John Bachman wrote:
A sure sign that a person is losing a debate is when they extend the
subject to a ridiculous extreme. We were talking about one tree and
you have tried to extend the same principles to earth scorching.

My response was to your earlier message that said::

Your town has an ordinance that requires a homeowner to get a permit
to cut down a tree on his own property? Yikes!

Sure glad I live in the "Live Free or Die" state. We just tax the
trees that you cut down. No income or sales taxes but we have lots of
little ones.

So it was you that opened the scope of the discussion beyond that one tree.

A sure sign that a person is losing a debate is when they accuse someone
else's point as being a "ridiculous extreme" instead of addressing the
issue.

So how does the world work in your view that all it should take to cut down
trees is to pay a tax? Or do you really have some additional criteria as to
who has the freedom to do that on their property, and who doesn't?
Apparently you're in favor of you having the right, but when someone else
clear-cuts a forest, that's a "ridiculous extreme", and isn't covered by
your ideas of freedom.

So where do you draw the line? Instead of pouting about how the example is a
"ridiculous extreme", why don't you address the point, and tell us where
you're drawing the line, and why?

Or was my position a ridiculous extreme. In case you missed it, I said:

"There are situations when trees should be cut down, and there are
situations
when trees shouldn't be cut down. I'm not saying that just because a tree
gives me shade, my neighbor shouldn't be allowed to cut it down. Nor am I
saying that my need for an unobstructed view mean that my neighbor shouldn't
be allowed to construct a cellular phone tower on his or her front lawn,
either. The situations need to be considered on their own merits, and in
whole. The ownership of the land involved may be a factor in who can
initiate consideration of the situation. It may, in some situations, be the
most important consideration. But it shouldn't always be the most important
consideration, nor should it be the only consideration."

Is that a "ridiculous extreme"?

If you've got a point, make it. Or do you want to stand on your "End of
conversation" comment? If that's all you had to say in response, then you
wasted your time. You said nothing. You haven't been the least bit
convincing.

So do you believe that a property owner should be able to cut down all the
trees they want without regard to others (so long as they can afford to pay
the tax), or is that not your position? And if that's not your position,
where are you drawing the line, and why? And how do you justify it compared
to my "ridiculous extreme" position?

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
What's on TV? See the new fall network schedules online:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/tele.../fall2005.html