University of Southampton joins probe into tsunamis threat to UK

Daily Echo: The tsunami hits the northern coast of Japan. The tsunami hits the northern coast of Japan.

A TEAM of Southampton experts is to study the threat to the UK posed by potentially-devastating tsunamis.

Scientists and engineers from the University of Southampton are involved in the project led by the city-based National Oceanography Centre to assess how a massive underwater landslide could impact the country.

The four-year, £2.3m study, funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), will look at the possible effects on society and infrastructure of a huge natural disaster over the next 100 to 200 years, as well as examining whether sea defences could cope or need to be improved, by researching landslips below the Arctic Ocean.

It is hoped the information will enable experts to determine whether climate change at the globe’s most northernmost ocean will lead to increased risk of tsunamis.

Project leader, Dr Peter Talling of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton said: “We hope that the project will produce a step-change in scientific understanding about some of the most remarkable and largest natural events that occur on our planet.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:42am Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today southy
  • Score: 0

9:06am Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today
So armed with this trivia, what can we tell about the risk now?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today[/p][/quote]So armed with this trivia, what can we tell about the risk now? Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:06am Fri 17 Aug 12

Huey says...

May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast
May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast Huey
  • Score: 0

9:25am Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today
.. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however.

There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today[/p][/quote].. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however. There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie? freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:26am Fri 17 Aug 12

Brite Spark says...

Huey wrote:
May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast
Maybe you should have tweeted that post.
[quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast[/p][/quote]Maybe you should have tweeted that post. Brite Spark
  • Score: 0

10:53am Fri 17 Aug 12

AndyAndrews says...

Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat.
Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat. AndyAndrews
  • Score: 0

11:02am Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today
So armed with this trivia, what can we tell about the risk now?
Pretty low risk probley some thing like once in a 1 or 2 thousand years for the UK.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today[/p][/quote]So armed with this trivia, what can we tell about the risk now?[/p][/quote]Pretty low risk probley some thing like once in a 1 or 2 thousand years for the UK. southy
  • Score: 0

11:11am Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today
.. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however.

There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie?
The discription was that of a tsunami and not that of High winds or with a high tide, it effected all along the southern welsh coast into the Bristol channel, somerset levels, all the way down to Scilly isles, but the main recording was done by a monk in south Somerset and his discription is what you will see with a tsunami, land slip of the south west coast of Ireland more likely the cause.
You know off Romley marshes well the meadows are on the sea ward side of the slopes of the downs, the upper meadows are the pasture fields for cattle and for hay making.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today[/p][/quote].. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however. There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie?[/p][/quote]The discription was that of a tsunami and not that of High winds or with a high tide, it effected all along the southern welsh coast into the Bristol channel, somerset levels, all the way down to Scilly isles, but the main recording was done by a monk in south Somerset and his discription is what you will see with a tsunami, land slip of the south west coast of Ireland more likely the cause. You know off Romley marshes well the meadows are on the sea ward side of the slopes of the downs, the upper meadows are the pasture fields for cattle and for hay making. southy
  • Score: 0

11:15am Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

Sorry that should be Romney
Sorry that should be Romney southy
  • Score: 0

11:17am Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

Brite Spark wrote:
Huey wrote:
May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast
Maybe you should have tweeted that post.
Very good point Brite the one island do pose a threat, those hollow lava tubes could give way and drop into the sea.
[quote][p][bold]Brite Spark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast[/p][/quote]Maybe you should have tweeted that post.[/p][/quote]Very good point Brite the one island do pose a threat, those hollow lava tubes could give way and drop into the sea. southy
  • Score: 0

11:25am Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

AndyAndrews wrote:
Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat.
"Science" isn't just one big blob of resources that all do the same thing. We can't just take scientists from one field, and switch them over to another. If all anybody ever did was focus on the immediate threat, we'd still be living up trees and terrified of The Fire God.
[quote][p][bold]AndyAndrews[/bold] wrote: Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat.[/p][/quote]"Science" isn't just one big blob of resources that all do the same thing. We can't just take scientists from one field, and switch them over to another. If all anybody ever did was focus on the immediate threat, we'd still be living up trees and terrified of The Fire God. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:30am Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today
.. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however.

