Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:03:02 +0000
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:41:22 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <3l2cj31rj20q5diisghhgrhecmnsah2kh9@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:51:21 +0000, MalcolmNo, Angus, it isn't "either 200 or it's not 200". Nowhere in the report
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <jjibj39cnh3h4686rjsojr4v52arlrqhmh@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:37:48 +0000, MalcolmWrong.
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <ha2bj3509l8vf8r1fapseg9gt89k8fb17b@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 07:53:45 +0000, MalcolmOf course they are. But nowhere in the report does it say that this is
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <3c57j3pjqqkba16guv5pqkb7hnrlc4u407@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 22:36:35 +0000, MalcolmWhere to "they say it"? In particular, where do "they" say that the
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <cto6j39ftajiiuh8ibh60i0eqs5tb53dra@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:29:07 +0000, MalcolmIf you don't know, then why did you claim that it was "accurate"?
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <q5n5j317epj7q680f0tqorclolnlq6nf5c@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 07:49:23 +0000, MalcolmYou're the one who first mentioned accurate counts. Are you
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <6hk4j3hed09hi5e5lj86m8acm6s0j2b0n6@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:45:08 +0000, MalcolmWhat "accuracy" is that? Where does it say anything about the
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But I asked first and am going to ask you again.
You claimed that they are monitored
"constantly/continuously/continually". On what do you base
On the basis of accuracy.
counts" that you keep mentioning?
Are you saying there's no accurate counts?
saying that
you don't know whether there are or not? Because if you don't
why do you keep making your claims about them being monitored
"constantly/continuously/continually"?
Where do they get the figure of 200 from? Is it just made up?
They say it. Not me.
figure of 200 given in the report you first drew attention to is
"accurate"?
Please post the URLs.
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
an "accurate" count as you keep insisting it is.
If it's not 200 it can't be "accurate".
Not wrong at all. It's either 200 or it's not 200 and it's looking
increasing likely that this figure has been plucked out of the blue.
does it say that it is *exactly* 200.
Rubbish. Nowhere in the report does it say that it isn't *exactly*
200.
No, Angus, it isn't "either 200 or it's not 200". Nowhere in the reportWrong.
See above.Where do "they" say that the 200 is "accurate"?
So, tell me, why did you claim that it was "accurate"?I've not seen any mention of numbers of red squirrels by fakeSo you don't know.But exactly *what* is "together with thousands of
visitors", Angus?
Please explain what your claim of "constant/continuous/continual"
monitoring amounts to and how it causes stress.
See above.
Either the fake conservationists are lying about the number
they are accurately counting them which would require constant
monitoring.
conservationists, which is hardly surprising.
And if you think that the only way to establish accurate numbers of a
population is by "constant monitoring", then I fear you are
either sadly
misinformed or not informed at all. The latter seems much more
me, especially as you have failed, repeatedly, to answer my questions
about the monitoring you keep claiming is taking place.
See above.
Are you saying they're telling lies?
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
If it's not 200 it can't be "accurate".
Not wrong at all. It's either 200 or it's not 200 and it's looking
increasing likely that this figure has been plucked out of the blue.
does it say that it is *exactly* 200.
Rubbish. Nowhere in the report does it say that it isn't *exactly*
200.
No, Angus, it isn't "either 200 or it's not 200". Nowhere in the report
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. You don't know what you arePlease don't further expose your ignorance of monitoring.Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, Angus. And that's because youAnd you see my response and produce your evidence for all thisI'm not saying anything about the monitoring, other than to
Which makes it a bit strange that you have repeatedly claimed
that there
is "constant/continuous/continual" monitoring yet don't seem
it consists of or even if it takes place at all.
Are you saying the reds are not constantly monitored?
why you are so insistent that the new virus which appeared had
to do with "the stress of being continually monitored". That
than a week ago and ever since I have asked you to explain what you
think this "continual monitoring" consists of. I am still
your answer. The conclusion has to be that it is just another
of yours, along with your "panic".
See above.
monitoring" you claim is taking place.
If they're not constantly monitoring as you suggest then they are
lying about numbers.
haven't a clue what you are talking about. Furthermore, your assumption
that if there is none of the "constant monitoring" that you keep
wittering on about the figure must be a lie is about as ridiculous a
remark as it is possible to make, not to mention a libellous one.
Do you really know so little about counting animals?
Yes, I suppose you do :-((
I know that if they say 200 and they are not constantly monitoring the
numbers they are not telling the truth. Counting animals the way you
would probably suggest is about as sloppy as your science.
To monitor anything for accuracy it requires a constant or near
constant presence of those monitoring.
talking about.
Please answer my question. Where is it stated that the figure of 200 isWhere is it
stated that the figure of 200 is "accurate"?
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
"accurate"?
If it's not 200 it can't be "accurate".
Wrong.
Not wrong at all. It's either 200 or it's not 200 and it's looking
increasing likely that this figure has been plucked out of the blue.
does it say that it is *exactly* 200.
Rubbish. Nowhere in the report does it say that it isn't *exactly*
200.
Nonsense. I've tried to convey to you the difficulty of countingYou have said it'sWhere have I said that? Please point to the line(s) above where I've
accurate.above.
said that. Everything above is exactly as you posted it. with my
additions.
You really are just digging the hole you are in deeper and deeper.Oh good, a definition from you, at last, after asking you countless
And why do you keep
insisting that only "constant monitoring" can produce an accurate
figure? What do you mean by "constant monitoring"?
As much as is needed to record change.
times.
It is possible to record "change" in a population by monitoring carried
out at any interval you care to name. Many populations of birds in
Britain, e.g., Golden Eagles, Peregrines, Merlins, Wood Larks, are
monitored at 10-year intervals. This enables change to be recorded. Many
other populations of birds are monitored annually. This also enables
change to be recorded. Some species, for example wintering wildfowl and
waders, are monitored monthly across the country, but only at their main
haunts, with no attempt to count them all - as this would be next to
impossible. However, by counting the same sites year after year, it is
possible to construct an annual index which records change. Here on
Islay, we monitor the geese three or four times a winter and record
change. Otters are monitored in a few local areas roughly annually, but
nationally they've been monitored about three times in the last 30
years. Butterflies weren't really monitored nationally at all until
quite recently, now they are monitored annually and changes are
recorded.
