About Us

23-12-2002, 09:15 PM

(Richard Harter) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 06:35:51 +0000 (UTC), "Norseman"
wrote:

"rick etter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Elbel" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 05:16:33 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry Harrell) wrote:

"Corporate Interests" want that steady supply of small logs that will
result from thinning programs soon to be mandated by Congress. Loggers
want to go to work. People want to be safe from fires. The forests
need to be healthier, drought resistant and fire resistant.
"Management", as opposed to "preservationism" will get our forests
resored much quicker than "Mother Nature", as she works on very long
cycles without man's intervention.

Are you a corporate shill?
=====================
No, but you're still an ignorant shrill, schreeching idiot..

Actually, he asked a legitimate question considering the fact Larry Harrel's
response included this statement:

"Also, If the USFS didn't have to meet all those NEPA
guidelines, public opinion, and a multitude of local, regional, state
and Federal laws, just like private industry, then maybe we'd make a
profit, Fred"

Why say "we'd" if he wasn't involved in the industry? There's a chance this
guy works in the timber industry.

THen again there is a chance Fred's reading skills aren't very good.
The quoted text implies that he works for the USFS. Accusing him of
being a corporate shill is, to put it mildly, an inane sort of thing
to do.

I don't like what Elbel wrote because it appeared to be an ad hominem
argument and irrelevant. But unless things have changed in the last
decade, it is not inane to assume that because someone works for the
USFS he or she is a corporate shill. To assume so may be an unfair
over-generalization, but it is not inane. When I worked for the House
Interior (later, Natural Resourses) Committee, those who ran the
Forest Service, at least, were appologists for the forest industry,
and that was the general bias of the Service. Maybe it's changed.

Mitchell Coffey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	Norseman	alt.forestry	0	23-12-2002 06:35 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	rick etter	alt.forestry	0	23-12-2002 12:59 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	Fred Elbel	alt.forestry	0	23-12-2002 12:25 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	Larry Harrell	alt.forestry	0	22-12-2002 05:16 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	Fred Elbel	alt.forestry	0	21-12-2002 05:15 PM

Menu

About Us