"Salahoona" wrote in message

If you
use Eucl. Viminalis; plant them only a foot apart and in a group. They
will support each other in the wind (groups of two metres diameter)
and when the trunks are about eight inches wide they can be harvested.
Paint the cut on the living trunks with oil and they will sprout
again:

I can't think of a eucalypt that doesn't resprout if the trunk is cut right
off . I don't think there is really any need to paint with oil.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote:

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.

Extend my question to include Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden and FInland
then...if that pleases you.

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.

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...

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

I have no idea.

Well...its closer and the local population, who are the ones that
would have been doing the harvesting, were more 'under the thumb' of
their British overlords than any Baltic forestry worker....plus the
distance that the timber needed to traverse was much shorter...indeed
some of the ships were probably built in Ireland itself...

I'm sure the procurement agents in those days were quite
competent

What makes you so confident of that?

and got their supplies from whoever could deliver the quality
and quantity need. The demands of a large fleet are quite astonishing -
even for simple things like wooden tackles.

No disagreement.

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 10:52:06 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
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.

So, laughter, are you telling me that the British overlords of
Ireland didn't use any of the forests of Ireland for their own ship
building?

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.

Yes, but not completely.

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?

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.

Hal has done nothing else than blow hot air. Regulars of SCI have long
ago come to this conclusion.

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 11:40:29 -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

At that reference it says:

"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)."

Brown, Terry. "Wood in Development of Civilization."
[http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/fo...velopment.pdf]

Which supports my allegation that Ireland was rapidly deforested
during the time that Britain invaded and occupied.

Game, set and match Mr Merrick.

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 =----

"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. 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. 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.

Reread the OPs post and do TRY (as difficult as you clearly find it) to read
for comprehension. Do note especially the subject header which includes
more than Ireland.

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:23:59 +1000, "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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

So?

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...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.

Have a nice day
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 =----

"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.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:50:38 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"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.

The onus of proof is on the claimant, i.e. you, now, if you please
demonstrate your source of knowledge regarding the Irish population
prior to 1821.

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.

You've neglected to include your reference regarding the population of
Ireland prior to 1821.

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.

Phew.

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.

No, really you should have because not doing so is ignorant.

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.

Oh my God...explain then, why it was that the blight hit Ireland
hardest when the blight was also in other countries in

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."

Fair comment.

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?

You already make the point above...its not arable land.

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

You deny the significance of the Penal Laws ergo my point stands.

makes you sound even less logical

Fortunately the Professor of Logic at my University disagrees with you
on this point.

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.

Ah come on now...you're claiming, implicitly to have strong logical
skills, you should already appreciate the Onus of proof lies upon the
claimant, i.e. you.

If you need to read more on this, please see he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onus_of...and_other_uses

"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone
suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to
support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this."
Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone
else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the
responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it.
In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven"

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."

You deny the importance of the penal laws to the historical period we
are discussing...

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.

Up to you but if you want to be taken seriously then you ought to live
up to your epistemological responsibilities.

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.

I didn't say "nothing" I said, "not much"...there's a difference but
this supports my claims regarding your prejudice(s)....I just checked
again and I note that you've even quoted me saying "not much" as
opposed to your made up "know nothing" bullshit.

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

True but I'm asking for the relevance.

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.

Ad hominem...deal with the point please.

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.

laughter

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.

Ah yes...which ones please?

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.

You say that like its a bad thing.

I'm sure you'll stop sounding like an undergraduate at some stage.

In your opinion. As it happens I have a Post Graduate Diploma as well
as a B.Sc.

Perhaps when you become an adult.

Ad hominem.

I'm 40, my house is almost freehold, I've been married for 6 years...

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 =----

In article , Someone else
wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote:


I'm sure the procurement agents in those days were quite competent

What makes you so confident of that?


There were reports and inquiries on a regular basis, particularly once
young Pitt became prime minister and a new fleet was built. A lot of the
paperwork has survived and has been collated by people like Aspinal.

Jochen

--

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:23:31 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"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.

Ad populum...

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.

Ah well...you're just going to have to cope then aren't you?

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"

This is usenet, not an undergrad essay topic...

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.

laughter

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.

Here tis, I've begun to answer the OPs question...here, for your
reading pleasure I'll go on further to suggest that the concrete
industry in Ireland has a fair amount to answer for...one thing that
you may, or may not appreciate about Ireland is the way politics, in
the 26 counties works...its not as straight forward as one might
think...there are 'behind the scenes' exchanges of funds...as you may
note recently with the resignation of Bertie Ahern:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../03/dl0302.xml

"The ignominious manner of Bertie Ahern's surprise departure from
office, tarnished by allegations of financial impropriety..."

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).

I get your point but I'm not replying to the bit about British
countrysides...I don't have to...this is usenet.

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.

I get your point but I'm not replying to the bit about British
countrysides...I don't have to...this is usenet.

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.

The real reasons why they aren't are likely to be much more
complicated than someone who's never lived in Ireland might think. A
significant factor has to be population density...the places where the
population isn't so dense e.g. the Burren aren't particularly
hospitable to trees.

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 you considered the possibility that I've been having you on all
along?

Have a nice day

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

Hurrah!

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 =----

Someone else wrote:
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.

What do you think I'm going to find there?

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....

Estates were given to him by the Queen. I'm sorry, but Raleigh didn't
"conquer" them. If you have a problem it's with the Queen, not with
Raleigh.

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.

What does 1588 have to do with anything?

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
=----

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

Someone else wrote:
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.

So you're saying that the Normans should give England back to the
Anglo Saxons?


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

Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:40:29 -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

At that reference it says:

"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)."

Brown, Terry. "Wood in Development of Civilization."
[http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/fo...velopment.pdf]

Which supports my allegation that Ireland was rapidly deforested
during the time that Britain invaded and occupied.

Game, set and match Mr Merrick.

I made that same comment and you told me to "reread what I had
posted". Are you by any chance a loon?

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

On May 11, 1:14*am, Taig & Charlie wrote:
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.


I did not see him do it either; I am just assuming he must have; it
would be exactly the kind of oppressive thing he would have done.
Before the troubles, only 13.4% of NI trees were native.

T & C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

They did.
....

They certainly did. I'm sure another one will be along shortly.
--


J/

SOTW: "Let's Impeach The President" - Neil Young

www.tolife.shadowcat.name