So there's nothing accurate about any counts you do by the look of
things You obviously can't count all the birds at once so you could
miss large numbers and count large numbers twice. It's an absolute
fiasco..
Not at all.
No-one claims that all counts are accurate to the nearest one, as you
seem to believe "accurate" has to mean.
In a figure as low as 200 it should be accurate
squirrels so it is very unlikely that it is *exactly* 200.
So now you're saying it's not accurate.
And if you
knew the first thing about counting animals you would realise that when
confronted with a figure of 200 it is almost certainly a rounded figure
not an exact one.
So they're misleading the public who will not know how squirrels are
counted.
Gosh, you mean you had to look it up?Accuracy can be and is qualified
by giving ranges, standard deviations and confidence intervals.
If it's qualified, it's no longer accurate.
If you
don't know what they are, then find a statistician to explain them to
you or look them up.
Better still. I found the quote: "This well-known saying is part of a
phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by
Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and
statistics".
Two minutes.
No, Angus, it isn't "either 200 or it's not 200". Nowhere in the reportIt is entirely possible that the red squirrel count in Anglesey is 200
plus/minus 10 or even 20. So the correct way of expressing it would be
200 (190-210) or 200 (180-220). Now ask yourself what a journalist or
sub-editor is going to write or print.
But the trouble is you don't know even what the plus/minus is. It's
pure speculation and as sloppy as it gets.
does it say that it is *exactly* 200.
Rubbish. Nowhere in the report does it say that it isn't *exactly*
200.
I have never claimed it was an accurate figure, that was *you*, Angus,
No-one who knows anything about red squirrels and how they are monitored
would *ever* assume that a rounded figure like 200 was accurate to the
nearest one squirrel as you keep claiming it must be.
So you're saying it's not accurate. You really are confused, Malcolm.
and done on the basis of no information whatsoever.
You've said you believe it to be accurate.
No, Angus, it isn't "either 200 or it's not 200". Nowhere in the reportWrong.
I recommended a book to you which included details of how red squirrels
are monitored, which include calculations of their density in a given
area of woodland, based on sightings, or their actual number by
capture-mark-recapture studies which gives a total and a range within
which that total is thought to lie.
Claiming and form of accuracy is the lie.
Not wrong at all. It's either 200 or it's not 200 and it's looking
increasing likely that this figure has been plucked out of the blue.
does it say that it is *exactly* 200.
Rubbish. Nowhere in the report does it say that it isn't *exactly*
200.
No, Angus, it isn't "either 200 or it's not 200". Nowhere in the report
See above. You're the one that keeps claiming the figure of 200 is
You're the one who keeps claiming that the figure of 200 is "accurate".As I've said, above, if you think that the only way to establishYou seem to think there are, but then you're the one who,What accurate figures, Angus? Who has claimed accurate figures
are they?
Are there no accurate figures?
asking you what "constant/continuous/continual" monitoring
place, claimed that: "To maintain accurate counts they must be
constantly".
Exactly, So if they are not monitoring them constantly they are lying
to the public by saying how many there are.
accurate numbers of a population is by "constant monitoring", then I
fear you are either sadly misinformed or not informed at all.
The latter
seems much more likely to me, especially as you have failed,
repeatedly,
to answer my questions about the monitoring that you keep claiming is
taking place.
See above.
Seems you think they're lying about the numbers of red squirrels.
Of *course* I don't. You are exposing your total ignorance yet again.
You have assumed, on the basis of absolutely nothing, that the figure of
200 is "accurate". Why have you assumed that?
So you're saying it's not accurate?
By what margin?
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
"accurate". Why?
If it's not 200 it can't be "accurate".
Wrong.
Not wrong at all. It's either 200 or it's not 200 and it's looking
increasing likely that this figure has been plucked out of the blue.
does it say that it is *exactly* 200.
Rubbish. Nowhere in the report does it say that it isn't *exactly*
200.
Why have you cut the next sentence of mine? I went on: "But nowhere in
You have said it'sWhere have I said that? Please point to the line(s) above where I've
accurate.above.
said that. Everything above is exactly as you posted it. with my
additions.
______________
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?Of course they are.
the report does it say that this is an "accurate" count as you keep
insisting it is."
________________
And before you mention it the article doesn't say that figure is
inaccurate.
Rubbish. Nowhere in the report does it say that it isn't *exactly*
200.
Why should it? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of counting animals
would accept 200 as a rounded figure.
See above.
So you can't say. Thought not. It was just you making an assumptionI'm asking *you* why *you* have decided that the figure of 200 given in
See above. You're the one that keeps claiming the figure of 200 isPlease show that this is claimed by those doing the counting.
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
"accurate". Why do you keep refusing to respond to my request to show
that the figure of 200 is claimed to be accurate by the those doing the
counting? There was nothing in the original report that claimed that,
was there?
Are you saying they're lying?
a media report has to be "accurate". You seem unable to say.
See above.
based on no evidence whatsoever.
It seems it's the squirrel numbers that are based on no evidence
whatsoever. You couldn't even count them on a small plantation of 100
acres. So the whole thing's a nonsense. You make it up as you go
along.
Why should it? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of counting animals
That's not an answer to my question. Where in the media report youWhy don't you answer my question?
Did "they" say it was *exactly* 200?Please do and tell me what makes you think that the figure of 200 isYet, when I asked you what figures you were talking about
or who has claimed "accurate" figures, all you can now do is
whether they exist.
You can't have accuracy unless you monitor constantly.
But, as I keep asking you and you keep avoiding answering, who has
claimed "accuracy"? Who has even mentioned it apart from you?
