Re: Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

"Someone else" <republican_remove_spam_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> On Sun, "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.

Yes, but I note that I'm not the only one with that 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?

viz: "I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland..."

You wrote that.  No question about the deforestation of Ireland has been 
asked in this thread.  You may choose to dribble on about it but it was
not 
asked.

>>  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?

Only the sort of 'law' any competent undergraduates should know.  It works

like this: "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? 
Discuss"

Read the statement, understand what the statement is about, do research on

the topic, decide which information is pertinent, write a response and 
provide evidence to sup****t your stance.

You would rate a fail because you didn't understand the statement and went

on to discuss something unrelated.

> 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.

And that answer is irrelevant and simply harps back to your failure to 
comprehend that the OP is interested in the current time.  The interest is

NOT about deforestation. Trees can be grown in 80 years or less.  How long

has it been since the Armada sailed?

>>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?

If your lecturers are right about your reading abilities, you wouldn't
need 
me to explain.  I don't spoon feed (your lecturers might).

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

Try reading the subject header and try remembering how often you mentioned

any lack of trees in Britain.

>>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...

Of course they could.

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.

See, you can understand the statement when pushed to do so.

> Have a nice day

Thank you.  So far I've had an expemplary day and it will shortly get even

better.