In article ,
Frank frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

Scott Hildenbrand wrote:
symplastless wrote:
Unless you have a comment on trees and their proper care, please
reframe from your negative attacks.


Actually, it's not an attack.. It's a statement..

If it were an attack I'd say something like;


I should send my stepsons father your way.. He likes to pee on trees,
profusely.



OP would be well to do this - he's ****ing away his time here - which is
OK for us retired folks.

Also reminds me of time I was cycling with son and stopped to pee.
Son said, "Dad, don't you see that sign on tree that says "no trees
****ing?""

You must have French heritage. In France, if there is no "nature" to
retire to, in order to relieve yourself, you, man or woman, are only
required to turn your back to traffic. But then, they didn't have very
many Puritans to deal with (yes Joe, a preposition;-).

On the subject of "symplastless", let me just say that he has been
posting to "wrecked gardens" since at least 2005. He responds to
questions, instead of just posting his ad in the "wrecked gardens" and
then running off to set traps for the unwary in other NGs. I too find
his parsimonious prose painful to peruse but he does have his moments as
witness this post from 2005.

"So called Christians such as Rick Santorum (R) again have exercised poor
decisions with due respect to creation care. Rick Santorum on a scale
from 0-100%, scored a poor 0% with the scorecard of the League of
Conservation Voters (www.lcv.org) for the year 2004. This must be due to
faulty intelligence. This score surely represents the extreme right of
the Republican party. I know to many people in Pennsylvania to except
that his voting represents his constituents. Why do we allow him to take
such a poor stand, out of faulty intelligence, with respect to creation
care, while he claims to be a Christian. He represents us and is sending
a very clear poor message under the mock of being a Christian. When
asked to define what he means when he says "forest" as he claims logging
National Forest helps forest vitality, he refuses. Joe Pitts (R) scored
a 9% while others such as Joe Hoeffel (D) scored a respectful 100%. Is
the Republican parties goals to give trees and their associates low
quality lives? Man's first responsibility was to care for the garden,
(Genesis 2-15). Medical doctors take an oath not to cause harm. People
who make decisions on forest health, such as Santorum, should be
required to have a background in tree biology and take a similar oath. A
myth that insects and fungi threaten forest health still is fostered
out of the ignorance of tree biology. . . ."
- "symplastless" Feb. 5. 2005

His reflection on the Republicans, party of Russel Train (founder of the
World Wildlife Fund and first head of the EPA), and Rep."Pete McCloskey"
,CA, co-sponsor of the Endangered Species Act, was one of his better
efforts.

Remember the "old" Republican Party?

"Back in 1973, the environment was a bipartisan issue. Both parties
strongly supported the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National
Environmental Policy Act and many other bedrock laws that have done so
much to make our lives enjoyable. Yet today, the Newt Gingrichs and Tom
DeLays and others have led the Republican Party to abandon the legacy of
Teddy Roosevelt. There are a handful of pro-environment Republicans
still in the Congress, but they are outnumbered by people who put
corporate campaign contributions and business and development interests
ahead in their priorities."
- "Pete" McCloskey
January 2, 2004, Los Angeles Times

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0102-02.htm

Anyway, even if "sympastless" is compositionally challenged and "a pain
in the tucka" for some of you, he is "wrecked gardens'" "pain in the
tucka" and shouldn't be hassled for posting here. IMHO.
--

Billy

Bush & Cheney, Behind Bars