Re: Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:23:59 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 be given>
wrote:

>"Someone else" <republican_remove_spam_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl <jl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>>> I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the
>>>british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ****ps.
>>
>> I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period
>> because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage
>> done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation
>> of Ireland...
>
>You really do have a problem.

In your opinion.

>  You answer questions not asked and make 
>repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never
there 
>in the first place.
>
>In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you
are 
>answering a question that were NEVER asked.

Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that?

>  There has been NO such question 
>except presumably in your own mind!  You have decided to take a contrary 
>view to what other people have chosen to post, but your contrariness does

>not mean that any question has ever been asked nor does it mean that your

>posts are relevant to the OPs interest.

Is there some law that specifies that in usenet I must repeatedly
refer to the original poster's point?

For the fun of it, here is the OPs posting:

"TV do***entaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in
those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative
scarcity of trees.  Is it climate?  Too windy in Ireland?  Sheep
and/or other livestock?

My answer is that Ireland was once heavily forested but has been
deforested and that the English ruling class, historically, were the
proximate cause of that deforestation.

>Reread the OPs post and do TRY (as difficult as you clearly find it) to
read 
>for comprehension.

Forget the attempts to patronise...and here it is...again...the OP's
post:

"TV do***entaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in
those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees.  Is it climate?
Too windy in Ireland?  Sheep and/or other livestock?"

I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in Ireland
nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted
for JFK's visit for example.

>  Do note especially the subject header which includes 
>more than Ireland.

Yeah, so?

>The OP observed that TV do***entaries and travelogues revealed lush
'green' 
>but a scarcity of trees in both Ireland AND Britain.

So?

>The OP wanted to know WHY there were no trees and since you seem to have 
>missed the point, the mention of TV do***entaries and travelogues places
the 
>OPs interest in our current time.  It is about the here and the now, not 
>something that took place at the time of the Spanish Armada.  The OPs 
>interest also extends beyond just Ireland.

Right. I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in
Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum
planted for JFK's visit for example.

The reasons why the trees aren't being replanted now are questions for
the Irish government and private land owners.

Have a nice day
Nik


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----