Re: Sloppy science from the Royal ***?

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:01:39 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <s4ik045uv4ia6n7geenkuvo96r2cni2u2r@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:36:07 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Do you think your reply is worth a response?

And what evidence do you have that the "pox-like disease" that you claim
was "endemic" in red squirrels before contact with greys is the same
disease with which the greys are now indisputably infecting the reds?


Do your own research.

I have done.

You wouldn't know where to start.

Which is why I asked you what evidence you have that the
"pox-like disease" that you claim was "endemic" in red squirrels before
contact with the greys is the same disease with which the greys are now
indisputably infecting the greys.

You haven't a clue, Malcolm.

Where did I ever say that it was the same disease? You and your
sloppy fellow scientists don't know whether it was or not but for
convenience assume it wasn't.

BTW. Are you still an adviser with SNH?

You seem to avoid this question.
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)
.

Quantcast