all, without England, Ireland would not
have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using
wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year
was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.

So what did they do with the wood?

They used it for houses, for smelting iron, and yes, for building ships
probably.


"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."


Your source?

Britain had more than enough
forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!!

Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut
down
the trees of Ireland.

Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported
opinion. See:
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html

Which supports his view, not yours.

Not if you read and understand what I have written, see above.


As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from
the Baltic countries

What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?

For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada?

Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees
in
nearby Ireland?

- that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
various history books.

Which ones precisely?

Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to!

ROTFL

You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using
them to refute the statements of others.

Oh, but I have. And I am not afraid to post the entire source rather than a
carefully edited smidgion. You should try understanding English a bit more!

--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.


--

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:

Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be
given wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow.
About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the
birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed
by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then
holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had
little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over
harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was
available of course - but only after the forests had made room
for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests
to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

Nonsense! : See
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html



http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one
of his expeditions."

So? If the estates were his,

Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the conquest
and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount of
resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the
English. You may have heard about it.

LOL! Indeed I have!! Why do you think I said that if not to get up the noses
of our fundamentalist republicans?
Humour is as humour does!


then he had every right to do as he pleased. In
any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak
involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against
the English? After all, without England, Ireland would not have
progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood
for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was
Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.

--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:

Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:

In article ,
Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow.
About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the
birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by
a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly,
ash, beech, hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little
to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting
of trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available
of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests
to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one
of his expeditions."

"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."

Britain had more than enough
forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!!

Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down
the trees of Ireland.

As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from
the Baltic countries

What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?

For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada?

Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in
nearby Ireland?

- that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
various history books.

Which ones precisely?

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Shame on you Hal. jl gave you a retort with citations to prove his
point. Until you do likewise, we can only assume that you are blowing
hot air.

EERMM! I may be wrong, but I believe that jl was responding to Nik in fact.
I will Google for you if you want, but that too is a snare and a delusion in
that in the end one is only forwarding on other peoples opinions as facts
when they are not.

--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

In article
,
mothed out wrote:

On May 10, 10:25 am, "Westprog" wrote:
jl wrote:

...

Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes.
(Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British,
(English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Britain had more
than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!!
As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the
Baltic countries - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently
in various history books.

I wonder if anyone wrote a poem or song about Irish trees being cut down.
That would be interesting.


There's definitely a sort of 'horticultural aesthetic' prevailing in
Ireland which doesn't seem to accomodate trees much.
By and large, the norm for most people in the countryside is to have
no trees at all in your garden or near your house.
It's almost as if there's a desire for your house to be as clearly
seen as possible when you look at the landscape. Like the house is
used as a very visible statement, and you want people to get a clear,
treeless view of it. Same for the garden, so often there's very few
shrubs or trees, and it's all just grass.
That's very different from England and many other countries, where
people often either plant or preserve trees to create privacy and want
trees in their immediate garden and nearby land anyway. In so many
cases Ireland people seem to choose just to have nothing in their
garden except grass, right from the garden wall to the house.
Even my Irish neighbours in London have gone for the same thing,
ripped everything out and put down grass from fence to fence, plus put
in quite a lot of paving.
They do have just a few plants right up against the fence, but I don't
think a tree was ever likely to be included in the plans.
They don't even have kids, so don't need the space for them to play
football etc. They just like it that way. Fair enough of course, but
I'm just making a note a different aesthetic way of looking at gardens
which I find quite interesting. It's almost as if the mostly treeless
landscape has found a way into people's idea of what is normal, or
what they want to see from their window.

I once knew a tweaker who talked like you. Perhaps you may care to take
a look look at Jochem's website before you go and make too much of a
fool of yerself;-)
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
--

Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:

Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About
8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch,
which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave
of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech,
hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little
to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of
trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available
of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes.
(Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British,
(English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to
build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

Nonsense! : See
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html



http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of
his expeditions."

So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he pleased. In
any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in
that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? After
all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age.
Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in
Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.


"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."


Your source?

Britain had more than enough
forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!!

Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down
the trees of Ireland.

Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See:
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html


As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from
the Baltic countries

What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?

For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada?

Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in
nearby Ireland?

- that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
various history books.

Which ones precisely?

Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to!

