On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:50:49 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> ><..>
>> >> >A few might hop in from the field margins.. same as they can hop out.
>> >>
>> >> LOL. I mean: Why would they be in "the field margins", and how
>> >> would they get there?
>> >
>> >Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
>> >Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.
>> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
>> >> >> >> >> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
>> >> >> >> >> >> along.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
>> >> >> >> >> >slaughtered year in, year out?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I bet! - you're a ready sucker,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
>> >> >> >> superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
>> >> >> >> damn funny.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I've plenty of reason to believe that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like what?
>> >> >
>> >> >I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe you, but would like to see you try.
>> >
>> >I'm not giving it to you again.
>>
>> You lied to begin with, and are now desperately though pathetically
>> trying to support your lying.
>
>Unlike you, I don't lie.

I wish you didn't lie.

>> >> >> >You dis-believe without reason.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
>> >> >> people in general would have learned about it because research
>> >> >> teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
>> >> >> videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
>> >> >> public like they do with other things of interest.
>> >> >
>> >> >That has happened.
>> >>
>> >> You're the only person I've ever known of to think so. Do you
>> >> always believe that btw, or do you sometimes think they don't
>> >> exist like you sometimes think there are no frogs in rice fields?
>> >
>> >You mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.
>>
>> That's because of a number of people who have reported them,
>
>In Texas? Show us.

In a different thread one guy from the pathetic Texas ngs did say
something about me you will probably like, and also that he's heard
frogs in Texas rice fields:
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Subject: OT question about frogs in rice fields...
From: The Chief Instigator >

I can safely conclude that you're a pretentious little incompetent troll,
son...since I've heard frogs in the rice fields a time or two in the 41 years
I've lived in Texas.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I'd be interested in what he has to say if you go challenge him
on it.

>> plus having seen many frogs in different environments similar to
>> rice fields.
>
>Areas that are allowed to dry and then harvested twice a year?
>
>> The only thing I've seen trying to oppose the occurrence
>> is you who have no clue wtf you're trying to talk about, and one or
>> two other "aras".
>
>Let's see your documentation of hundreds of thousands in Texas rice fields.

I'm not worried about whether there are hundreds of thousands,
tens of thousands, or just thousands...even a hundred or so would
be significant to me. But then why wouldn't one be significant to
an "ara"?

.. . .
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
>> conjunction
>
>--restore--
>
>"in conjuction" means 'joined to'. In the areas described below,
>harvesting is manual, and therefore the wildlife can thrive as the
>fields and surrounding areas will serve as an established habitat.
>
>If you went in there with a mechanic harvester, yes, you'd likely
>get your "green waterfall" - once. > That's an ecosystem gone.
>
>--end restore--
>
>Why did you snip that, dh@?

Usually what I snip is shit, like your feeble, pathetic attempts to
pretend there's reason to believe in the hollow Earth shit...eventually
you just have to accept the fact that the horse is dead, if in fact
there's any horse at all.

>I think you need to address it.

The fact that you can imagine how a mechanical harvester could
create the effect *should* be enough to give you an idea of how a
mechanical harvester could create the effect. The fact that you
think it could only happen once just shows how much you can't
think yet, especially considering that diderot provided an explanation
about that very thing. Here it is again:

- conventional agriculture results in many more, but more 'invisible'
deaths. our conventional plot is across the road from our organic plot,
it started out with the same millions and billions of amphibian eggs.
only a few thousand frogs are harvested on the conventional side - they
were all killed off as eggs or tadpoles by agricultural chemicals.

- we manage the whole area (larger than just the farms) is a pretty
natural fashion and we have a lot of wildlife. the number of deaths is,
at least, partially a function of total area population. we could
reduce the number of visible deaths by flogging the ecology, but we
prefer life and cycle-of-life over a sterile monoculture.