Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:42:35 +0000
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:48:54 +0000, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <2jf322d0u4rh1hric53hqb6uif8n0ct9mk@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:09:09 +0000, Andy Mabbett
<usenet200309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <rj5122t2avs0hv0mo45t7em35bi6fu8dei@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
Equally valid it could be because such a well loved plant isn't actually
loved at all!
The website says it is.
*a* website says it is.
Good to see your research is up to its usual standards.
"The" website I referred to says it is.
So do the ones I refereed to which you were too scared to read and they
say different to your SINGLE quote.
I take it you are claiming to know better than the scientists who
clearly disagree with your site and are prepared to publish their names.
No I don't. I merely refer to the website and it's not MY site.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: Malcolm Kane
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- References:
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: amacmil304
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: Malcolm Kane
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: amacmil304
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: Malcolm Kane
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: amacmil304
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: Malcolm Kane
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: amacmil304
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: Andy Mabbett
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: amacmil304
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- From: Malcolm Kane
- Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- Prev by Date: Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- Next by Date: Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- Previous by thread: Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- Next by thread: Re: It wouldn't surprise me
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|