On Dec 7, 5:55*pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything had you not fed
the troll.

I have to admit not reading all that stuff, actually, none of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity; Darn it, I
all confused now.

URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading all that stuff, actually, none of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity; Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they? They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems, I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

On Dec 9, 10:22*pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
URG only.



aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading *all that stuff, actually, none of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity; Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they? They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems, I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...tems-sick.html

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is different "
Weeds of disease."

On Dec 11, 9:21*pm, Janet wrote:
In article 91510494-4ca0-46b7-9d74-9bffed89f634
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com,
says...





On Dec 9, 10:22*pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading *all that stuff, actually, none of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity; Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they? They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems, I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ies-makes-ecos...

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is different "
Weeds of disease."

* *What that article does NOT say, is that weeds are harbingers of plant
diseases that infect other non-plant species. It just says, that where
you have a lot of one species in close proximity, any infections are
likely to affect the rest of the colony.

* *Janet

"Instead Keesing's team found that resilient "weed" species that
survive where other species might not, such as mice and ryegrass, also
happen to be the best reservoirs for infection. She believes this is
because weed species tend to live fast and die young, putting their
energy into rapid growth and reproduction instead of immunity.

There are too many examples of both plants and animals for this to be
just coincidence, she says.

Diseases of wildlife can jump to people. We need to find landscapes
that maintain enough biodiversity to keep a lid on them, Keesing
says."

So, certain "weed species" (plant and animal) happen to be the best
reservoirs for infection and disease from "wildlife" can jump to
people.

Context, inclusive of the use of the word "landscape" kinda implies
that such certain "weed", which include plants, are harbingers of
plant diseases that infect other non-plant species.

See why it seemed confusing?

If you take "weeds" to mean plants which can multiply quickly and crowd out other plants rather than simply plants that you haven't planted yourself, then the growth of weeds will lead to a loss of diversity: the aim of nettles or japanese knotweed is to produce a monoculture.

It sounds like an oversimplification. Things like hairy bittercress will flower and set seed very quickly, but a bramble spreads mainly vegetatively. Does the author mean that plants like the bramble grow quickly to a size where they can put out runners?

On Dec 12, 11:51*pm, Janet wrote:
In article 8f6561fa-2ac1-4e4b-bdf0-8d1900a3c3e6
@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com,
says...





On Dec 11, 9:21*pm, Janet wrote:
In article 91510494-4ca0-46b7-9d74-9bffed89f634
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com,
says...

On Dec 9, 10:22*pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading *all that stuff, actually, none of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity; Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they? They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems, I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ies-makes-ecos...

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is different "
Weeds of disease."

* *What that article does NOT say, is that weeds are harbingers of plant
diseases that infect other non-plant species. It just says, that where
you have a lot of one species in close proximity, any infections are
likely to affect the rest of the colony.

* *Janet

"Instead Keesing's team found that resilient "weed" species that
survive where other species might not, such as mice and ryegrass, also
happen to be the best reservoirs for infection. She believes this is
because weed species tend to live fast and die young, putting their
energy into rapid growth and reproduction instead of immunity.

There are too many examples of both plants and animals for this to be
just coincidence, she says.

Diseases of wildlife can jump to people. We need to find landscapes
that maintain enough biodiversity to keep a lid on them, Keesing
says."

So, *certain "weed species" (plant and animal) happen to be the best
reservoirs for infection

* Animal to animal, plant to plant. Not, animal to plant, plant to
animal.

and disease from "wildlife" can jump to
people.

* *Some diseases/infections/parasites of animals (wild or not) can
infect people; that's *hardly a new discovery.

*It does not imply, that diseases of plants ( weeds or cultivated) are
also infectious to people or can jump to people.

* *Janet

"Wildlife" does not include plants?

On Dec 14, 12:18*am, Janet wrote:
In article 3194635f-9bae-4ddc-a7ab-
,
says...





On Dec 12, 11:51*pm, Janet wrote:
In article 8f6561fa-2ac1-4e4b-bdf0-8d1900a3c3e6
@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com,
says...

On Dec 11, 9:21*pm, Janet wrote:
In article 91510494-4ca0-46b7-9d74-9bffed89f634
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com,
says...

On Dec 9, 10:22*pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading *all that stuff, actually, none of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity; Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they? They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems, I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ies-makes-ecos...

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is different "
Weeds of disease."

* *What that article does NOT say, is that weeds are harbingers of plant
diseases that infect other non-plant species. It just says, that where
you have a lot of one species in close proximity, any infections are
likely to affect the rest of the colony.

* *Janet

"Instead Keesing's team found that resilient "weed" species that
survive where other species might not, such as mice and ryegrass, also
happen to be the best reservoirs for infection. She believes this is
because weed species tend to live fast and die young, putting their
energy into rapid growth and reproduction instead of immunity.

There are too many examples of both plants and animals for this to be
just coincidence, she says.

Diseases of wildlife can jump to people. We need to find landscapes
that maintain enough biodiversity to keep a lid on them, Keesing
says."

