No, Michael Adams' point is very poorly made, and almost ruined by the way he put it. Infantile attitudes and posts like his and mb's mainly makes the point that moderating has a lot going for it. Why do people insist on hiding behind their keyboards and be rude in a way they would be scared to if addressing an unknown bloke down the pub? Why bother to comment if you have nothing constructive to say? The logical conclusion is that being unnecessarily offensive is your main point.
I checked up on other postings of both Michael Adams, and, even though I'm unsure of who he's addressing, mb. They mostly appear reasonable, not trolling or unreasonably argumentative in most situations. So I'm wondering why they responded to my post in the way they did. I assume that it's a misunderstanding of my attitude to the swans. In normal conversation with reasonable people it would be easy for people involved in the conversation to check their interpretations of what was said by asking simple questions of each other, and to then address the point made rather than a straw man.
But certainly when I see a response as rude, and rude in a way that suggests immaturity, as Michael Adams' post, there's the temptation to respond as I did :-)
No, Michael Adams' point is very poorly made, and almost ruined by the way he put it. Infantile attitudes and posts like his and mb's mainly makes the point that moderating has a lot going for it. Why do people insist on hiding behind their keyboards and be rude in a way they would be scared to if addressing an unknown bloke down the pub? Why bother to comment if you have nothing constructive to say? The logical conclusion is that being unnecessarily offensive is your main point.
I checked up on other postings of both Michael Adams, and, even though I'm unsure of who he's addressing, mb.
I replied to Michael Adams' post. I was offensive because I found his post offensive, hypocritical and troll-like. Not worthy of a reasoned response.
If you used a newsreader instead of Google groups, you would stand half a chance of seeing who said what. Even Outlook Express can be used as a newsreader. Your ISP has to have a newsfeed available, thobut. Or you can subscribe to an independant service.
-- Mike Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10 Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10 Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel
Not doing a bit of basic research into one of the most common aquatic fowl to have inhabited these islands for the past 200O years at the very least
PS: You criticise me for "not doing a bit of basic research into one of the most common aquatic fowl", then say that you "get far more pleasure in feeding a bit of bread to an evolving family of swans."
If you had done any research, you would have found out that you shouldn't feed bread to swans. I've got a link for you from the CBeebies site, which will probably be appropriate for your mental age.
Although <URL:http://www.swanuk.org.uk/faq.htm> (The Swan Sanctuary at Egham) includes fresh bread in a list of what you can feed a swan (along with grains and greens).
-- Andy Leighton => [email hidden] "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
michael adams said:
You clarified your position, only to the extent of implying that my original post suggesed immaturity .
Rubbish. Go back and read my posts (plural) again.
Quoted message said:
...
Quoted message said:
For you to come back and repeat your original misunderstanding
...
There was no "original misundertanding." It was quite plain from your original post that you don't have a clue about swans or the kind of behavious you can expect from them.
You posted a whole lot of rude, immature, nonsense making all sorts of incorrect assumptions about my beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes to the swans. Now you insist on repeating your original misunderstanding. For whatever reason I don't know.
So you don't ride a mountain bike and you dont wear a helmet.
You feed it to them when they're on the water. Where they naturally dip it under the water before swallowing it. If you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd have known that. Swans are also much more elegant and pleasing to look at when on the water. The contrast with their ungainly appearance on land as they waddle about with their dinner-plate sized feet is quite startling.
To get them off the towpath - if they're on there - you throw the bread in the water. After which they may take it from your hand.
Or maybe the RSPB don't know what they're talking about
<quote>
Swans normally find enough food in the wild without supplementary feeding. It is only in freezing weather that extra food can be helpful. Many people like feeding bread to swans and while this is unlikely to do them any real harm in the long term, it is no substitute for the proper diet that the birds themselves will seek out.
They do know what they are talking about. Bread here is only for freezing weather where some food is better than no food, and they say that it is no substitute for the proper diet that the birds themselves will seek out. It's also, if you research properly, not the best food you could give them.
You clarified your position, only to the extent of implying that my original post suggesed immaturity .
Rubbish. Go back and read my posts (plural) again.
Quoted message said:
...
Quoted message said:
For you to come back and repeat your original misunderstanding
...
There was no "original misundertanding." It was quite plain from your original post that you don't have a clue about swans or the kind of behavious you can expect from them.
You posted a whole lot of rude, immature, nonsense making all sorts of incorrect assumptions about my beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes to the swans. Now you insist on repeating your original misunderstanding. For whatever reason I don't know.