And anyway your statement that you can't have accuracy unless you
monitor constantly, is complete and utter balderdash. You, yet again,
expose your ignorance, because you don't seem to have a clue
about what
monitoring entails and the different types of monitoring, do
you? Before
you make any further such claims, I suggest you discover just what
monitoring means. You should also read up on the different kinds of
monitoring and what they show. And while you are about it, try
discovering the different degrees of accuracy that exist, because that
is clearly also something about which you are not informed.
see above.
"accurate"?
They have said it's 200. Should I not believe them?
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
Did "they" say it was *exactly* 200?
Well, did they?
They don't need to. I have three cats. I don't need to say I've
"exactly" three cats. I can count to three. Perhaps they can't
count to 200 :-))
referred us to originally does it say that the figure of 200 was
accurate?
It doesn't say it's inaccurate either..
would accept 200 as a rounded figure.
Why should they when you can't count them even in a small plantation?
No, I don't, Angus. Yet again, in your flailing around you are
Yes, well, trust you to come out with a response like that.
That, Angus, is a typical response from you. You don't have the
No, I don't. How on *earth* do you arrive at that idea?Unless they'reIt might be if they were. However, as you don't understand what
guessing which would be another arm of the sloppy science of
conservation.
"monitoring" means, and what results different types of monitoring
produces, you are, as usual, completely wrong.
You seem to think monitoring is useless.
Well it's pretty flawed, I would say, because you have no real way of
calculating the true numbers of any species. In reality it's no more
than guesswork..
knowledge that enables you to understand what is meant by monitoring and
what results from it.
You don't need much knowledge to count animals. Most kids can count
to 200.
Well unless perhaps the school leaver you nastily described in you
rant to MK>
I'm sure any school leaver can count to 200. I'm not sure about you,
though :-)
Seems you think so-called conservationists can't count to 200.
attempting to put words in my mouth. Please refrain from doing so.
Can you count 200 squirrels in a small plantation of say 100 acres
without missing a substantial number and possibly counting the same
ones twice?
Duh! Who claimed they were being accurate? You did. And now you are
Another meaningless remark.
Perhaps if
you had the slightest knowledge about squirrels, red or grey, or about
anything else for that matter, you would realise what a particularly
mind-bogglingly ignorant remark that is.
Well, if the fake conservationists can't count to 200 there's little
chance of them being accurate.
Very meaningful. If they can't count to 200 they've no chance of
being accurate.
claiming they weren't accurate. You're badly confused.
If they counted 200 they must be able to count up to 200. Otherwise
it's a sham and a con.
I've already told you.
A nonsense response.
Go into Whinneyhill Wood and count the number of squirrels there and
tell us how you get on. Don't be put off by the fact that the squirrels
move around constantly and that your view will be obscured by the trees,
after all if it is easy for "most kids" it must be even easier for you.
You're getting there.
Not at all. How would you count them thee?
Seems it's well nigh impossible. So the whole counting thing is a
nonsense. The idea that you might see some in one place and multiply
it out to get some statistical verification is complete and utter
idiocy and just the sort of sloppiness I would expect from the dregs
of science that are employed in the fake conservation industry.
Really? Where was that?
Another nonsense response.And at least most of the trees are deciduous so the task will be easier
than in coniferous woodland which is what red squirrels prefer.
You appear to have learned something. People like the Forestry
Commission, the Woodland Trust and RSPB are all planting trees that
encourage greys. Really, Malcolm, you'd think they'd know better. But
the grant sucking is in native weeds:-((
Not at all. I understand the RSPB bought a farm adjacent to one of
their reserves in Southern Scotland in the vicinity of red squirrels
and then planted native trees that suits greys.
South West Scotland. If I remember correctly it begins with a "C".
You'll know where it is.
Not by looking for them and then counting what I saw, no. That wouldn't
And then
when you've done that, consider carefully how you would go about
counting the squirrels in Newborough Forest on Anglesey, which is
largely coniferous and extends for 750 ha.
You seem to be saying it's more or less impossible.
I'm asking *you* why *you* thought that the figure of 200 given in the
media report was "accurate". You have persisted with this claim despite
there being no evidence for it whatsoever. You then said that most kids
can count to 200 so I suggested that you undertook a practical
experiment to see whether *you* could count squirrels.
Can you count 200 squirrels, Malcolm?
give an accurate count. There are several much better methods.
Seems it's well nigh impossible. So the whole counting thing is a
nonsense. The idea that you might see some in one place and multiply
it out to get some statistical verification is complete and utter
idiocy and just the sort of sloppiness I would expect from the dregs
of science that are employed in the fake conservation industry.
Yes, to me, definitely.
So it looks asAnother meaningless response.
though the fake conservationists might be more fake than first
thought.
To you , perhaps.
Not out in Whinneyhill Wood trying to count squirrels, you haven't :-))
After all, as you've said, "you don't need much knowledge to count
animals".
Exactly; those you see at any one time.
Well done, Angus, you're getting there.
I've been "there" all the time, Malcolm.
Quite right - for once.
The word accurate can legitimately be qualified. You might not have
So what proof is there thatIf the media report said there were 200 reds in Anglesey, I'm sure that
there's 200 reds in Anglesey?
that was a reasonably accurate figure. Not absolutely accurate, as you
decided that it had to be, but accurate enough for the purposes of the
journalist.
So there's no proof. "Reasonably accurate" is not accurate. Indeed,
what proof do you have that it was even reasonably accurate?
realised that up until now, but you've learnt something.
Seems it's well nigh impossible. So the whole counting thing is a
nonsense. The idea that you might see some in one place and multiply
it out to get some statistical verification is complete and utter
idiocy and just the sort of sloppiness I would expect from the dregs
of science that are employed in the fake conservation industry.
No, Angus, because 200 can be described as accurate to within a given
Why have you decided that the figure of 200 *has* to be accurate, i.e.
in your terms, exactly 200?
Because it is only accurate if it actually is 200.
parameter, which could be a range, a standard deviation or confidence
limits.
See above.
Oh dear :-( Motoring analogies, although commonly used on Usenet, never
No, Angus, in the real world, the one that you appear not to inhabitNonsense. You're defining "accurate" as exact to the nearest one. I'veWrong. It shows nothing of the sort.It seems that
you're now floundering so badly that you're coming out with more and
more ridiculous remarks.
