In article ,
"BAC" writes:
| "Malcolm" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Your comment was: "How do they know it's a "native" species?"
|
| That was claptrap based on total ignorance - a common occurrence in
| your postings.
|
| I can't remember - did you actually answer Angus's question about the
| newly identified species?
|
| It doesn't need an answer. Think about it for a moment, something Angus
| clearly hasn't done.
|
| I don't need to think about it, but then, I didn't ask the question. If you
| believe the question was founded in ignorance, it would perhaps have been
| helpful to explain why, and to attempt to dispel the ignorance, by answering
| the question.

Agreed, but remember who DID ask the question. If you feel capable of
dispelling Angus's ignorance, please go ahead. I have tried too often
before, with no success.

Actually, I should be vaguely interested in the answer, but could easily
enough find out if I chase up what SORT of an insect it is and where its
nearest relatives are located. But, as I have said, the classification
of "native" in a UK context is pretty meaningless, unless it is covered
by a caveat saying precisely what meaning it has been given in that
particular context.

Note that, as an answer to Angus, the above paragraph could be rephrased
as "That is not a question." I.e. in strict logic, a question is well-
formed only if all preciates it includes are true and well-defined; the
term "native" is not, therefore it is not a question.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
(Nick Maclaren) writes:
|
| formed only if all preciates it includes are true and well-defined; the
predicates


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
| "Malcolm" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Your comment was: "How do they know it's a "native" species?"
|
| That was claptrap based on total ignorance - a common occurrence
in
| your postings.
|
| I can't remember - did you actually answer Angus's question about
the
| newly identified species?
|
| It doesn't need an answer. Think about it for a moment, something
Angus
| clearly hasn't done.
|
| I don't need to think about it, but then, I didn't ask the question. If
you
| believe the question was founded in ignorance, it would perhaps have
been
| helpful to explain why, and to attempt to dispel the ignorance, by
answering
| the question.

Agreed, but remember who DID ask the question. If you feel capable of
dispelling Angus's ignorance, please go ahead. I have tried too often
before, with no success.

Perhaps you have, but it was Malcolm O's reluctance to address the alleged
ignorance I was questioning. The point I was hinting at was that Angus and
Malcolm rarely debate or discuss with each other, they duel, verbally.


Actually, I should be vaguely interested in the answer, but could easily
enough find out if I chase up what SORT of an insect it is and where its
nearest relatives are located. But, as I have said, the classification
of "native" in a UK context is pretty meaningless, unless it is covered
by a caveat saying precisely what meaning it has been given in that
particular context.

Interesting point - if speciation of an 'alien' species occurs in the UK,
would the 'new' species be regarded as 'native' to the UK (or rather to that
part of the UK where the speciation occurred). And are phenotypes of
'aliens', specific to the UK, 'native' or 'alien'?


Note that, as an answer to Angus, the above paragraph could be rephrased
as "That is not a question." I.e. in strict logic, a question is well-
formed only if all preciates it includes are true and well-defined; the
term "native" is not, therefore it is not a question.



It is a question, even if it may not be 'well formed'. I agree 'nativeness'
of species is merely an arbitrary classification. As is 'species' itself,
come to think of it.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
(Nick Maclaren) writes:
|
| formed only if all preciates it includes are true and well-defined; the
predicates



Thanks - I assumed that was what was intended :-)

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Interesting point - if speciation of an 'alien' species occurs in the UK,
| would the 'new' species be regarded as 'native' to the UK (or rather to that
| part of the UK where the speciation occurred). And are phenotypes of
| 'aliens', specific to the UK, 'native' or 'alien'?

A damn good question, considering that both exist! I have asked the former
before to people who were blithering on about nativeness (and, no, I don't
mean the BNP), but they evaded the question.

One good example of the latter is the common or garden rabbit.

| It is a question, even if it may not be 'well formed'.

Only to a linguist - not to a logician :-)

| I agree 'nativeness'
| of species is merely an arbitrary classification. As is 'species' itself,
| come to think of it.

Yup.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , BAC
writes

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , BAC
writes

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article ,
writes
On 14 Jun 2006 08:23:27 GMT, (Nick Maclaren)
wrote:


In article ,
writes:
|
| How do you work all that out? What of my postings is
claptrap?
|
| Let's get into specifics.

Because I have some knowledge of biology, ecology and economics.
And
they all are, in toto, with (as far as I have been able to tell)
the
two exceptional points I referred to earlier.

I have given you enough time, so shall not respond further.


I see. So you say my posts are claptrap but when asked to explain
why,
you can't.

This is typical of the response of those who support fake
conservation
but when asked to be specific can't come up with the goods.

I suppose it's a lot easier to shoot the messenger than argue the
points. So far everyone has missed :-))

A good example of your claptrap was your response to the recent
report
of an insect discovered on Cairngorm which was new to science.

Your comment was: "How do they know it's a "native" species?"

That was claptrap based on total ignorance - a common occurrence in
your
postings.


I can't remember - did you actually answer Angus's question about the
newly
identified species?

It doesn't need an answer. Think about it for a moment, something Angus
clearly hasn't done.


I don't need to think about it, but then, I didn't ask the question. If
you
believe the question was founded in ignorance, it would perhaps have been
helpful to explain why, and to attempt to dispel the ignorance, by
answering
the question.

Have you not noticed that Angus prefers to be ignorant? Even when you
tell him things he conveniently "forgets" them if they don't fit with
his agenda, so that he can trot out his misinformation again and again.


Obviously, I've noticed he fails (or declines) to accept the accuracy or
truth of some points or explanations put to him, but doesn't the fact he has
been made aware of those points or explanations clear him of the charge of
'ignorance'? He holds dissenting views, just as, for example, do those who
dispute the Darwinian model of evolution, not out of lack of knowledge of
that with which they disagree, but, as you say, out of an over-riding belief
in their 'agenda'.

However, if you are declining to answer his queries because you believe he
prefers it that way, I salute you :-)