"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...

It was from one post earlier in the thread. Not as desperate as
quoting dictionary definitions of common words to defend your own
ignorance, if you don't mind me saying so.

Not at all Janet feel free. After all if I don't who else will?

Duck and dive, duck and dive.


quote

Wednesday, 29 October, 2003

Hedgehog cull 'had support'

A majority of people in Scotland supported the cull of hedgehogs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the Western Isles, independent research has suggested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3222567.stm

/quote



michael adams

....





Janet

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...

and similar micro-organisms by fungi etc evetually. Maybe excepting
bone etc. Bacteria and such like are essential for nitogen fixation.
It isn't a true cycle however because the whole process depends on
photosynthesis from sun-light which isn't returned to the Sun.

??????????????????????

Humen ( or any) corpses returned to the earthm are not dependent of
photosynthesis.


Oh yes they are!

Without plants dependent on photosynthesis, they'd have had nothing to eat.
There would be no corpses to start with. Either directly as herbivores,
as carnivores eating herbivores, or omnivores eating a bit of everything.
Then when they die ( which is the point I was actually making) their
bodies break down into the constituent carbon and for present
purposes more important microrganisms which promote nitrogen fixation
from the atmosphere. Where most of the nitrogen is. Without nitrogen
plants can't develop in order to photosynthesise. While the energy from
the Sun's rays which had been converted into plant matter via photosynthesis
had either formed coal or oil or other fossil fuel, or been eaten by animals
directly or indirectly and used as energy in moving around and breathing
etc. Grossly oversimplified but not inaccurate in any significant sense
I think you'll find. But all dependent on the Sun's rays, none of
which is ever returned, but has been dissapating ever since the Big Bang
allegedly.


There are rabbits birds foxes and deer in London parks which die and
crows magpies etc which would feed on the carrion. But in any case, you
said there was none in the UK, which is nonsense.

I know. I was fixated on the vultures for some reason


michael adams

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...


snip



They do fly around a bit as well, you see.


did you find that out by googling or did you deduce it from first
principles?

...

Surely that's immaterial for present purposes ?



My only purpose was to try to draw your attention to how silly this thread
is.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

snip

In any case, seeing to persuade others that needlessly incinerating
hedgehogs in bonfires is something to be avoided wherever possible,
is IMO, a good thing.

Quite right.


And provided no other harm is being done, giving the possibly mistaken
impression that the hedgehog's only real enemy is man, can do nothing
but inculcate feelings of heightened responsibilty in those with an
concern for animal welfare who might otherwise needlessly incinerate
hedgehogs simply through thoughtlesness. As it happens, IMO the OP
needed to be persuaded to rebuild her bonfire, but that's unlikely
to happen now.

What makes you think that? The OP should have learned that hedgehogs are in
peril generally, and taking steps to avoid killing them in her garden is, as
you say, 'a good thing'.


It's also as well to recognise the types of people you may come
across, on these NewsGroups

quote

Wednesday, 29 October, 2003

Hedgehog cull 'had support'

A majority of people in Scotland supported the cull of hedgehogs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the Western Isles, independent research has suggested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3222567.stm

/quote

hth


No, it doesn't - I don't understand your objective in quoting that
particular piece of 'spin'.

The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:

All organic matter that isn't burned is broken down into bacteria

and similar micro-organisms by fungi etc evetually.

Or to put it another way - (live) bacteria are created from (dead)
organic matter by fungi

Hmmm .... is this *really* what you meant to say?
--
Kay

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...


snip



They do fly around a bit as well, you see.


did you find that out by googling or did you deduce it from first
principles?

...

Surely that's immaterial for present purposes ?



My only purpose was to try to draw your attention to how silly this thread
is.


Did you find that out by googling or did you deduce it from first
principles?


michael adams

....

"BAC" wrote in message
...

As it happens, IMO the OP
needed to be persuaded to rebuild her bonfire, but that's unlikely
to happen now.

What makes you think that? The OP should have learned that
hedgehogs are in peril generally, and taking steps to avoid
killing them in her garden is, as you say, 'a good thing'.

Because the OP gave no indication of having taken cogniscance of
the very sound advice which had already been offered to her by Alan
Holmes - as quoted below. But merely acknowledged my somewhat whimsical
suggestion, that she should play loud music beside the intended bonfire

....

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

Light the bonfire in a different place and feed the new bonfire from
the old heap, I don't think it's wise to build a huge heap then set
light to it, you do not know how quickly, or slowly, it will burn,
apart from the problem of any animals which may have taken up residence.

Alan


....

This is UseNet and you are of course free to do exactly as you
wish and post whatever you wish within reason. Despite what other
people may try and tell you to the contrary. However in my own case
I would be most obliged if you took the trouble to read the thread
before asking detailed questions about particular posts of mine, as
the meaning is often dependent on the context. And my time is
just as valuable as yours, I would imagine.

Alan Holmes' was by far the best suggestion and contibution to
the thread IMO, something which you yourself and everyone else appear
to have ovelooked. As is often the case on UseNet of course.

hth


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

As it happens, IMO the OP
needed to be persuaded to rebuild her bonfire, but that's unlikely
to happen now.

What makes you think that? The OP should have learned that
hedgehogs are in peril generally, and taking steps to avoid
killing them in her garden is, as you say, 'a good thing'.

