"Treelady" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 14, 5:29 pm, Charlie wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:39:52 -0500, "Don Staples"

wrote:
"Treelady" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Aug 13, 1:37 pm, Geoff-consulting forester in the US
wrote:
Treelady, et, Al.
-

Oh dear. Thank you Geoff for repeating yourself. Now that I have the
message loud and clear, I shall take my ignorant self elsewhere as I
am completely overwhelmed by your intelligence.

As well you should be.

This has been an entertaining thread to observe........

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a
meaningless interaction into a battle of wills
and add drama to an otherwise dull day."
-Calvin discovers Usenet

Tree People UNITE! lol. Having committed hari kari and enjoying the
pleasure of being reborn, I, too, would like to vent some spleen: How
many of you encounter people who insist they want to reduce mature
trees by 50%? On the whole the clients that come our way are fairly
decent but, still, too many think it is perfectly fine to cut a fifty
foot tree in half. AND, they argue with me and my fellow comrades in
arms, by insisting that their experience says it is a perfectly
acceptable practice.

A bit counterintuitive, perhaps, but the idea isn't as preposterous as it
may appear at first glance. If you cut the trees in half lengthwise (which
is to say vertically) in situ, the odds are pretty good (at least in some
species) that both halves will survive. Needless to say, this halving will
result in having two trees where before there was only one. The net effect
is that by reducing trees by 50% you actually DOUBLE the number of trees!
Sweet.

Wolfgang