Just showing up how sloppy so-called conservation is.
Unless it's accurate , it's sloppy.
already tried to explain that there are degrees of accuracy.
In your sloppy world there might be.
sometimes :-)
So when you fill up your car with fuel does it not matter how accurate
the price is in relation to the fuel dispensed?
work. Squirrels don't fill up their cars with fuel and pay for it,
Angus, and nor is counting birds and animals in any way related to doing
that. This is just a eaningless analogy.
So you don't accept inaccuracies when it affects your pocket. That
figures. But in your sloppy science anything goes.
I guess that was some kind of a retraction.The media report said there were 200. Of *course* they weren't lying and
But that isn't actually relevant in this case because you have stilled
failed to explain why you took the 200 figure in the report as being
"accurate". Well, why did you?
They said there were. It seems you might think they were lying. So
how many are there?
I do not and never have thought that so kindly refrain from insinuating
that I have.
Well you seem to be so confused I suppose I can let you off with that.
I can't blame you for being confused.
I have never said that it was accurate.
I've already told you countless times that there is nothing in the
report that suggests that the figure of 200 was "accurate". I would have
thought that it would have been plain to everyone, even including you,
that it was a rounded figure.
So now you're saying that 200 is not accurate :-))
You said you believed it was accurate.
I note that you haven't been
able to find any quote of mine that said it was except by trimming the
qualifying sentence that came after. How typical of you :-(
So you don't believe it was accurate?
Make up your mind.
Are you so uncomprehending that you can't understand the definition?
Apart from the fact that "fake" conservationists don't exist and can't
I'm sidestepping nothing. Counting is a vital tool in conservation.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance. Knowing the size of aI've been monitoring birds and animals all my
working life and still am.
How exciting! No wonder you yawn frequently. I'm yawning at the
thought of it.
It is a vital tool in conservation.
Another stolen word! Counting something was never really a "tool".
population is vitally important.
You're sidestepping - again
Like a spade or a pair of pliers?
Fake conservationists steal words
all the time.
steal anything, perhaps you should look up the word in a dictionary,
assuming you possess one, before making such remarks.
Here's the definition from the SOED which explains my use of it in the
context above:
"A thing (concrete or abstract) used in the carrying out of some
occupation or pursuit; a means of effecting a purpose or facilitating an
activity. OE."
Thus, the results of monitoring are clearly a "tool" of conservation.
The "OE" after the definition means "Old English", which describes the
language as it was before about 1150. So while you might not have come
across this use before, it has been around for over 900 years and so
no-one has stolen anything.
Nothing about "counting " as a tool.
Counting is most certainly covered by that definition. How could it not
be?
Very easily. Counting is a "method" of determining numbers; not a
tool.
A meaningless analogy. Squirrels don't buy fuel at garages.
No, Angus, in the real world, the one that you appear not to inhabit
Hardly surprising, because you don't seem to understand that the one can
Glad you agree.Monitoring is carried out in this country of birds, mammals,
butterflies, moths, spiders, flowers, lichens, fish (both fresh and
marine), midges, etc., etc., etc. And I am involved in national or local
schemes concerning several of those, as are tens of thousands of
volunteers across the country.
I bet that really accurate :-))
I don't. You have once again failed to comprehend my meaning.
have different degrees of accuracy.
In your sloppy world.
sometimes :-)
See above about fuel.
I never said the did. Neither do they count humans, I wouldn't think.
As you very well know, I did NOT say that. You deliberately cut myWhere did I say that?See above.It appears that you are wilfully closing your mind to any attempt to getWhy not answer my question? What makes you think that the figure of 200
No, you see above and tell me what you think monitoring
It seems to me that your "accurate figures" has to join your
"constant/continuous/continual monitoring" and your "panic" as
inventions.
Not at all. See above.
actually entails
and why you think that the results can be "accurate" unless it is done
"constantly", which is yet another word you have failed to explain,
despite being asked to do so.
See above.
is "accurate"?
According to you it seems nothing is accurate. So what margin of
inaccuracy is there?
I would appear that inaccuracy is just another part of your sloppy
science.
you to understand about monitoring.
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
Why are you so insistent that the figure of 200 was "accurate"?
You said it was accurate above.
See above.
following sentence in order to make it appear that I had. That's how
desperate you have become.
You're confused again, Malcolm.
See above.
Where have I said it was accurate? That was your claim not mine.
Your claim is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong, being based on your
No, it wouldn't.
It was published in the report and there is absolutely no reason not toOh look. You're struggling to find an iota of evidence to support your
If you think otherwise, then explain what you mean. The report
drew attention to mentioned an Anglesey red squirrel
population of 200.
Gosh really Are you saying that figure is now not accurate?
It didn't say whether that was an exact (i.e. accurate) total or an
estimate. But presumably, from your repeated use of the word
"accurate",
you know differently. Well, do you?
Are you saying the figure of 200 is a lie?
claim that "You can't have accuracy unless you monitor constantly" and
now thinks he can wriggle out of it by asking whether the
figure of 200
is true or not.
Well, is it or is it fiction?
believe it.
Well, is it accurate or not accurate? If you believe it to be
accurate, constant monitoring would be required.
Of course it would.. You really don't understand how to count
accurately
present state of total ignorance about monitoring.
You're totally confused, Malcolm. One minute you're saying it's
accurate and the next you're saying it's not. As I said before, your
mind is in a mess. Is it early dementia, perhaps?
See above.
As you very well know, I did NOT say that. You deliberately cut my
following sentence in order to make it appear that I had. That's how
desperate you have become.
See above.
Are you now saying the numbers are not accurate.You're the one who claimed that they were accurate and who seems to
think, completely wrongly, that "accurate" can only mean exact to the
nearest one squirrel. I am confident that the figure of 200 is
reasonably accurate and certainly accurate enough to fulfil your own
definition of monitoring which was to record changes.
I just love it! "reasonably accurate and certainly accurate enough"
for your sloppy scientific purposes where anything goes that fits your
agenda.
