Nick Maclaren wrote:
No. The recent outbreak of Dutch elm disease was from timber
with bark on, not plants. Nobody knows what the cause of the
similar decline in paleo/meso/neo-lithic times was.

I have heard, sometimes last year, that they have recently found, 60
years later, a disease coming from the wood which made the american's
soldiers canteen box? This is apparently keeling many trees in Provence
- and spreading.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"*

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

(I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply
may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.)

I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about
sudden oak death,[...etc...]

I meant that.

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

That's a very strange claim to make, IMO.

a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around
the world anyway ?

Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I may
be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as NZ.

....

So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed importing
large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter,
despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease.

....


The main reasons why large numbers of animals aren't moved around
the
world is surely because of economics, practicality, and lack of
demand. Certainly since the decline in zoos and circuses in Europe.
So -

b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor
Brasier
suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in large
numbers for disease reasons?

To the best of my inexpert knowledge, _all_ species are subject to
strict import controls in _all_ developed nations with maritime
frontiers.

....

i.e The UK, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and er.....

The real irony being of course that if only the Native Americans
had applied similar restrictions to the European immigrants
and their accompanying plagues.....to which the latter had developed
resistance as a result of their proximity to domestic animals..
then the history might have been rather different.

In other words its o.k for Eupropeans to lay waste to much of the
rest of the world but not the other way around.

....


In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for
example, these measures can be positively draconian.


....

AFAIAA one has attempted to import large numbers of dogs all in one
go as most breeds of dogs are easily bred in captivity.

In the case of rabies, individual dogs are subject to quarantine
restrictions.



The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant imports
for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it isn't.

The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the movement
of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally irellevant.

Furthermore the fact that Professor Brasier implied that this was the only
factor preventing the movement of large numbers of animals around the world,
when in fact it plainly isn't casts doubt on everything else he has to say.

....


It's maybe worth bearing in mind that Professor Brewer*'s
livelihood
depends,
among other things on convincing people of all these dangers. As
professionals
like himself are uniquely positioned to adjudicate on such matters
should the need ever arise.

Well, yes, to a point. I doubt if many microbiologists' livelihoods
depend significantly on scaring people unnecessarily: that's
generally the province of the more irresponsible journalists. I think
once again of MRSA and MMR.

....

Nobody forces microbiologists to talk to journalists. And equally
scare stories are a staple of the media. Whatever hapened to bird
flu all of a sudden, now that we're all going to run out of gas
this winter instead.

Politicians,as well as microbiologists and the media have as big
an interest in scaring people unecessarily. Unless you can think
of a better reason why the U.K still needs Polaris submarines
aremed with Trident missiles on 24 hr standbye,patrollong the oceans
of the world.

Oh sorry! Those are to prevent terrorists from stealing any radioactive
material from all these Nuclear Power Stations, Tony's now convinced
we're going to need all of a sudden. Hence the need for the I.D cards.

Joined-up government at last!

....




...


Brasier, as I mentioned in another post, has just presented a
paper
on the subject at a DEFRA-backed RHS conference. He may be wrong;
but
that doesn't make the issue trivial, or liable to summary
dismissal
by minor verbal debating points.

...

And so presumably in the interests of seriousness, and as an
antidote
to triviality it's thought preferable to make oblique references to
" a paper", and cite vague Appeals to Authority by means of
mentions
of Professor Brasier, DEFRA, and the RHS, than it is to actually
provide
a link to the talk in question ? To wit -

http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=48617

That isn't the original, but only the _Independent_ article. See
below.


Maybe Professor Brewer *, who you appear to find yourself in
agreement
with, made a "minor verbal debating point" there himself, in the
paper
he gave to the DEFRA backed RHS conference, with his reference
there
to our "not moving large numbers of animals around the world for
disease reasons" ?

See comment above: I imagine you now see that comparison between the
biosecurity regimes applying respectively to animals and plants is
perfectly legitimate. You don't have to agree with any particular
conclusion, but the comparison is legitimate.
[...]

....

Not really no. Compared with the potential catastrophe ( in a purely
technical rather than judgemental sense you understand )which awaits the
planet within the next 100 years I find worries about possible invasion
of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark
beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much moving
the deck chairs on the Titanic.

....



I'm surprised and a little disappointed by what I take to be your
tone here. I asked a question, at the same time making it explicit
that I didn't know the answer. I used the expressions "I wonder if"
and "perhaps minor risk". I didn't refer to the _Independent_
article, because newspaper pieces, even from "broadsheets", aren't
first-hand evidence. I didn't have a reference to the original paper,
and I still haven't found one. Here, though, from long before the
conference, is a brief summary of his own and Brasier's positions
from the Master of Katz Cambridge in the RHS's _Plantsman_:
http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publi...05/opinion.asp

_The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical
periodical.


....

Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html

quote

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather
· Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade

/quote


michael adams





--
Mike.

michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"*

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

(I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply
may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.)

I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about
sudden oak death,[...etc...]

I meant that.

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

That's a very strange claim to make, IMO.

a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around
the world anyway ?

Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I
may
be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as
NZ.

...

So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed
importing
large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter,
despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease.

You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be
against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic
reasons.

When Brasier said "we", I assume he meant the United Kingdom in
particular, as he was addressing a British audience.

...
[...]
b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor
Brasier
suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in
large
numbers for disease reasons?

To the best of my inexpert knowledge, _all_ species are subject to
strict import controls in _all_ developed nations with maritime
frontiers.

i.e The UK, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and er.....

....and, er...almost all the others. I imagine similar regimes are
also in force in Switzerland and the landlocked Danube countries.

[...]

In other words its o.k for Eupropeans to lay waste to much of the
rest of the world but not the other way around.

Eh?


In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for
example, these measures can be positively draconian.


...

AFAIAA one has attempted to import large numbers of dogs all in one
go as most breeds of dogs are easily bred in captivity.

In the case of rabies, individual dogs are subject to quarantine
restrictions.

Er, yes, that _is_ what I had in mind.


The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant
imports
for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it
isn't.

Er, yes, again. That was what we were discussing.

The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the
movement
of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally
irellevant.

It was what I understand is known as an "analogy". It also shows that
such controls are possible.


Furthermore the fact that Professor Brasier implied that this was
the
only factor preventing the movement of large numbers of animals
around the world, when in fact it plainly isn't casts doubt on
everything else he has to say.

I fail to grasp your reasoning here.

[...]

Well, yes, to a point. I doubt if many microbiologists'
livelihoods
depend significantly on scaring people unnecessarily: that's
generally the province of the more irresponsible journalists. I
think
once again of MRSA and MMR.

...

Nobody forces microbiologists to talk to journalists.

Unless they want to promote a public debate. And this one appears to
have chosen his journalist with some care.

And equally
scare stories are a staple of the media. Whatever hapened to bird
flu all of a sudden, now that we're all going to run out of gas
this winter instead.

Scare stories are not, as far as I know, a staple of _The Plantsman_;
or, to be fair, of _the Independent_. We can talk about avian flu and
the gas-men's strike in another thread, if you like.


Politicians,as well as microbiologists and the media have as big
an interest in scaring people unecessarily. Unless you can think
of a better reason why the U.K still needs Polaris submarines
aremed with Trident missiles on 24 hr standbye,patrollong the
oceans
of the world.

Oh sorry! Those are to prevent terrorists from stealing any
radioactive material from all these Nuclear Power Stations, Tony's
now convinced
we're going to need all of a sudden. Hence the need for the I.D
cards.

Joined-up government at last!

Yes, nuclear weapons are stupid, and ID cards a waste of effort in
the prevention of terrorism. I can't join that up with biosecurity,
though.


[...]

See comment above: I imagine you now see that comparison between
the
biosecurity regimes applying respectively to animals and plants is
perfectly legitimate. You don't have to agree with any particular
conclusion, but the comparison is legitimate.
[...]

...

Not really no. Compared with the potential catastrophe ( in a
purely
technical rather than judgemental sense you understand )which
awaits
the planet within the next 100 years I find worries about possible
invasion
of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark
beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much
moving
the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Ah, well. If we're looking at the broad canvas, curing cancer and the
prevention of Altzheimer's disease don't really matter much, either.

[...]http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0305/opini
on.asp

_The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical
periodical.

Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.

Don't even bother to entertain that hope: they seem to swim faster
than I can run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html

quote

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more
extreme
weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in
next decade

/quote

Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something
else.

--
Mike.

random snippage throughout

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"*

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

(I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply
may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.)

I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about
sudden oak death,[...etc...]

I meant that.

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

That's a very strange claim to make, IMO.

a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around
the world anyway ?

Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I
may
be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as
NZ.

...

So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed
importing
large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter,
despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease.

You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be
against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic
reasons.

