#781: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

To date this has been an intelligent exchange. To decend into insult does you no credit nor does deleting a mild repost. I argue that the pre 1960s situation was acceptable to those grazing the common and that they considered there to be no danger to their animals. If dangerous species to horses now exist they must have appeared post the 1960s either naturally or by the hand of man. The felled oaks grew in a pattern that showed evidence of the hand of man as they were in a rough line and evenly spaced. The toxic nature of oaks is irrelevant to the debate. The site is to be lightly grazed by cattle who are not suseptable to an oaks toxin. The public inquiry heard expert evidence on the issue of grazing. No one disagreed with the benfits of light grazing of the common. The Inspector considered all relevant matters and concluded that on balance the matter should proceed. Whilst I accept your right to hold a different view in order to convince others of the value of your arguement you should be able to demonstrate where the professional witnesses were in error by evidence that can be tested. I have seen no evidence that has been the subject of peer review that would lead me to support your opposition to the proposed grazing. I bear you no ill will. Your continued stance and acceptance of legal advice from a lay source will have far reaching personal consequences. Please give some time to reflect on the matter before you delete this reply. It matters not to me. I withdraw from the debate unbowed. I have a life.

#782: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

They showed the hand of man because thet were planted by man.

Have you read the inspectors report?

Do you know the nature of the "Public" enquiry?

Of course the oaks have all grown since the sixties

There were no opposition witnesses, only people who would benefit from the scheme going ahead.

Have you read this to see how disasterously wrong this procedure can be

http://www.horseytalk.net/ROW/SteveYandall_LonghornCattle.html    or

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=560    and the list goes on and on and on.

I understand about far reaching consequences, that is why I am doing what I am doing.

I have consistentley deleted thinly veiled goading or downright contempt and have always tried to explain things.

You have refused to meet me on the common.

You have such faith in your conviction, you will not give your name

You have drawn the debate needlesley back over old ground in a pseudo attempt at  Intellectualism.

I'm glad you are withdrawing from the debate, at your level it's pointless

I'm glad you have another life, because you have not excelled in this debate.

We can have a chat, the next time we bump into each other.