See above. There are several good methods.
More nonsense based on ignorance.
The population goes down, Angus, just as it goes up after some young areThat's yet another false assumption of yours. It is
perfectly possible to get an accurate, i.e. exact, total, i.e. the
number of breeding pairs of a bird species, by counting just once a
year.
So, what happens if some die just after the counting?
born.
Now that 'is really really clever of you to work that out all by
yourself. So you and your fake friends have accurate means of working
out how many animals there are.
The nonsense of all this is you work out numbers based on density and
there's absolutely no way you can prove this to be accurate. So
you're a bunch of chancers.
So tell me how you would count squirrels?
Well lets have some detail or are you afraid I can rip it to pieces?
See above. There are several good methods.
How typical of you when you fail to comprehend something you resort to
I'm glad of the opportunity to explain these difficult-to-grasp
facts to you.
The fact is you're a bunch of chancers.
childish name calling. You've clearly surrendered and about time, too.
Not at all. Tell me how you would count squirrels?
see above.
Very obviously not.
More nonsense simply because you don't understand.
When you don't understand something your only thought seems to be to
Indeed, for many species, this is by far the best way, and
sometimes the only way.
Sloppy nonsense.
denigrate it. Still, that habit certainly shows up your lack of
understanding.
Not at all , Malcolm, I've been leading you by the nose and just
showing you up for the chancers you and your colleagues are.
Don't worry, Malcolm, I understand alright:-))
In your dreams.
You don't have any "evidence". All you have is a media report which said
The figure of 200 is believable, but that doesn't mean to say that it is
Of course they are, but please say why you are so insistent that the
The only figure I have seen was a newspaper report of 200. I have noLet me give you a clue, as you are so obviously lacking one.
You decided, on what grounds you are steadfastly refusing to say, that
the figure of 200 was "accurate" and that the only way that the figure
could be known is by "constant monitoring". These are both your
inventions. There is nothing in the report to indicate either.
How else would anybody know that there were 200 squirrels if they
weren't constantly monitored? Are you saying the figure is not
correct.
Does the figure of 200 sound an "accurate" one or just a rounded
estimate? Or is that concept completely beyond you because you have no
knowledge of the subject of how population sizes are arrived at?
So now you're saying its inaccurate. I don't care how your sloppy
science arrives at its figures but if the figure is accurate it would
require constant monitoring and if not it's a load of bullshit.
means of knowing whether it was accurate or not.
Exactly. Unless they are constantly monitored they don't know the
numbers.
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
figure of 200 is "accurate".
The have said 200. And you say they are to be believed?
"accurate" in the way you clearly believe it to be, a belief based on no
evidence whatsoever.
It's your belief that's based on no evidence whatsoever. My evidence
is that 200 is the stated figure and unless it is 200 it's not
accurate. Really quite simple.
that there were 200 squirrels. You have assumed, without any evidence,
that this meant an exact 200, not 199 nor 201. If you knew the slightest
thing about counting you would not have made that assumption. And,
because your whole baseless claim about stress and the virus depends on
it, you are insisting that it was an accurate figure. You're wrong.
But you've already agreed that stress can be a contributory factor in
disease. Thousands of visitors coming to see the red squirrels and
constant monitoring by fake conservationists can obviously be
stressful. They are shy animals that get on much better when left
alone No doubt you'll contradict me as you have first hand knowledge
of red squirrels having seen one feed on a table :-))
Yes, do.
The figure of 200 is believable, but that doesn't mean to say that it is
Of course they are, but please say why you are so insistent that the
If that report is your
only source of the figure then you, too, have no means of knowing
whether it was accurate or not.
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
figure of 200 is "accurate".
The have said 200. And you say they are to be believed?
"accurate" in the way you clearly believe it to be, a belief based on no
evidence whatsoever.
See above
So you believe the figure of 200 is accurate. Make up your mind.
See above.You don't have any "evidence". All you have is a media report which said
The figure of 200 is believable, but that doesn't mean to say that it isOf course they are, but please say why you are so insistent that the
Once again, I will ask you why you took
it to be "accurate" or what other information you have which makes you
believe it was.
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
figure of 200 is "accurate".
The have said 200. And you say they are to be believed?
"accurate" in the way you clearly believe it to be, a belief based on no
evidence whatsoever.
It's your belief that's based on no evidence whatsoever. My evidence
is that 200 is the stated figure and unless it is 200 it's not
accurate. Really quite simple.
that there were 200 squirrels. You have assumed, without any evidence,
that this meant an exact 200, not 199 nor 201. If you knew the slightest
thing about counting you would not have made that assumption. And,
because your whole baseless claim about stress and the virus depends on
it, you are insisting that it was an accurate figure. You're wrong.
You don't have any "evidence". All you have is a media report which said
The figure of 200 is believable, but that doesn't mean to say that it is
Are they lying?Please say why you are so insistent that the figure of 200 is
"accurate".
The have said 200. And you say they are to be believed?
"accurate" in the way you clearly believe it to be, a belief based on no
evidence whatsoever.
It's your belief that's based on no evidence whatsoever. My evidence
is that 200 is the stated figure and unless it is 200 it's not
accurate. Really quite simple.
that there were 200 squirrels. You have assumed, without any evidence,
that this meant an exact 200, not 199 nor 201. If you knew the slightest
thing about counting you would not have made that assumption. And,
because your whole baseless claim about stress and the virus depends on
it, you are insisting that it was an accurate figure. You're wrong.
see above.
See above. There are several different methods each having a different
I didn't say it was impossible. That's your interpretation of what INo, Angus, as I have explained above. Monitoring can be undertaken at
And, I repeat, "constant monitoring" is NOT necessary in order to obtain
an accurate figure for a population. That's just your ignorance.
Of course it is necessary if the figure is to be accurate.
intervals of years and still record change.
But you've indicated it's well nigh impossible to count them in the
first place so there's absolutely no benchmark at any time.
said.
Well how would you do it?
degree of accuracy.
