Don Staples can talk about anything but trees. When it comes to trees and
their associates his has no conversation.


--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.

"Don Staples" wrote in message
...
"Billy Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"D. Staples" wrote:

"Billy Rose" wrote in message
...
In article LtMvi.1123$Gz4.695@trndny05, "Joe" wrote:

"symplastless" wrote in message
...
No Don Staples, we are very different from you.
1. We understand trees
2. We define our terms

Don Staples you claim to be a forester. Please define what you
mean
by a
forest.

Most foresters have taken at least a dozen courses in forestry, after
taken
many courses in biology, along with the other countless required
college
courses. I have about 20 college texts on forestry, trees, wildlife
biology
and mgt., arboriculture, soils science, geology, etc., etc.- that
tops
your
3 day courses.

I conclude that you or whoever started this thread by cross posting
should
stop the cross posting.

Even if you were a highly educated and trained arborist- arborist
issues
don't belong in alt.forestry. Perhaps, you could start a new group
called
alt.arborist. Don and myself and a few others started this newsgroup
a
decade ago- it wasn't that difficult- so you could do it too then
keep
your
discussions there where they belong.

Joe

Gladly, but I am posting in rec.gardens. We rarely deal with forests.
Mostly just trees. Your buddy Don could have easily brought this
thread
to an end, a long time ago by entering into a civil discussion instead
of just showing attitude.

Ah, an angry rag head, as well. You could have brought this thread to
an
end by stopping the crossposting, but no, you join the fray, so, have
it,
crotch rot. Civil discussion has failed in the past with "the tree
biologist", and will with his invites, as well. So, as I said, ****
off,
crotch rot.

Heavens, I didn't think that you and "Civil Discussion" were even on a
nodding acquaintance.

I'm sorry John, I was just looking at the Massachusetts requirements for
Forestry. I'm reminded of the smile that used to pass among physical
scientists when a biologist was around. Today what passes for a
biologist is a bio-chemist. I think if you required long division from
these idiots they would fold-up. Have you read "Fastfood Nation"? The
upshot of the whole deal is that you can find want adds for doctors
these days. People can come in off the street and are taught doctor
skills to free up doctors and nurses and make fewer of them necessary
and generate more profits for the hospitals investors.

I'm pretty sure that these folks don't want to end up in their golden
years flipping hamburgers at McDonalds and if you call yourself an
"arborist" without suffering what they suffered, then you are a threat.
Joe particularly got worked up over manual laborers and how little
training that they required. And thats all there is to it John, you are
a threat to them.

They have taken Forest Science I, II, and III, sorry, but not the most
intellectually challenging classes in the world, and now work they work
for the government, which gives them no respect. You on the other hand
have taken a number of three day classes, started your own business, and
are treated as a professional. LOL

Hey, Massachusetts, you can do it cheaper.

Stubby, super size that will ya?

Supper size THIS, crotch rot. Like your leader, the "tree biologist', you
have no concept of what your talking about.