Because the OP gave no indication of having taken cogniscance of
the very sound advice which had already been offered to her by Alan
Holmes - as quoted below. But merely acknowledged my somewhat whimsical
suggestion, that she should play loud music beside the intended bonfire

snip

This is UseNet and you are of course free to do exactly as you
wish and post whatever you wish within reason. Despite what other
people may try and tell you to the contrary. However in my own case
I would be most obliged if you took the trouble to read the thread
before asking detailed questions about particular posts of mine, as
the meaning is often dependent on the context. And my time is
just as valuable as yours, I would imagine.

Well, thank you for explaining your reasoning. As it happens, I had read the
thread, and had seen nothing to suggest, to me, anyway, that the OP had
decided to ignore the advice proferred. Hence the request for clarification.
As you correctly imply, time is a precious commodity, and you may be assured
I don't usually waste it seeking clarification unless I consider it
interesting and necessary.


Alan Holmes' was by far the best suggestion and contibution to
the thread IMO, something which you yourself and everyone else appear
to have ovelooked. As is often the case on UseNet of course.


You mean, presumably, that unless 'everyone' posts a message expressing
their agreement with and admiration for Alan Holmes' contribution, they
should be assumed to have overlooked its merits.

An alternative explanation might be that those who read Alan's contribution
considered there was nothing further to be said on that aspect of the
thread.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

hth

No, it doesn't - I don't understand your objective in quoting that
particular piece of 'spin'.


There's a lot in life, as on Usenet unfortunately, which not all
of us will ever understand.

One word, Four letters. First letter "J", and its not "Jack".


Jeez ...

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:48:38 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote this (or the missive included this):


All organic matter that isn't burned is broken down into bacteria
and similar micro-organisms by fungi etc evetually


Result, not process, I think

--
®óñ© © ² * ¹°°³

"BAC" wrote in message
...

Alan Holmes' was by far the best suggestion and contibution to
the thread IMO, something which you yourself and everyone else appear
to have ovelooked. As is often the case on UseNet of course.


You mean, presumably, that unless 'everyone' posts a message expressing
their agreement with and admiration for Alan Holmes' contribution, they
should be assumed to have overlooked its merits.

....

No actually I don't.

It's quite possible to concur either wholly or partially, with
previously expressed advice - to wit "as other posters have already
suggested" or similar, and thus lend weight to one suggested course
of action, without necessarily singling out anything, or anyone,
"for admiration", in the process.

....


An alternative explanation might be that those who read Alan's
contribution considered there was nothing further to be said on
that aspect of the thread.

....

But that happened to be the sole subject matter of the thread.

Whether it was advisable to light a bonfire at present, and if not,
what were the best ways of preventing the accidental incineration
of hedgehogs, and by implication any other wildlife which might
have taken up residence, when a bonfire was eventually lit.

Alan Holmes' suggestion was by far the most appropriate IMO,
as I have already suggested. But it was also the one which would
have involved the OP in the greatest amount of trouble and effort
to implement. Hence the possible reluctance on the part of the OP,
in the absence of any further endorsement of such a course by
any other posters on the NewsGroup.

Everything else only served to obscure the basic issue IMO.




michael adams

....

"Ron Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:48:38 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote this (or the missive included this):


All organic matter that isn't burned is broken down into bacteria
and similar micro-organisms by fungi etc evetually


Result, not process, I think

Some might say its impossible to distinguish the two. Life in some
form or other is a continuum. The death of a higher organism - outside
of incineration at least, merely presents more opportunities for the
lower organisms which already inhabit the same host material. Or
at least its immediate locality. Micro-organisms of various kinds
bacteria, viruses, along with fungi etc can live alongside and
parasitise higher organisms both while they're still alive, while
maybe other strains will take over when they're dead.


michael adams

....






--
®óñ© © ² * ¹°°³

The message
from "michael adams" contains these words:


"BAC" wrote in message
...

Alan Holmes' was by far the best suggestion and contibution to
the thread IMO, something which you yourself and everyone else appear
to have ovelooked. As is often the case on UseNet of course.


You mean, presumably, that unless 'everyone' posts a message expressing
their agreement with and admiration for Alan Holmes' contribution, they
should be assumed to have overlooked its merits.

No actually I don't.

It's quite possible to concur either wholly or partially, with
previously expressed advice - to wit "as other posters have already
suggested" or similar, and thus lend weight to one suggested course
of action, without necessarily singling out anything, or anyone,
"for admiration", in the process.


An alternative explanation might be that those who read Alan's
contribution considered there was nothing further to be said on
that aspect of the thread.

But that happened to be the sole subject matter of the thread.

Whether it was advisable to light a bonfire at present, and if not,
what were the best ways of preventing the accidental incineration
of hedgehogs, and by implication any other wildlife which might
have taken up residence, when a bonfire was eventually lit.

Alan Holmes' suggestion was by far the most appropriate IMO,
as I have already suggested. But it was also the one which would
have involved the OP in the greatest amount of trouble and effort
to implement. Hence the possible reluctance on the part of the OP,
in the absence of any further endorsement of such a course by
any other posters on the NewsGroup.

The OP was in fact somewhat convinced by Alan Holmes suggestion and
feeling rather guiltily that if at all possible she should make the
required effort.

Janet G

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...


My only purpose was to try to draw your attention to how
silly this thread is.


It's just a bit of harmless carrion on.


michael adams