See above. There are several different methods each having a different
You claimed that it was easy - any kid could count up to 200. I
explained that it wasn't quite as simple as that, as you seemed to think
it was.
Well how would you do it?
degree of accuracy.
What a cop out :-))
As I've told you numerous times, there is no need for "constant"There are plenty of ways of counting animals and birds in
forestry. If the methods are standardised, i.e. repeatable time and
again, you will get a very good indication of changes, which is, as you
said, what monitoring is about.
Constant monitoring.
monitoring to record change. It can be done at 10-year intervals and it
will still record chance. Or monthly, or annually, or weekly. It doesn't
matter.
But you can't count squirrels in the first place so you've no chance
of knowing how many there are. You make it up as you go along.
You don't have any "evidence". All you have is a media report which said
The figure of 200 is believable, but that doesn't mean to say that it is
No, Angus. You keep wittering on about "accurate" without being able to
I have.Remember that you're the one that keeps wittering on about "accurate"
and the need for "constant monitoring".
Absolutely correct.
See above.
And still don't understand. That's real ignorance.
say why you think the figure of 200 is accurate. Well, why do you?
The have said 200. And you say they are to be believed?
"accurate" in the way you clearly believe it to be, a belief based on no
evidence whatsoever.
It's your belief that's based on no evidence whatsoever. My evidence
is that 200 is the stated figure and unless it is 200 it's not
accurate. Really quite simple.
that there were 200 squirrels. You have assumed, without any evidence,
that this meant an exact 200, not 199 nor 201. If you knew the slightest
thing about counting you would not have made that assumption. And,
because your whole baseless claim about stress and the virus depends on
it, you are insisting that it was an accurate figure. You're wrong.
What's wrong is that the fake conservationists make up the numbers as
they go along.
You don't have any "evidence". All you have is a media report which saidThe figure of 200 is believable, but that doesn't mean to say that it is
Of course they are, but please say why you are so insistent that theAnd where did you get the idea that the figure was "accurate"
and where did you get the idea that in order to arrive at an "accurate"
figure, "constant monitoring" is required?
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
figure of 200 is "accurate".
The have said 200. And you say they are to be believed?
"accurate" in the way you clearly believe it to be, a belief based on no
evidence whatsoever.
It's your belief that's based on no evidence whatsoever. My evidence
is that 200 is the stated figure and unless it is 200 it's not
accurate. Really quite simple.
that there were 200 squirrels. You have assumed, without any evidence,
that this meant an exact 200, not 199 nor 201. If you knew the slightest
thing about counting you would not have made that assumption. And,
because your whole baseless claim about stress and the virus depends on
it, you are insisting that it was an accurate figure. You're wrong.
What's wrong is that the fake conservationists make up the numbers as
they go along.
You don't have any "evidence". All you have is a media report which saidIt's your belief that's based on no evidence whatsoever. My evidenceThe figure of 200 is believable, but that doesn't mean to say that it isOf course they are, but please say why you are so insistent that the
About either accuracy or monitoring, Angus.There was nothing about that in
the report you drew attention to.
Nothing about what?
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
figure of 200 is "accurate".
The have said 200. And you say they are to be believed?
"accurate" in the way you clearly believe it to be, a belief based on no
evidence whatsoever.
is that 200 is the stated figure and unless it is 200 it's not
accurate. Really quite simple.
that there were 200 squirrels. You have assumed, without any evidence,
that this meant an exact 200, not 199 nor 201. If you knew the slightest
thing about counting you would not have made that assumption. And,
because your whole baseless claim about stress and the virus depends on
it, you are insisting that it was an accurate figure. You're wrong.
What's wrong is that the fake conservationists make up the numbers as
they go along.
You're the one who claimed that they were accurate and who seems toWhere have I said that they were accurate?So, consistent with your invention of the word "accurate" to describe
You referred to a *newspaper* report. How "accurate" do you regard them?
Please answer the two questions. Why do you think the figure of 200 is
No, you see above and tell me why you think the figure of 200 wasIndeed, do so.Setting aside your childish insult, what I am enquiring about
is why you
are constantly using the word. It hasn't been mentioned in
I've read and yet you seem to think that it is inextricably
linked with
the also not mentioned "constant/continuous/continual"
monitoring that
you keep going on about.
See above.
See above.
"accurate" and why it could only be known by "constant monitoring".
See above.
"accurate" and why do you think that it could only be known by "constant
monitoring"?
If it's not accurate it's as sloppy as your science. They should say
it is thought there might be 200. But in reality there might be
nowhere near 200 in either direction.
Why hasn't the possibility occurred to you that the person the reporter
spoke to told him there were, for example, "about 200", but this got
shortened to "200" at some stage prior to publication?
Desperate speculation on your part.
the figure of 200, you are now not even prepared to consider the
possibility that it wasn't exact and was merely a rounded figure
reported in the media.
But you've already said they were accurate. Please do make up your
mind, Malcolm.
See above. Are you now saying they're not accurate?
think, completely wrongly, that "accurate" can only mean exact to the
nearest one squirrel. I am confident that the figure of 200 is
reasonably accurate and certainly accurate enough to fulfil your own
definition of monitoring which was to record changes.
I just love it! "reasonably accurate and certainly accurate enough"
for your sloppy scientific purposes where anything goes that fits your
agenda.
You don't have any "evidence". All you have is a media report which saidThe figure of 200 is believable, but that doesn't mean to say that it is
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?Of course they are, but please say why you are so insistent that the
figure of 200 is "accurate".
If there's not 200 they are not to be believed.
"accurate" in the way you clearly believe it to be, a belief based on no
evidence whatsoever.
It's your belief that's based on no evidence whatsoever. My evidence
is that 200 is the stated figure and unless it is 200 it's not
accurate. Really quite simple.
that there were 200 squirrels. You have assumed, without any evidence,
that this meant an exact 200, not 199 nor 201. If you knew the slightest
thing about counting you would not have made that assumption. And,
because your whole baseless claim about stress and the virus depends on
it, you are insisting that it was an accurate figure. You're wrong.
see above.
That remark is all one needs to know to realise that you do NOTMore denigration of something you so clearly don't understand.
Nothing "sloppy" about it. You're once more trying to denigrate
But, no, you assumed, on no evidence whatsoever in that report, that the
figure of 200 was accurate. That it wasn't 201 or 199, or even 195 or
205. You, in your ignorance, decided, on no evidence whatsoever in that
report, that it was exact. And then, having decided that in your further
ignorance, you also decided that the only way to arrive at an "accurate"
figure was by "constant monitoring", which is, as I keep trying to tell
you, just plain wrong.
Only in your sloppy science.
something you don't understand.
I understand perfectly that its sloppiness bordering on dishonesty.
I understand very well, Malcolm that the whole counting issue is
deeply flawed.
understand at all.
Not at all. It just doesn't suit your agenda.
As you very well know, I did NOT say that. You deliberately cut myWhere have I said it is accurate?
Of course they are, but please say why you are so insistent that the
However, you are clearly determined to maintain the fiction of "constant
monitoring" being necessary, because without it your original claim that
stress due to that "constant monitoring" might be involved in the
outbreak of the virus is seen for what it was - a deliberate slur on
conservationists based on your well-known bias against them.
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
figure of 200 is "accurate".
You've said it is Were you lying?.
See above. You said you believed it was accurate.
following sentence in order to make it appear that I had. That's how
desperate you have become.
See above.
As you very well know, I did NOT say that. You deliberately cut myWrong. And particularly in the case of Anglesey, because they have anGosh, well done, Angus. You did know that.No, Angus, you're wrong. As I've already said, it is perfectly possible
Let me give you a further clue as you so obviously need one - or rather
a great many.
Go ahead it you want to feel important.
It is perfectly possible to arrive at an accurate figure for a
population (bearing in mind that no claim has been made that the 200 was
"accurate", except by you) without your equally nonsensical "constant
monitoring".
Absolutely wrong! it's impossible to reach an accurate figure without
constant monitoring and even then it could be inaccurate.
to arrive at an accurate total by a single count in a year.
Absolute garbage.
Animals can die and be born well within a year.
So they don't know what the population is and they don't know how it
will change because there's no benchmark in the first place.
accurate, and I do mean accurate to the nearest one squirrel, benchmark.
Rubbish. What you mean is inaccurate.
Where?
You have no idea about accuracy.Wrong. It's you that seems to think that the figure of 200 quoted in the
report was "accurate", yet won't say what grounds you have for thinking
that. It certainly wasn't claimed in the report.
You've said it was.
See above.
following sentence in order to make it appear that I had. That's how
desperate you have become.
see above.
Squirrels don't go into shops and pay for loaves, Angus, and nor isNo, Angus, in the real world, the one that you appear not to inhabitYou're now flailing around and failing completely to understand what it
No, they're not "out" by anything, Angus, the figure will always fall
Let me recommend a book for you to read. It is called "A Review of
British Mammals". It will tell you about the different monitoring
methods that have been used to arrive at the population sizes for
different species or for sub-populations within a species.
That doesn't mean to say the figures will be accurate. They could be
out by a massive margin. I seem to recall that deer numbers in
Scotland can be out by tens if not hundreds of thousands.
within a range. They will be quoted as, say, 350,000 with a range of
300,000-400,000, which means that they are accurate to within those
limits.
Gosh really! So there's no accuracy whatsoever. And how would you
arrive are as wide a range as you say? Guessing sounds like the
order of the day. What a rubbish science conservation is - full of
chancers.
means to monitor a population and how there can be different degrees of
accuracy.
Perhaps in your sloppy world.
sometimes :-)
So when you go into a shop do you say "I'll have some loaves, please"
and give them some money and not expect either the number of loaves to
be equated against the money you give?
counting birds and animals in any way related to doing that. This is
just another meaningless analogy.
I never said they did. I was referring to you and the fact that
inaccuracy is not tolerated in the real world except in the sloppy
scientific world of fake conservation.
Thank you for your further surrender, Angus.
It isn't garbage, Angus. It does seem that you are not making theA population can be counted to the nearest one - if it is both
small and conspicuous - or it can be counted to the nearest 10, 100,
1000, 10,000, and still you have a figure including statistically
calculated limits which is accurate as it is possible to get.
Garbage. If you put rubbish in you get rubbish out What was the
saying about statistics and lies?
slightest attempt to understand.
I understand perfectly that this is just another fallacy of so-called
conservation that seems to attract the dregs of academia.
Malcolm Ogilvie has a great problem with personal abuse; he can give
it but can't take it. He frequently abuses me by calling me a liar,
twister, ignorant, stupid etc., because I don't agree with his fake
conservation opinions but when he makes obvious blunders he can't cope
with personal criticism using similar abuse back at him. He seems to
particularly dislike the Dr Thick label.
He tries to claim that this amounts to my surrender, which is patently
not the case, but seems too dim to understand that by his own argument
he has often already surrendered himself. Such a claim shows a
befuddled mind that is incapable of logical thought and therefore
justifies the labels attached to him.
He has great difficulty in coping with reasoned argument and
mistakenly thinks that his opinions should go unquestioned and that
any other opinions are worthless.
This might be the result of a severe personality disorder that could
perhaps be described as smartarseology and is probably incurable.
No-one is feeding you bullshit. But you keep on failing to grasp some
And you object when I say you have a closed mind :-(If you
don't understand that, then I suggest you go and talk to a statistician
who will be able to instruct you why what I've said is true.
And get another load of bullshit. No thanks.
I object to being fed bullshit.
basic principles of population monitoring, solely because you decided
that a figure of 200 had to be "accurate" even though that wasn't stated
anywhere in the report.
It wasn't stated it wasn't accurate.
Yes, that is more accurate than saying that there could be anywhere
Another silly remark among many.
Go and consult a statistician. I'm blowed if I'm going to waste time
There aren't less than 300,000 and there aren't more.
How do you work that out?
trying to tell you.
Because you can't :-))
The silly remark was, that after alll this time arguing the point you
said, "There aren't less than 300,000 and there aren't more". Now,
that's what I call accuracy :-))
between 1 and a million.
