"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in
message
...
In message . com,
La puce writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making)
are
a step beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly
innocent
of namecalling yourself.

Do you want to see the emails she has sent me?


No.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Thanks for saying that on my behalf as well, cos I only read and
never reply to some posters.

Thanks for the really productive discussion on what I had been naive
enough to imagine might have been an interesting subject, guys. I
believe our American cousins at this point say something like
"Sheesh!"

--
Mike.

If your American cousins say somethi9ng like "Sheesh" they must be females
cos the males use a far different set of words...H

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in
message
...
In message . com,
La puce writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making)
are
a step beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly
innocent
of namecalling yourself.

Do you want to see the emails she has sent me?


No.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Thanks for saying that on my behalf as well, cos I only read and
never reply to some posters.

Thanks for the really productive discussion on what I had been naive
enough to imagine might have been an interesting subject, guys. I
believe our American cousins at this point say something like
"Sheesh!"

--
Mike.


Mike -I thought the discussion was quite interesting with loads of useful
links.
You done better than me mate cos I am still waiting to hear about
"Importing plants from USA"--bugga

The message
from "Mike Lyle" contains these words:


Thanks for the really productive discussion on what I had been naive
enough to imagine might have been an interesting subject, guys.

On my server, there has been an extensive discussion of the subject
you raised. Since your name recurs throughout it seems unlikely you
missed it.

Plant import is not the only issue which has arisen during the course
of the discussion. As usual, there was lying garbage from a troll whose
only purpose was to disrupt, abuse and antagonise.

Some people here feel that the survival of this newsgroup is what makes
it possible to discuss any horticultural issue, and to that end it's
important to rebut troll attempts to disrupt threads and undermine the
group.Those who care about that, probably think "sheesh" every time you
naively encourage trolls by conversing with them, and help them evade
killfiles by quoting their drivel .

Janet

On 6/12/05 21:38, in article , "Rupert"
wrote:

snip
You done better than me mate cos I am still waiting to hear about
"Importing plants from USA"--bugga


Didn't you get an email from me with the name of Ray's agent who might be
able to help you find someone?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Janet Baraclough wrote:
The message
from "Mike Lyle" contains
these
words:


Thanks for the really productive discussion on what I had been
naive
enough to imagine might have been an interesting subject, guys.

On my server, there has been an extensive discussion of the
subject
you raised. Since your name recurs throughout it seems unlikely you
missed it.

Ah, I'll search GG. I've been away.

Plant import is not the only issue which has arisen during the
course of the discussion. As usual, there was lying garbage from a
troll whose only purpose was to disrupt, abuse and antagonise.

Some people here feel that the survival of this newsgroup is what
makes it possible to discuss any horticultural issue, and to that
end
it's important to rebut troll attempts to disrupt threads and
undermine the group.Those who care about that, probably think
"sheesh" every time you naively encourage trolls by conversing
with
them, and help them evade killfiles by quoting their drivel .

I don't think I replied to any trolls in this thread. I talked for a
while with one member who got impenetrably irrelevant, but I don't
think he's a troll.

--
Mike.

"Sacha" wrote in message
.uk...
On 6/12/05 21:38, in article , "Rupert"
wrote:

snip
You done better than me mate cos I am still waiting to hear about
"Importing plants from USA"--bugga


Didn't you get an email from me with the name of Ray's agent who might be
able to help you find someone?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

No I haven't got that. Strange because other email got through from your
address.Perhaps my mailwasher has become too aggressive.
So I have added *sacha*@* and I suppose I will now be bombed with spam from
South Australian Community Housing Authority.

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

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


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

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

You then turned round and claimed b)

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

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

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

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

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

To the best of my knowledge, _we_ don't. I said "people do". When we do
move animals, there are controls. The question is whether comparable
controls should be applied to plant movements; or, if such controls are
already in place, whether they are adequately enforced.

It would make no difference to the question if I were lying through my
teeth (which I'm not), or totally ignorant of the subject (which isn't
quite true).

..

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?

--

So Brazier, a mycologist I believe, isn't pitching for the job of
"Fungus Czar" then ?

A straight yes or no will do.

I haven't the slightest idea. On the whole, it seems rather unlikely.
But if he were, it wouldn't in itself make his opinions wrong. So,
sorry: no yes or no available.


"Tough on fungus tough on the causes of fungus" - imported plant material

Nobody cares about fungi - who wants to know about athletes foot,
potato blight, or black spot on roses. Clearly Brazier has been
facing an uphill struggle throughout his entire career.

I get the impression that he's rather successful.

Now his moment is come. The country faces invasion by foreign
pathogens. (All of a sudden)

It's quite obvious to me, if not to you the game Brazier is playing
here.

Well, no, it isn't at all obvious to me. You seem to know more about
the man than I do, so could you share your information, please?

I'm assuming that you aren't trolling, as many of your gardening
messages have been very sound; but I confess that you do seem to have
been trying to close down the discussion rather than contribute to it.
I'm going to switch off if your reply doesn't follow a chain of
relevant reasoning I can follow.

--
Mike.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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


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

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

You then turned round and claimed b)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Or are you saying you personally would?

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


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

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

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

....

When we do
move animals, there are controls.

....

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

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

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

....

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


....

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

....


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

....

You may do as you wish.

As to any "discussion", you have yet to supply one single argument or piece
of evidence provided either by Brazier, yourself, or anyone else as to why
the UK in 2005 should be particularly vulnerable to the importation of
foreign pathogens or pests. Any more so, than at any time in the past 500
years when she's been importing flora and fauna from around the Globe
with very few harmful consequences. With notable exceptions such
as New Zealand Flat Worms and elm bark beetles. Along with "unwelcome
"introductions such as grey squirrels to the U.K, and rabbits, cane toads,
and Europeans, to Australia. While if the New Zealand flatworm had been
palatable to European ground beetles and the like, then there'd have
been no problem in any case.

Given that we're appparently unable to import bananas without spiders
and other exotic fauna crawling out of them, and making their presence
known to supermarket shoppers - around one such "humorous" incident
per year according to the BBC News Website, I fail to see how any apparatus
can be put in place at reasonable expense, to protect the UK from the
importation of any as yet unrecognised pathogens and pests.



michael adams



--
Mike.

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

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

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


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

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

You then turned round and claimed b)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Or are you saying you personally would?

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


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

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

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


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


When we do
move animals, there are controls.

...

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

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

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

...

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


...

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

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


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

...

You may do as you wish.

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

Have a nice day.

--
Mike.