There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie?
The discription was that of a tsunami and not that of High winds or with a high tide, it effected all along the southern welsh coast into the Bristol channel, somerset levels, all the way down to Scilly isles, but the main recording was done by a monk in south Somerset and his discription is what you will see with a tsunami, land slip of the south west coast of Ireland more likely the cause.
You know off Romley marshes well the meadows are on the sea ward side of the slopes of the downs, the upper meadows are the pasture fields for cattle and for hay making.
.. no southy, Romley is not a known location anywhere in the UK.

I have: -
1) googled it - no results.
2) searched Ordnance Survey - no results.
3) searched Street Map - no results.
4) searched Google Maps - no results.

Now, before we go any further and we have to call this another one of your lies, I give you one last chance to tell me where this place is. Have you spelt it correctly? Could that be why it appears to be fictitious? What county is it in? What’s the nearest town?

I do so hope, after the lies of the Rahit Maryada saga, that I have not caught you out making up info just to back up your obvious error on the UK status of the Meadow Fritillary.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today[/p][/quote].. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however. There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie?[/p][/quote]The discription was that of a tsunami and not that of High winds or with a high tide, it effected all along the southern welsh coast into the Bristol channel, somerset levels, all the way down to Scilly isles, but the main recording was done by a monk in south Somerset and his discription is what you will see with a tsunami, land slip of the south west coast of Ireland more likely the cause. You know off Romley marshes well the meadows are on the sea ward side of the slopes of the downs, the upper meadows are the pasture fields for cattle and for hay making.[/p][/quote].. no southy, Romley is not a known location anywhere in the UK. I have: - 1) googled it - no results. 2) searched Ordnance Survey - no results. 3) searched Street Map - no results. 4) searched Google Maps - no results. Now, before we go any further and we have to call this another one of your lies, I give you one last chance to tell me where this place is. Have you spelt it correctly? Could that be why it appears to be fictitious? What county is it in? What’s the nearest town? I do so hope, after the lies of the Rahit Maryada saga, that I have not caught you out making up info just to back up your obvious error on the UK status of the Meadow Fritillary. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:31am Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Sorry that should be Romney
.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous.
Back soon
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Sorry that should be Romney[/p][/quote].. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:57am Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Sorry that should be Romney
.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous.
Back soon
are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up.

Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”.

That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county.

It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy?

It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy?

Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course.

Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim.

Go on, you can do it.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Sorry that should be Romney[/p][/quote].. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon[/p][/quote]are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Fri 17 Aug 12

sass says...

freefinker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney
.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon
are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.
Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Sorry that should be Romney[/p][/quote].. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon[/p][/quote]are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.[/p][/quote]Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning. sass
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

sass wrote:
freefinker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney
.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon
are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.
Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.
very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.
[quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Sorry that should be Romney[/p][/quote].. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon[/p][/quote]are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.[/p][/quote]Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.[/p][/quote]very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing. southy
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
sass wrote:
freefinker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney
.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon
are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.
Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.
very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.
Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't porn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter.

So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Sorry that should be Romney[/p][/quote].. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon[/p][/quote]are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.[/p][/quote]Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.[/p][/quote]very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.[/p][/quote]Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't po[bold[/bold]rn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact. Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter. So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade? Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there. Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic. southy
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
sass wrote:
freefinker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney
.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon
are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.
Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.
very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.
Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't porn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter.

So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?
I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled.
I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error.
http://sgpc.net/sikh
ism/sikh-dharmamanua
l.asp
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Sorry that should be Romney[/p][/quote].. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon[/p][/quote]are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.[/p][/quote]Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.[/p][/quote]very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.[/p][/quote]Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't po[bold[/bold]rn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact. Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter. So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?[/p][/quote]I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled. I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error. http://sgpc.net/sikh ism/sikh-dharmamanua l.asp southy
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.
From a recent post by your friend Paramjit:

" Hi,

On same unconnected with PCC election (on which I agree that an independent candidate is good news, but doubt if he can win?) I contacted office of President of SGPC; the highest democratically elected body of Sikhs in Amritsar.

On 8 August I received following email. This should be sufficient to put an end to confusion on this subject.