ROTFL

Hang on, I've gotta get some beer and crisps. Battling citations,
I never. But that was a point blank question about "Britain got most of
it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries - that trade certainly is
mentioned quite frequently in various history books.

Don't be coy duckie, which ones precisely?

But, let me get my beer first;-)
--

Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

"jl" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Someone else wrote:

As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the
Baltic countries

What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?

There are more countries around the Baltic than just Latvia.

For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada?

For the British fleet - when it was still built out of wood - certainly
until about 1860. I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the
british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships.

A 'British' fleet at the time of the Armada?

Allan

In article ,
"Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:

Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:

In article ,
Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow.
About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the
birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by
a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly,
ash, beech, hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little
to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting
of trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available
of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests
to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one
of his expeditions."

"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."

Britain had more than enough
forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!!

Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down
the trees of Ireland.

As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from
the Baltic countries

What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?

For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada?

Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in
nearby Ireland?

- that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
various history books.

Which ones precisely?

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Shame on you Hal. jl gave you a retort with citations to prove his
point. Until you do likewise, we can only assume that you are blowing
hot air.

EERMM! I may be wrong, but I believe that jl was responding to Nik in fact.
I will Google for you if you want, but that too is a snare and a delusion in
that in the end one is only forwarding on other peoples opinions as facts
when they are not.

I guess the beer got in the way of my eye tooth. Apologies all around.
Still, even if we can boil it down to battling authorities (I'm usually
keen on Ph.Ds, and those who can direct you to source material), that
should clear up some points.
--

Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:


- that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
various history books.

Which ones precisely?



I missed the original question. Which ones: I've recently made a study of
English history in the 19th century and the various books - amongst
others, include the journals of Mrs Arbuthnot, the journals of Charles
Greville, gleanings of the journals of his brother, letters by the Duke of
Wellington and various histories of the period. The subject was so
important that it cropped up every once in a while.

At that time only Prussia, Scandinavia, Russia and other Baltic countries
who still had large parts of the original Northern forest to harvest,
could supply the huge needs of a big fleet. Not to mention all the
charcoal you needed in order to make bronze for the guns.

I will not read them all again and give page and line number - it was hard
work reading them all in the first place!

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be
given
wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest
cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow.
About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the
birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed
by
a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly,
ash, beech, hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had
little
to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over
harvesting
of trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own,
but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from
Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for
charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was
available
of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish
forests
to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

Nonsense! : See
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html

Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of
increased shipbuilding was most visible in the change of Great
Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries.
Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one
could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that
contrasts
sharply with
the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before
(Brown, Terry)."

So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense".

No, he is claiming the deforestation was due to the English (or
British) coming into Ireland and removing our forests to supply wood
for the fleet against the Spanish Armada!

You're being picky. Not just the Spanish Armada, but the French Navy
and everything in between. Britain was a naval power. To do that
they needed a navy. To get a navy when the only way you know to build
ships is to cut down trees, you cut down trees.

There is NO proof of that
SFAICS, and I doubt that it happened. How long does it take to build
a warship from wood?

What difference does it make how long it takes to build a ship?
Great Britain built thousands of them.


http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the
peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance
one
of
his expeditions."

So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he
pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a
lot
of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger
against the English?

You're the one turning "British" into "English".

Your the one being so specific! English/British, so what? In the
context it means the same thing and everyone knows what I meant.

May mean it to you, but it doesn't to a Scot or a Welshman.

After all, without England, Ireland would not
have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron,
using
wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long
year
was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.

So what did they do with the wood?

They used it for houses, for smelting iron, and yes, for building
ships probably.

So how much did they use for each purpose, and what did they make with
the iron?

"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund
his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."


Your source?

Britain had more than enough
forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!!

Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut
down
the trees of Ireland.

Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported
opinion. See:
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html

Which supports his view, not yours.

Not if you read and understand what I have written, see above.

I read what you wrote and your source does not support it.

As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies
from
the Baltic countries

What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?

For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada?

Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the
trees
in
nearby Ireland?

- that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
various history books.

Which ones precisely?

Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to!

ROTFL

You really should read your own sources in their entirety before
using them to refute the statements of others.

Oh, but I have. And I am not afraid to post the entire source rather
than a carefully edited smidgion. You should try understanding
English a bit more!