So, *certain "weed species" (plant and animal) happen to be the best
reservoirs for infection

* Animal to animal, plant to plant. Not, animal to plant, plant to
animal.

and disease from "wildlife" can jump to
people.

* *Some diseases/infections/parasites of animals (wild or not) can
infect people; that's *hardly a new discovery.

*It does not imply, that diseases of plants ( weeds or cultivated) are
also infectious to people or can jump to people.

* *Janet

"Wildlife" does not include plants?

* Not in the context of diseases jumping from plants to people. It's
just sloppy English.

* * Janet

Sloppy English? Perhaps you mean you disagree with the author, gieven
th

The author is quite specific; Certain "weed" species are alleged to be
reservoirs for infection. A theory is offered to explain that.
Particular examples of "weed" species are given.
These are both animal and plant.

And then a crystal clear statement is made: "Diseases of wildlife can
jump to people."

Sloppy English or not, that clearly indicates what I have already said
it implies.

On Dec 14, 12:18*am, Janet wrote:
In article 3194635f-9bae-4ddc-a7ab-
,
says...





On Dec 12, 11:51*pm, Janet wrote:
In article 8f6561fa-2ac1-4e4b-bdf0-8d1900a3c3e6
@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com,
says...

On Dec 11, 9:21*pm, Janet wrote:
In article 91510494-4ca0-46b7-9d74-9bffed89f634
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com,
says...

On Dec 9, 10:22*pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading *all that stuff, actually, none of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity; Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they? They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems, I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ies-makes-ecos...

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is different "
Weeds of disease."

* *What that article does NOT say, is that weeds are harbingers of plant
diseases that infect other non-plant species. It just says, that where
you have a lot of one species in close proximity, any infections are
likely to affect the rest of the colony.

* *Janet

"Instead Keesing's team found that resilient "weed" species that
survive where other species might not, such as mice and ryegrass, also
happen to be the best reservoirs for infection. She believes this is
because weed species tend to live fast and die young, putting their
energy into rapid growth and reproduction instead of immunity.

There are too many examples of both plants and animals for this to be
just coincidence, she says.

Diseases of wildlife can jump to people. We need to find landscapes
that maintain enough biodiversity to keep a lid on them, Keesing
says."

So, *certain "weed species" (plant and animal) happen to be the best
reservoirs for infection

* Animal to animal, plant to plant. Not, animal to plant, plant to
animal.

and disease from "wildlife" can jump to
people.

* *Some diseases/infections/parasites of animals (wild or not) can
infect people; that's *hardly a new discovery.

*It does not imply, that diseases of plants ( weeds or cultivated) are
also infectious to people or can jump to people.

* *Janet

"Wildlife" does not include plants?

* Not in the context of diseases jumping from plants to people. It's
just sloppy English.

* * Janet

Sloppy English?

It plainly states that certain "weed" species are reservoirs for
infection.
A theory for that is given. It's in plain English.
Two example of these "weed" species are offered?
These are plant and animal.
So far, the English seems fine to me.

A very straight forward statement follows: "Diseases of wildlife can
jump to people."

In the context of the two examples of disease reservoirs given, this
"wildlife" is both plant and animal.
It's in plain English.
At the very least, it implies what I have already said it implies.

You offer a context that is actually contrary to what is given, in
plain English.

You clearly disagree with what is said, and you might be right, but
that doesn't change what was written.

"aquachimp" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 12:18 am, Janet wrote:
In article 3194635f-9bae-4ddc-a7ab-
,
says...





On Dec 12, 11:51 pm, Janet wrote:
In article 8f6561fa-2ac1-4e4b-bdf0-8d1900a3c3e6
@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com,
says...

On Dec 11, 9:21 pm, Janet wrote:
In article 91510494-4ca0-46b7-9d74-9bffed89f634
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com,

says...

On Dec 9, 10:22 pm, "Mike Lyle"

wrote:
URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything
had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading all that stuff, actually, none
of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very
recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how
lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a
conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers
of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity
in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity;
Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the
ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild
plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they?
They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but
of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large
monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because
of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a
population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems,
I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ies-makes-ecos...

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is
different "
Weeds of disease."

What that article does NOT say, is that weeds are harbingers of
plant
diseases that infect other non-plant species. It just says, that
where
you have a lot of one species in close proximity, any infections
are
likely to affect the rest of the colony.

Janet

"Instead Keesing's team found that resilient "weed" species that
survive where other species might not, such as mice and ryegrass,
also
happen to be the best reservoirs for infection. She believes this is
because weed species tend to live fast and die young, putting their
energy into rapid growth and reproduction instead of immunity.

There are too many examples of both plants and animals for this to
be
just coincidence, she says.

Diseases of wildlife can jump to people. We need to find landscapes
that maintain enough biodiversity to keep a lid on them, Keesing
says."

So, certain "weed species" (plant and animal) happen to be the best
reservoirs for infection

Animal to animal, plant to plant. Not, animal to plant, plant to
animal.

and disease from "wildlife" can jump to
people.

Some diseases/infections/parasites of animals (wild or not) can
infect people; that's hardly a new discovery.

It does not imply, that diseases of plants ( weeds or cultivated) are
also infectious to people or can jump to people.

Janet

"Wildlife" does not include plants?

Not in the context of diseases jumping from plants to people. It's
just sloppy English.

Janet

Sloppy English?

It plainly states that certain "weed" species are reservoirs for
infection.
A theory for that is given. It's in plain English.
Two example of these "weed" species are offered?
These are plant and animal.
So far, the English seems fine to me.

A very straight forward statement follows: "Diseases of wildlife can
jump to people."

In the context of the two examples of disease reservoirs given, this
"wildlife" is both plant and animal.
It's in plain English.
At the very least, it implies what I have already said it implies.

You offer a context that is actually contrary to what is given, in
plain English.

You clearly disagree with what is said, and you might be right, but
that doesn't change what was written.

.................................................. ..........................................

I love the way that on this newsgroup there is no 'pruning' ;-))

Mike



--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................

ps
Can I go to top posting when there is a long thread?

:-))))))))))))))

Mike

--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................




"'Mike'" wrote in message
...

"aquachimp" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 12:18 am, Janet wrote:
In article 3194635f-9bae-4ddc-a7ab-
,
says...





On Dec 12, 11:51 pm, Janet wrote:
In article 8f6561fa-2ac1-4e4b-bdf0-8d1900a3c3e6
@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com,
says...

On Dec 11, 9:21 pm, Janet wrote:
In article 91510494-4ca0-46b7-9d74-9bffed89f634
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com,

says...

On Dec 9, 10:22 pm, "Mike Lyle"

wrote:
URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything
had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading all that stuff, actually, none
of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very
recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how
lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a
conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers
of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity
in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity;
Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the
ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild
plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they?
They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but
of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large
monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because
of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a
population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems,
I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ies-makes-ecos...

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is
different "
Weeds of disease."

What that article does NOT say, is that weeds are harbingers of
plant
diseases that infect other non-plant species. It just says, that
where
you have a lot of one species in close proximity, any infections
are
likely to affect the rest of the colony.

Janet

"Instead Keesing's team found that resilient "weed" species that
survive where other species might not, such as mice and ryegrass,
also
happen to be the best reservoirs for infection. She believes this
is
because weed species tend to live fast and die young, putting their
energy into rapid growth and reproduction instead of immunity.

There are too many examples of both plants and animals for this to
be
just coincidence, she says.

Diseases of wildlife can jump to people. We need to find landscapes
that maintain enough biodiversity to keep a lid on them, Keesing
says."

So, certain "weed species" (plant and animal) happen to be the best
reservoirs for infection

Animal to animal, plant to plant. Not, animal to plant, plant to
animal.

and disease from "wildlife" can jump to
people.

Some diseases/infections/parasites of animals (wild or not) can
infect people; that's hardly a new discovery.

It does not imply, that diseases of plants ( weeds or cultivated) are
also infectious to people or can jump to people.

Janet

"Wildlife" does not include plants?

Not in the context of diseases jumping from plants to people. It's
just sloppy English.

Janet

Sloppy English?

It plainly states that certain "weed" species are reservoirs for
infection.
A theory for that is given. It's in plain English.
Two example of these "weed" species are offered?
These are plant and animal.
So far, the English seems fine to me.

A very straight forward statement follows: "Diseases of wildlife can
jump to people."

In the context of the two examples of disease reservoirs given, this
"wildlife" is both plant and animal.
It's in plain English.
At the very least, it implies what I have already said it implies.

You offer a context that is actually contrary to what is given, in
plain English.

You clearly disagree with what is said, and you might be right, but
that doesn't change what was written.

.................................................. .........................................

I love the way that on this newsgroup there is no 'pruning' ;-))

Mike



--

...................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
...................................

"'Mike'" wrote in message
news
ps
Can I go to top posting when there is a long thread?

:-))))))))))))))

Mike

Please do not bother again - as I said some weeks ago ---snip Please

Pete ))))))))))))))))))

But Pete, people on this newsgroup either don't know how to snip, or like
long threads :-((

Are you to deprave them of that pleasure ;-)

Mike
;-)

--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................




"Pete" wrote in message
...


"'Mike'" wrote in message
news
ps
Can I go to top posting when there is a long thread?

:-))))))))))))))

Mike

Please do not bother again - as I said some weeks ago ---snip Please

Pete ))))))))))))))))))

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
But Pete, people on this newsgroup either don't know how to snip, or like
long threads :-((

Are you to deprave them of that pleasure ;-)

Mike

But top posting is more ignorant than the two other sins you mention.
Please stop it, or I may sinfully shout (:-(

Do you not mean deny - not deprave -- makes more sense (:-)

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

"Pete" wrote in message
news


"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
But Pete, people on this newsgroup either don't know how to snip, or like
long threads :-((

Are you to deprave them of that pleasure ;-)

Mike

But top posting is more ignorant than the two other sins you mention.
Please stop it, or I may sinfully shout (:-(

Do you not mean deny - not deprave -- makes more sense (:-)

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

Did you miss the .. ;-) .. ?

'a' substituting the 'i' intentionally ;-)

Mike



--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................