It has been copied and pasted, apart from top bit which was form of address/greeting in Punjabi as per Sikh tradition.

Apropos your email dated Aug, 6,2012, Please be informed that 'Sikh
Rehat Maryada' is not at all named after any person whatsoever. You
please send your complete mailing address enabling us to have a copy
of the same in English despached to you, wherein you would find how it
came into being.
"

So you're now accusing the president of the SGPC - in effect, the Sikh Parliament - a liar. Rather bold, don't you think?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there. Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.[/p][/quote]From a recent post by your friend Paramjit: " Hi, On same unconnected with PCC election (on which I agree that an independent candidate is good news, but doubt if he can win?) I contacted office of President of SGPC; the highest democratically elected body of Sikhs in Amritsar. On 8 August I received following email. This should be sufficient to put an end to confusion on this subject. It has been copied and pasted, apart from top bit which was form of address/greeting in Punjabi as per Sikh tradition. Apropos your email dated Aug, 6,2012, Please be informed that 'Sikh Rehat Maryada' is not at all named after any person whatsoever. You please send your complete mailing address enabling us to have a copy of the same in English despached to you, wherein you would find how it came into being. " So you're now accusing the president of the SGPC - in effect, the Sikh Parliament - a liar. Rather bold, don't you think? Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
sass wrote:
freefinker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney
.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon
are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.
Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.
very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.
Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't porn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter.

So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?
I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled.
I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error.
http://sgpc.net/sikh

ism/sikh-dharmamanua

l.asp
Let's assume for a moment that this is the case (which it isn't). Why, then, did you insist that this document was named after a Sikh man named Rahed Maryada?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Sorry that should be Romney[/p][/quote].. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon[/p][/quote]are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.[/p][/quote]Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.[/p][/quote]very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.[/p][/quote]Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't po[bold[/bold]rn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact. Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter. So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?[/p][/quote]I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled. I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error. http://sgpc.net/sikh ism/sikh-dharmamanua l.asp[/p][/quote]Let's assume for a moment that this is the case (which it isn't). Why, then, did you insist that this document was named after a Sikh man named Rahed Maryada? Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Fri 17 Aug 12

jonnyx says...

AndyAndrews wrote:
Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat.
I have followed some of your comments today with great interest Mr. Andrews, and there seems to be undeniable and incontrovertible evidence that you sir, are a complete tool.
[quote][p][bold]AndyAndrews[/bold] wrote: Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat.[/p][/quote]I have followed some of your comments today with great interest Mr. Andrews, and there seems to be undeniable and incontrovertible evidence that you sir, are a complete tool. jonnyx
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
sass wrote:
freefinker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney
.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon
are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.
Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.
very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.
Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't porn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter.

So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?
I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled.
I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error.
http://sgpc.net/sikh


ism/sikh-dharmamanua


l.asp
Let's assume for a moment that this is the case (which it isn't). Why, then, did you insist that this document was named after a Sikh man named Rahed Maryada?
60% of the internet is ****, only 40% is anything else, also there is actually "public" information that isn't available online, such as a lot of "public" information from china, because they're scared someone would use it to overthrow their communist reign and it's the same in quite a few countries, not all "public" documents and information can be found online so for once southy is right, a lot of information on the net is controlled, like a lot of the information about 9/11 was controlled and changed to suit president bush.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Sorry that should be Romney[/p][/quote].. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon[/p][/quote]are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.[/p][/quote]Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.[/p][/quote]very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.[/p][/quote]Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't po[bold[/bold]rn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact. Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter. So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?[/p][/quote]I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled. I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error. http://sgpc.net/sikh ism/sikh-dharmamanua l.asp[/p][/quote]Let's assume for a moment that this is the case (which it isn't). Why, then, did you insist that this document was named after a Sikh man named Rahed Maryada?[/p][/quote]60% of the internet is ****, only 40% is anything else, also there is actually "public" information that isn't available online, such as a lot of "public" information from china, because they're scared someone would use it to overthrow their communist reign and it's the same in quite a few countries, not all "public" documents and information can be found online so for once southy is right, a lot of information on the net is controlled, like a lot of the information about 9/11 was controlled and changed to suit president bush. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.
No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found.

Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site.

However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it?

Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.”

That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that?

Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary.

Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary.

So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion.

You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE.

I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there. Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.[/p][/quote]No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found. Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site. However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it? Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.” That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that? Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary. Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary. So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion. You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE. I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits.
I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits.
Indeed.

In fact, Ginger_cyclist, we don't even get the 1 or 2 blown over from the continent. When it’s windy this species hankers down in undergrowth.

It's not a species like the Clouded Yellow or Painted Lady which wait for the correct winds to assist their migration.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits.[/p][/quote]Indeed. In fact, Ginger_cyclist, we don't even get the 1 or 2 blown over from the continent. When it’s windy this species hankers down in undergrowth. It's not a species like the Clouded Yellow or Painted Lady which wait for the correct winds to assist their migration. freefinker
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits.
Indeed.

In fact, Ginger_cyclist, we don't even get the 1 or 2 blown over from the continent. When it’s windy this species hankers down in undergrowth.

It's not a species like the Clouded Yellow or Painted Lady which wait for the correct winds to assist their migration.
Indeed, I'd be more inclined to believe it if southy said it was swallow tail butterflies instead.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits.[/p][/quote]Indeed. In fact, Ginger_cyclist, we don't even get the 1 or 2 blown over from the continent. When it’s windy this species hankers down in undergrowth. It's not a species like the Clouded Yellow or Painted Lady which wait for the correct winds to assist their migration.[/p][/quote]Indeed, I'd be more inclined to believe it if southy said it was swallow tail butterflies instead. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Ant Smoking MP says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.
No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found.

Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site.

However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it?

Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.”

That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that?

Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary.

Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary.

So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion.

You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE.

I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong.
And to think you actually made an effort to make this point!! How boring is your life?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there. Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.[/p][/quote]No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found. Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site. However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it? Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.” That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that? Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary. Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary. So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion. You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE. I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong.[/p][/quote]And to think you actually made an effort to make this point!! How boring is your life? Ant Smoking MP
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

Ant Smoking MP wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.
No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found.

Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site.

However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it?

Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.”

That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that?

Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary.

Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary.

So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion.

You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE.

I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong.
And to think you actually made an effort to make this point!! How boring is your life?
.. apparently not quite as boring as yours, stuck as you are in defending the Red tribe against the Blue tribe - when actually there’s not even a gnat’s crotchet of difference between then.
[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there. Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.[/p][/quote]No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found. Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site. However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it? Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.” That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that? Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary. Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary. So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion. You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE. I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong.[/p][/quote]And to think you actually made an effort to make this point!! How boring is your life?[/p][/quote].. apparently not quite as boring as yours, stuck as you are in defending the Red tribe against the Blue tribe - when actually there’s not even a gnat’s crotchet of difference between then. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Fri 17 Aug 12

forest hump says...

So we spend 2.3 million! What will we do with the results? Probably conclude we need to spend more to fully understand. The University must be rubbing its hands together. Put the money to some real use where we will see true results. Let's not subsidise a bunch of geeks who will draw no real conclusions.
So we spend 2.3 million! What will we do with the results? Probably conclude we need to spend more to fully understand. The University must be rubbing its hands together. Put the money to some real use where we will see true results. Let's not subsidise a bunch of geeks who will draw no real conclusions. forest hump
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Sat 18 Aug 12

jonnyx says...

forest hump wrote:
So we spend 2.3 million! What will we do with the results? Probably conclude we need to spend more to fully understand. The University must be rubbing its hands together. Put the money to some real use where we will see true results. Let's not subsidise a bunch of geeks who will draw no real conclusions.
ha,ha,ha. yes. brilliantly thought out comment. what HAS scientific endeavour ever brought us, eh? it's all just a bunch of subsidised geeks drawing no real conclusions. moron.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: So we spend 2.3 million! What will we do with the results? Probably conclude we need to spend more to fully understand. The University must be rubbing its hands together. Put the money to some real use where we will see true results. Let's not subsidise a bunch of geeks who will draw no real conclusions.[/p][/quote]ha,ha,ha. yes. brilliantly thought out comment. what HAS scientific endeavour ever brought us, eh? it's all just a bunch of subsidised geeks drawing no real conclusions. moron. jonnyx
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree