Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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?
__________________
getstats - A society in which our lives and choices are enriched by an understanding of statistics. Go to www.getstats.org.uk for more information |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
"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. .................................... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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. ................................... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
"'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 )))))))))))))))))) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
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 )))))))))))))))))) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
"'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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
White Lies - where do we get all these cancers, allergies etc? pt1
"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. .................................... |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crimson Bottlebrush and allergies? | Australia | |||
pine pollen cones similar to apple-cedar rust ; new book: Cancers ofa species as a major source of "new microbes into the world" | Plant Science | |||
Fescue and allergies | Lawns | |||
Allergies to orchids (was: This Orchid Stinks) | Orchids | |||
lies about WMD, lies about the greenhouse effect | sci.agriculture |