Rubbish! If there aren't any less or more than 300.000, there's
exactly 300,000.
Oh, Malcolm, I despair of you and to think we the taxpayers are paying
someone like you £271 a day for advice to Scottish Natural Heritage.
See above.What a guy you are!Thank you for your further surrender, Angus.
Your mind's a mess.
On the available figures arrived at by whatever monitoring method hasI am using the word chance in the meaning it has (look in your
Wrong.It is more usual to apply
statistics to the figures to produce standard deviations and confidence
intervals which will refine the range and allow one to say that, for
example, there is a 95% chance that the total will be plus/minus a
smaller figure than the 50,000 indicated by the range.
Chance has never given 95% accuracy of anything.
How many times have you won the Lottery, Malcolm. Are you keeping
something from us?
dictionary) of probability, which is a statistical term. I was trying
not to overwhelm you with too many long words :-)
So what do you base your probability on if you can't count them in the
first place?
been used.
How do you arrive at the available figures if it's well nigh
impossible to count them?
Yes. You should. If you knew the slightest thing about (a) counting
Ho, ho :-(
No, Angus, one couldn't.The final figure
could be, for example, 350,000 with 95% confidence intervals of 20,000.
And *that*, Angus, is *accurate* enough to allow for population trends
to be detected over a series of annual counts.
One could drive a bus through that nonsense.
I suppose I'd need a licence to drive a bus.
Please explain why you claimed that the figure of 200 in the media
The simple truth is you have no idea what accuracy is, and the wholeMore nonsense.
this is an elaborate sham based on guessing.
Not at all,Malcolm. Your consistent confusion in this matter is proof
that it's nonsense.
report was "accurate".
Should I have any reason the doubt that the figure was accurate.?
squirrels and (b) the way that figures are expressed, you would have
known immediately that it was not an exact total. But it can be taken as
being accurate as is reasonably possible.
So your misleading the general public who won't know the way the
figures are expressed.
Nonsense. Your hole is just getting deeper and deeper.
You're the one who has claimed on the basis of no evidence whatsoever
Except that your "constant monitoring" is something you dreamed up as
I will continue to tell you that that is completely wrong.
Once you've read that you may begin to realise that your claims, firstly
that the 200 was an "accurate" count and secondly that it could only
have been arrived at by "constant monitoring", would not have been made
by anyone who knew the slightest thing about the subject.
Anyone who knew the slightest thing about the subject would realise
that if 200 was an accurate count it would need constant monitoring.
I'm quite sure you will.
And it is
still wrong even though you absolutely refuse to say what you mean by
"constant monitoring".
I have. See above.
being necessary (which it isn't) to arrive at your equally invented idea
that the figure of 200 was "accurate".
I didn't invent it. The have said 200 not me. It seems on the one
hand you're saying it accurate and on the other its only a guess
that the 200 was "accurate". I haven't stated that and I have certainly
not said that it is only a guess. That's you trying to put words in my
mouth again. Kindly refrain.
If you don't know the accurate number you must be guessing.
Not at all, See above.
Thank you for your further surrender, Angus.
More than you, clearly :-)
See above and try to realise that you are lacking some fundamentalThis is all part of the con in conservation. Truth is you don't knowYou have just *accurately* described your own state. You seriously do
what is accurate and what is not. - and that doesn't surprise me.
NOT know what is accurate and what is not.
Quite the reverse. You haven't a clue about accuracy or what is
accurate.
knowledge about mathematics and statistics, despite your 'O' grade.
What maths and statistics qualifications do you have? Do you have an O
Grade in both these subjects?
It really hasn't done you much good.
Well, has it?
Stuck up in Islay out of harms way and can't count squirrels:-))
"about 200" is accurate. It is more accurate than saying "about
No, Angus. There can just as easily be "about 200".
Of course they are, but please say why you are so insistent that theAnd, to get back to your
original claim, where, please, is your evidence that the figure of 200,
quoted in the original report you drew attention to is "accurate"? Where
does it say that? Why did you claim it was?
The have said 200. Are they not to be believed?
figure of 200 is "accurate".
You say they are to be believed. There are either 200 and they should
be believed, or not 200 and they should not be believed..
If it's about 200 it means you don't have an accurate number.
200-300".
"About" anything is not accurate except in your sloppy mind.
No, just that it is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of squirrelsI don't want to add to your confusion.I'm not the one who is confused around here. You're the one who, on the
basis of no evidence whatsoever, decided that a figure of 200, which has
all the signs of being a rounded figure, was accurate. Why did you do
that?
"All the signs" :-)) Another qualification entering the field.
and any knowledge of the way figures are expressed.
Sloppily expressed.
Then you would have been wrong.
Had the figure been given as 1,000, would you still have claimed that it
was "accurate", i.e., neither 999 nor 1,000?
I would have claimed the latter was accurate and that 999 was
inaccurate. - and quite rightly so.
Not at all. If at school kid was asked the square of 20 and said 399
they'd be told it was wrong
You really are terribly confused, Malcolm, and the last sentence youI've been trying my utmost to show you that you were wrong in assuming
have written here sums it up.
that the 200 was an exact figure, to the nearest one squirrel. You won't
accept this, both because you can't or won't understand the concept of
monitoring, but also because it would mean that your claim that the
squirrels would have been stressed by the "constant monitoring" that you
think on the basis of no knowledge at all was needed to achieve your
equally imaginary "accuracy", would be shown up for the nonsense it is.
And you can't bring yourself to back down on that one, can you?
No. What you've been doing is showing how sloppy the dregs of
scientific academia are in the fake conservation industry - nothing
more.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- From: Malcolm Kane
- Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- References:
- Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- From: amacmil304
- Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- From: amacmil304
- Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- From: amacmil304
- Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- From: amacmil304
- Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- From: amacmil304
- Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- Prev by Date: Re: Beware! Dense fog in Islay
- Next by Date: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- Previous by thread: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- Next by thread: Re: At least they can't blame the grey squirrels
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
