Nice try TRTL, which I will acknowledge, but another X from me.

Firstly, your claim remains unsubstantiated. End of story really.

But, secondly, despite your attacks on tragedy, there is nothing childish or silly about asking someone to substantiate such a claim. What makes you think your opinion should be accepted as fact?

Thirdly, there is no onus on tragedy or anyone to disprove your claim. It is unreasonable to expect someone to spend there lives trying to prove that they've never murdered anyone - it's up to the person who accuses them to prove it. And no one is under an obligation to do you "the service" of categorically stating the opposite of you - as I tried to make clear. If you find the basics of rational debate irksome, perhaps you should try something else.

So, contrary to your evasive logic and defensive reaction, it is actually making claims without substantiation, or seemingly any willingness to do so, which shows "laziness", both in thinking and in effort.

cont...

(cont from above)

Under the pump, however, you seem to have put in the "hard yards" of typing "landclearing + extinction" into google, and come up with the Paradise parrot, rare in the late 19th century, and last seen about 85 years ago. Of the thousand or so bird species in Oz, this is what you've come up with. Spare me days!

I won't accuse you of being consciously dishonest in omitting the second sentence of the paragraph from which you quote, on possible reasons for extinction:

"Trapping for aviaries, egg collection, the spread of prickly pear and the occurrence of a series of droughts were also factors that are likely to have contributed to the paradise parrot’s extinction."

In other words, there appear to have been a range of possible factors, including naturally occurring events, mistakes and activities which would not be permitted today.

The parrot is described has having lived within a "fairly restricted range", and as Mathews is quoted in your site, regrettably became extinct "without any lasting record of its life-history being made known.” In other words, it seems little was known about it or it's population. Was it already on "the brink of extinction"? One question it begs is why it disappeared while other species of parrot lived on? Could it have been, dare I say, the sometimes sad reality of evolution in action, one of the parts of nature that environmentalists don't want to know about?

Hard to know, but the key point is that, as wikipedia states:

"The reasons for the sudden decline of the Paradise Parrot remain speculative."

Please resubmit.

"Reasons for extinction: Land clearing, grazing by sheep and cattle, and changed patterns of burning all contributed to the destruction of the paradise parrot’s habitat and, in particular, the reduction in the availability of native grass seeds."

Quite right TRTL, however, the Queensland EPA omitted to state that the Good Night Scrub, in the Burnett River area was the last known sighting of the extinct paradise parrot. The Good Night Scrub was once heavily logged. That's a touchy subject for the forest mafia and the EPA but it would not be the first time that "forestry" has been disguised as "land clearing".

However, regardless of which activity was ultimately responsible for the paradise parrot extinction, those activities were all anthropogenic but even as we speak, the village idiots bewitched by the logging mafia continue to protest on their behalf.

Nevertheless it has been entertaining to learn from our resident troll, fungochumley, that logging is so beneficial for our biodiversity and has nothing to do with species decline or extinctions and I'm certain too that his fellow trolls under the bridge must be proud. What type of medication has fungo shared with them this week I wonder?

And what more could we, the humourously deprived, ask for? Not one but two whole posts in succession of side-splitting fatuity. Hilarious but hey....he must be getting tired of that taste of shoe leather in his mouth.

X on that. And now a new one to address:

Protagoras: "it has been entertaining to learn from our resident troll, fungochumley, that logging is so beneficial for our biodiversity and has nothing to do with species decline or extinctions"

Quite the charmer aren't you? Could you point to where I said anything of the sort. Unless you do, or retract this, I will assume you are acknowledging that you are lying (again).

fungochumley...

I did reference it. It's linked to the EPA right there.

Black. And. White. Linked. Referenced. Parrot = extinct. No longer sighted.

You however, have provided nothing but X's.

I rue the day that marking X's on a page equates to any kind of substantial argument.

I can't even call what you've done a 'nice try' because you haven't tried at all.

Oh dear, I should be being paid for this.

TRTL,

Where do I begin? Let's take it line by line shall we.

"I did reference it. It's linked to the EPA right there. Black. And. White. Linked. Referenced. Parrot = extinct. No longer sighted."

So? Was this the question in dispute? No. Did I dispute this? No. You were not asked to name an extinct animal. To which I could add:

Black. And. White. Tyrannosaurus Rex = extinct. No longer sighted.

No, you were asked to provide an example of a species proven to have become extinct due to logging. You haven't, and your own links don't, nor can you seem to acknowledge this, consciously or otherwise. I can't say that I understand why.

"You however, have provided nothing but X's."

Well, actually, I have. In fact, I was sprayed by Poisonas for writing two long posts. She responded with words like foolishness and fatuity, but did not offer any comment as to why. Is this what you consider substance? I said I would reply with Xs unless an example was provided or an acknowledgment made, but generously responded to your "nice try" above. I also made a case as to why it is unreasonable to demand that people spend their lives trying to prove that they've never murdered anyone. By your own line of reasoning, I could accuse you (and Poisonas) of not responding with any substance and arguing why this demand IS reasonable.

cont...