You haven't posted "the entire source", you've posted a link. If you
think that it supports your view then find quotations from it that do
so.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"jl" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do
with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were
the main causes of the deforestation.

As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and
cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course
- but only after the forests had made room for it.

Plus I'd imagine that Ireland must be the same as Britain in that whatever
deforestation took place in the second half of the second millenium was
deforestation of what little remained of the woodland cover. Most of
Britain's had already gone by 1500AD because of pastoral agriculture; the
need for resources; and even possibly natural climatic effects within the
last 5000 years or so. This website claims (I imagine it can only be
guesswork) that the original forests had been halved by 500BC and was down
to around just 15% by the 1080s. Perhaps degree may have been different but
surely Iron Age and first millenium Ireland couldn't have been that
different from Britain at that time?

http://www.stewardwood.org/woodland/tree_loss.htm

Allan

Des Higgins wrote:
On May 9, 5:15 pm, Si wrote:
On 8 May, 13:49, Des Higgins wrote:





On May 8, 11:15 am, mothed out wrote:
On May 7, 11:53 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
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?
One factor is this:
The EU has been paying farmers to cut down trees for a long time.
I think it is now paying people to plant them again.
Tree coverage in Ireland was at its lowest point a century ago. The
EU has nothing to do with it. In fact, Irish tree coverage has been
slowly growing since the 70s. The trees disappeared for farming, fuel
and for building (including ships), centuries ago.
T'was the towel heads(pasted from an old SCI thread):

"Message from Q'il Q'as (Al Jazzbeera)

Q'adda yen Hamid fastha q'on Aymid?
Tha Tehran A'Q'ilta er Al'Awer.
Ni Al Traw'q ter Q'il Q'as nawat' Ayla'q,
Shni Q'lingfer A'Qling Ibn' Braw "


well spotted that man!!
It makes a change from blaming the Brits (apart from Gavin Bailey who
himself almost certainly chopped down several large native trees).

Des




I didn't see him do it, though it is very likely, I would imagine he
lingered at it, you know the way those crazy pepole in Oregon tie you to
a tree before they do something that has the FBI web-site falling over?
Well I reckon it was like that, a difficult to understand type of thing.

T & C

"Someone else" wrote in message On
Sat, 10 May 2008, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Someone else" wrote in message
Thu, , "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Way Back Jack" wrote in message

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?

(snip) Ireland suffered from
ice coverage during the Ice Ages so any trees there had to come back as
pioneer species.

Large numbers of people, 'modern farming' and trees don't go together.
As the population grew the trees would have had to go,
or in some instances,
'modern farming' methods were the cause of clearance too. Ireland's
population exploded after the introduction of the potato and you can't
grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more
trees, there would have been a strong disincentive to do so.

That is true.

I know and therefore wonder why you can now read what I wrote originally and
have no trouble with it, but couldn't do so the first time you read it.

Ireland had extensive forest cover well prior to the arrival of
potatoes in Europe...

Yes it did have more trees but even today Ireland has only 16.8% of land
that is arable. I don't know what the figure is for Ulster, but think it
would be higher.

There is a reason why Cromwell's men gave the inhabitants of Ulster
the choice "To hell or Connaught" that being that the land of Ulster
was preferable to the land of Connaught for farming...and underlies
the essentially economic reasons rather than theological ones for the
Irish conflict.

Indeed.

...so you're telling me that in the roughly 150 years between the arrival
of the potato in
western Europe, including Ireland, from South America, and the Potato
Famine of the 1840s that Ireland's population grew so much that it had
also become deforested?

Do read for comprehension. You clearly did not understand what I wrote.

I've addressed this elsewhere in this post.

You didn't.

In addition, some of your facts are simply wrong. The potato was
introduced
into Ireland by about 1600

Right...after the 1588 Battle with the Spanish Armada...

so by the time the first cases of potato blight
were seen in 1816, so 200 years had passed not 150. The famine of
1845-1851
was the worst but not the only famine.

Did I claim it was?

Nah.

Indeed you didn't claim that, but attempting to shift the goal posts doesn't
invalidate my point. You claimed that it was 150 years between the arrival
of the potato and the 1840s famine. That is not correct.

Ireland population doubled at the end of the 18th century in about a 40-50
year period till it hit 8 million.

So you're telling me that the population of Ireland in 1750 was 4
million people despite the fact that there were no censuses of the
entire population of Ireland until 1821?

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/help/history.html
http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findin...on.asp?sn=3542

Do try rereading what I wrote and do try to understand what the words mean
when linked together. I try to be quite precise in what I write and your
interpretation of what I wrote is not what I wrote.

Also the existence of a census is not the only way that population growth is
assessed. If you do not know about the growth of the Irish population in
the latter half of the 18th century then I suggest you use google.

That increase did not come from grain.

I think that you're going to have to revise what you've said above.

Not on the basis of anything you have written.

Ireland's population today is now just over 4 million.

No, Ireland's population is more like 6 million...remember to compare
apples with apples and include the population of what is now known as
'Northern Ireland' in your figures because the figures for the census
of 1821 included all 32 counties...

Fair point and I stand corrected.

Why do you neglect to mention the impact on farm ownership patterns
incurred by the Penal Laws?

http://local.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/land.html

You're right I didn't mention them and that was quite deliberate.

Really you should have

No, really I shouldn't have. I was aware that some Irish Nationalist would
come out of the woodwork at some stage and rave on about irrelevancies.
They always do. And you did.

Perhaps you could knock that chip off your shoulder and explain how to
grow potatoes
in a forest to feed a rapidly growing population?

Admittedly difficult but given that the naval battle between the
English and the Spanish occurred in 1588 was before the potato was
introduced to Ireland, as you claim above, 1600 and the trees had
already been largely cut down to build the ships that fought the
Spanish Armada in the name of the Elizabeth I the point is beside the
point...the trees were already gone...

If you have managed to get to this conclusion, you must finally begin to see
my original point. I will remind you that my original point and which
seemed to result in your posting of irrelevancies. My point was: "you can't
grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more trees,
there would have been a strong disincentive to do so."

Or on the Burren or a bog or some of the other non arable land?

Have you yourself ever actually been to the Burren?

Another irrelevancy?

Also you neglect to mention that the English desire to build a fleet
of warships to fight the Spanish Armada and where they obtained the
timber to do so...

You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much
about the natural and human history of Ireland.

Perhaps I should say, don't seem to know much, in particular about the
impact of the penal laws and their long reaching historical
consequences...some of which are still in place right now...in the
form of inherited privilege...

You shouldn't say that because to do so based on a total lack of evidence
based on anything I have so far posted in this thread makes you sound even
less logical and unable to read for comprehension than you have to this
point.

And you appear to have reading difficulties

The lecturers at my University disagree with you.

Well given the paucity of skills I've seen amongst recent graduates, that
doesn't surprise me. It saddens me that Lecturers and Tutors seem prepared
to accept intellecual sloth and sloppy thinking from their students, but it
doesn't surprise me.

so I will forgive your inability to draw a logical conclusion

Please indicate, using formal logic where it is that I make an invalid
inference.

No. We will do the reverse. YOU indicate using formal logic how you reached
the conclusion that:
"You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much
about the natural and human history of Ireland."

based on your misunderstanding of what I wrote
or didn't write.

Of course a logically valid inference can be drawn from an incorrect
assumption/belief but it remains for you to demonstrate that I have
done this. I await with interest.

And you can continue to wait. You drew a conclusion based on an incorrect
understanding of what I wrote therefore it is up to you to do the work. Not
me. I am not your mother or one of your lecturers.

I know when my ancestors left Ireland, I also know why they left.

Ok, fair enough but does that have anything at all directly to do with
the deforestation of Ireland? Or the introduction and subsequent
dependence of the Irish Catholic population on the potato?

No it doesn't but then I never claimed that it did. I wrote that comment in
response to your conclusion that I knew nothing about the natural or human
history of Ireland.

You could not logically reach such a conclusion based on the scarce
information I presented in my initial post in this thread.

You know nothing about what I know about Ireland

Why then did you not refer to the impact of the Penal laws regards
inheritance?

Because I KNOW how it brings rabid, raving nutters out of the woodwork. And
you did come.

nor it seems about the impact of the
potato on population growth of Ireland or indeed when the famines occurred

Claiming to know the extent of my knowledge is just silly...especially
considering that you've underestimated it.

LOL. And I'll bet you don't appreciate the irony of that statement! A nice
case of pot, kettle, black.

The infestations of the
fungus Phytophthora infestans occurred several times in the 1840's
with the consequences being particularly dire in 1848-49 given that
there had already been several years of crop failure...

or how long the Irish had been growing potatoes.

Do feel free to make up shit to suit your prejudices eh?

So far the prejudices in this thread have been displayed by you in truck
loads.

I was not the one to introduce them and very deliberately avoided doing so.
YOU were the one to introduce them and you have continued to do so.

I'm sure you'll stop sounding like an undergraduate at some stage. Perhaps
when you become an adult.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:17:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be
given
wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest
cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow.
About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the
birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed
by
a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly,
ash, beech, hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had
little
to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting
of trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for
charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was
available
of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests
to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

Nonsense! : See
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html

Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of
increased shipbuilding was most visible in the change of Great Britain’s
landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. Those who
traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one could ride all
day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts sharply with
the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before
(Brown, Terry)."

So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense".

Reread what you've just posted.

http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the
peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one
of
his expeditions."

So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he
pleased.

Only in the sense of a 'Conqueror's right'...of course stolen property
remains stolen property even if it was taken as the spoils of war and
in no way guarantees that that property will remain in their
control....

In any case, how many ships?

No idea.

Possibly two at most?

How can you make that claim? What evidence do you have?

Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger
against the English?

I begrudge them their invasion and occupation of Ireland. It has
stunted Ireland's development as a sovereign nation for
centuries...happily this is finally coming to an end...

You're the one turning "British" into "English".

People quibble about that...it is true though that at 1588 it was only
England and not Britain that was doing the fighting.

After all, without England, Ireland would not
have progressed past the Iron age.

Ireland has

Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that?

Of course...Celts were the first western Europeans to have damascene
steel...

The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year
was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.

I'm not disagreeing but I'm interested in your justification for that
claim.

So what did they do with the wood?

"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."

Your source?

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

Bibliography

1. Lacey, Robert, Sir Walter Ralegh, Atheneum, New York, 1974
2. Pollard, A.F., The Political History of England, Greenwood Press
Publishers, New York,1969
3. Rodriguez-Salgado, M.J., England, Spain and The Gran Armada, Barnes
and Nobel Books,Savage Maryland, 1990
4. http://www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/p...y/raleigh.html
Sir Walter Raleigh, of Hayes Barton
5. Sale, Kirkpatrick, The Conquest of Paradise, First Plume Printing,
New York, 1990


Britain had more than enough
forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!!

Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut
down the trees of Ireland.

Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported
opinion. See:
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html

Which supports his view, not yours.

Right.

As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from
the Baltic countries

What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?

For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada?

Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees
in nearby Ireland?

- that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
various history books.

Which ones precisely?

Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to!

ROTFL

You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using
them to refute the statements of others.

Like I've said, on a number of occasions, Merrick is an idiot who has
no compunction when it comes to ignoring basic logical truths, sad but
true.

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:55:43 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:

Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover
please see:

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf

"The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About
8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch,
which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave
of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech,
hornbeam and maple."

Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little
to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of
trees were the main causes of the deforestation.

Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?

NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia.


As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal
and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available
of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.

No, it was always available...

Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.


If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
surprising that any trees survived at all.

"That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".

I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.


Manufacturing, farming, and the
monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes.
(Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British,
(English) is merely being paranoid and specious.

Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to
build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.

Nonsense! : See
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html



http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/

"Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak
British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships."

and, interestingly,

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

"The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of
his expeditions."

So? If the estates were his,

Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the conquest
and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount of
resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the
English. You may have heard about it.

The crime of taking property using force is, in law, called
'aggravated robbery'. Furthermore, the passing of time makes that
property no less stolen.

"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."

Your source?

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html

Bibliography

1. Lacey, Robert, Sir Walter Ralegh, Atheneum, New York, 1974
2. Pollard, A.F., The Political History of England, Greenwood Press
Publishers, New York,1969
3. Rodriguez-Salgado, M.J., England, Spain and The Gran Armada, Barnes
and Nobel Books,Savage Maryland, 1990
4. http://www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/p...y/raleigh.html
Sir Walter Raleigh, of Hayes Barton
5. Sale, Kirkpatrick, The Conquest of Paradise, First Plume Printing,
New York, 1990

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----