....

Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons.

It would obviously be more economic for them to import frozen carcasses
which had been slaughtered at source by non-Halal methods.

Which is why it's a particularly misleading example. Either way.

As without the trade in frozen carcasses, the Australian and New Zealand
meat trade probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

....


The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant
imports
for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it
isn't.

Er, yes, again. That was what we were discussing.

....

So why was it necessary for Professot Brasier to mention the export of
animals at all ?

....

The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the
movement
of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally
irellevant.

It was what I understand is known as an "analogy". It also shows that
such controls are possible.

....

There is no analogy, because the reasons why people don't move
large numbers of animals around the world has nothing to do with
their deciding against doing so for reasons of disease control.

And so the purported analogy is totaly misleading.

Muslims in the Middle East are more than happy to import large
numbers of live sheep, regardless of any health issues, because
they have specific religious requirements.

Until such time as people are prohibited from importing herds of
cattle or whatever into the U.K - and accept such a prohibition
without protest, we have no way of knowing whether such controls
are possible or not. Insofar as Britains "draconian" rabies
regulations are concerned

/quote

http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...0313/pets.html

For those who campaigned to change what former Hong Kong Governor
Chris Patten called preposterous rules, Feb. 28 was a historic day.
It was particularly satisfying for Lady Fretwell, the wife of Britain's
former ambassador to Paris, who since 1996 has spearheaded the Passports
for Pets campaign. Her cause was given a poignant boost in its first year,
when two dogs died in quarantine and their high-profile owners made a fuss

quote

Maybe if Chris Patten or Lady Fretwell got into livestock dealing
in a big way there's no telling what could happen.

....

of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark
beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much
moving
the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Ah, well. If we're looking at the broad canvas, curing cancer and the
prevention of Altzheimer's disease don't really matter much, either.

....

Since when has anyone ever died from an infestation of lilly beetles
or cane toads ?

The conditions you cited inflict real distress and actual suffering.

....


[...]http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0305/opini
on.asp

_The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical
periodical.

Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.

Don't even bother to entertain that hope: they seem to swim faster
than I can run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html

quote

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more
extreme
weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in
next decade

/quote

Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something
else.

....

Killer fungi.

Indeed.


michael adams

....






--
Mike.

In article , "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Rupert wrote:
[...]
Ok Mike I have now read all (I think) of the articles you mentioned
along with contributions from other speakers.
I can't see how you can say:-
"The RHS shares my concern"
The RHS have merely given a forum for a debate on a topic of
interest
to everyone.
I see no mention of the RHS supporting a particular view, which is
the way it should be.

Has anyone read "Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience",
by David I Theodoropoulos? I haven't myself but it seems to have
bearing on this debate. You can see details at
http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm
along with a few other, well, er, offbeat books.

J.L.Hudsons also appear to be a source of Gibberellic acid in small
quantities, though what happens when it comes through UK customs
I have no idea.

michael adams wrote:
random snippage throughout

"Mike Lyle"
[...]
You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be
against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic
reasons.

Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons.

Nope. The purchasers may be Muslims, but the exporters are doing it
for economic reasons.

[...]
weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in
next decade

/quote

Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something
else.

...

Killer fungi.

Indeed.


Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on the
importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity, but
it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to discuss
nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New
Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of gas-men,
or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in this
thread. There is no point in filibustering.

Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be
considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to. That's
fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any risk
there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine, too;
but I think it's reasonable to consider both.

--
Mike.

snip


Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on the
importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity, but
it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to discuss
nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New
Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of gas-men,
or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in this
thread. There is no point in filibustering.

Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be
considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to. That's
fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any risk
there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine, too;
but I think it's reasonable to consider both.

--
Mike.

Be far better to ban the importation of undesirable homo sapiens

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
random snippage throughout

"Mike Lyle"
[...]
You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be
against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic
reasons.

Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons.

Nope. The purchasers may be Muslims, but the exporters are doing it
for economic reasons.

....

It's possible restictions by importers that we're soleley
concerned with here.

The importers are the people who may or may not be introducing
new pathogens into their country. Who may or may not wish to impose
controls.

The exporting country already hosts any pathogens if such exist.

....


Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on the
importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity, but
it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to discuss
nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New
Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of gas-men,
or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in this
thread. There is no point in filibustering.

Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be
considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to. That's
fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any risk
there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine, too;
but I think it's reasonable to consider both.

--
Mike.


The following link was kindly provided in another post
by John McMillan



http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm


I quote selectively ( reference in the main is to the US)-

quote

A detailed analysis of the writings of these nativists reveals the
psychopathologies that drive this reactionary movement. Numerous
quotes are compared which demonstrate that the same fears that
underlie xenophobia, r*cism, and f*scism fuel the anti-invader
movement.

[...]

The hidden influence of the herbicide industry is exposed. The
regulatory industry and corporate interests are colluding in an
effort to leverage the fictitious "invasion crisis" into a system
of complete bureaucratic control of nature, and corporate
privatization of the earth's biological diversity.


/quote



michael adams

michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
random snippage throughout

"Mike Lyle"
[...]
You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be
against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic
reasons.

Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons.

Nope. The purchasers may be Muslims, but the exporters are doing
it
for economic reasons.

...

It's possible restictions by importers that we're soleley
concerned with here.

Well, as a matter of fact, on this particular side-issue it isn't.
That's why it's a side-issue. I'm quite willing to drop it.

The importers are the people who may or may not be introducing
new pathogens into their country. Who may or may not wish to impose
controls.

The exporting country already hosts any pathogens if such exist.

Oh, come on! You said it didn't take place, I showed that it did. I
did not, and you know I did not, comment on the import control
regimes of Middle-Eastern countries. Neither of these is relevant to
the question of import controls in the United Kingdom.
...


Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on
the
importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity,
but
it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to
discuss
nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New
Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of
gas-men,
or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in
this
thread. There is no point in filibustering.

Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be
considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to.
That's
fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any
risk
there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine,
too;
but I think it's reasonable to consider both.

--
Mike.


The following link was kindly provided in another post
by John McMillan



http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm


I quote selectively ( reference in the main is to the US)-

quote

A detailed analysis of the writings of these nativists reveals the
psychopathologies that drive this reactionary movement. Numerous
quotes are compared which demonstrate that the same fears that
underlie xenophobia, r*cism, and f*scism fuel the anti-invader
movement.

[...]

The hidden influence of the herbicide industry is exposed. The
regulatory industry and corporate interests are colluding in an
effort to leverage the fictitious "invasion crisis" into a system
of complete bureaucratic control of nature, and corporate
privatization of the earth's biological diversity.


/quote

I'm ready to believe it when I read the quoted material. But, having
worked in both environmental and anti-racist campaigns, I know that
exaggerated and even false claims are common on both sides of these
arguments. As are red herrings.

It seems unlikely to me that Professors Brasier and Ingram, and
perhaps even the editor of _The Plantsman_, have base motives; but if
you suggest it, you should be prepared to prove it. Your evidence?

--
Mike.

Janet Baraclough wrote:
My son is a rural vet

(snip)

I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your
great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious
old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when
in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing
with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've
hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire
attention.

In article .com, La
puce writes
I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your
great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious
old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when
in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing
with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've
hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire
attention.

You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad
as this - I will deal with this in the only way I can by now not
downloading anything more with your name on it - this is the first time
I have ever done this on usenet.
--
Judith Lea

"Judith Lea" wrote in message
...
In article .com, La
puce writes
I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your
great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious
old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when
in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing
with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've
hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire
attention.

You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad
as this - I will deal with this in the only way I can by now not
downloading anything more with your name on it - this is the first time
I have ever done this on usenet.

I'm going to join you, I feel it was an insult, and totally unneccessary.

Alan

--
Judith Lea

Judith Lea wrote:
You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad
as this

HO COME ON!!! Janet calls me all kind of names, she is abusive, she has
suddenly jumped on me regarding a discussion I was having and you don't
say anything because you're a coward but you prefer to email me tons of
emails from your dental surgery a few weeks ago because you didn't have
the guts to show you talked to me on the forum, describing Janet, Sacha
and even Mike. I'm glad you feel this way because frankly I can't be
dealing with people like you. You are an hypocrite.

Alan Holmes wrote:
I'm going to join you, I feel it was an insult, and totally unneccessary.

Shame.

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"Judith Lea" wrote in message
...
In article .com, La
puce writes
I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your
great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious
old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when
in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing
with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've
hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire
attention.

You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad
as this - I will deal with this in the only way I can by now not
downloading anything more with your name on it - this is the first time
I have ever done this on usenet.

I'm going to join you, I feel it was an insult, and totally unneccessary.

Alan

--
Judith Lea


Make that three (ish) --although I might read I will never write.