RockyDog
Member
Bucktrack, im so with you, that was an intelligent post. You the man.
Loss of U.S. Forests
- Thread starter Nemont
- Start date
Ithaca 37
New member
Bucktrack, That's very enlightening. Please continue posting.
Ten Bears
New member
BUZZ - from 3/22/04:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ten beers, you really are slow arent you? Tell me are you special?
Show me where I said, "forest land has to have commercial value to be considered forest land". You wont find it, because I didnt say it. You said it though, dont confuse yourself...thats what happens when you make stuff up.
Your comprehension sucks buddy, big time.
You have one guy in the article saying we've cut too much, another says, no we have more forest land now than in 1920, which may be true. But, just because you have more "forest land" now, doesnt mean anything in regard to the quality of that forest land or have anything to do with the arguement of whether or not we're cutting too much.
Except for those that lack third grade educations, I think its pretty obvious that basing claims that we "arent cutting too much, because we have more forest land now than in 1920" is a ridiculous arguement. To make that statement have any accuracy you have to: 1. look at the amount of land available for harvest 2. on that land look at how much timber you're growing 3. look at how much you're cutting 4. look at the quality of the timber on that land. That will tell the story of whether or not we're growing more trees than we're cutting.
I never had an arguement with the numbers, they are pretty much accepted numbers for "forest land". But to use just that to make a case that wer arent cutting enough, is a joke.
Show me where I said, "forest land has to have commercial value to be considered forest land". You wont find it, because I didnt say it. You said it though, dont confuse yourself...thats what happens when you make stuff up.
Your comprehension sucks buddy, big time.
You have one guy in the article saying we've cut too much, another says, no we have more forest land now than in 1920, which may be true. But, just because you have more "forest land" now, doesnt mean anything in regard to the quality of that forest land or have anything to do with the arguement of whether or not we're cutting too much.
Except for those that lack third grade educations, I think its pretty obvious that basing claims that we "arent cutting too much, because we have more forest land now than in 1920" is a ridiculous arguement. To make that statement have any accuracy you have to: 1. look at the amount of land available for harvest 2. on that land look at how much timber you're growing 3. look at how much you're cutting 4. look at the quality of the timber on that land. That will tell the story of whether or not we're growing more trees than we're cutting.
I never had an arguement with the numbers, they are pretty much accepted numbers for "forest land". But to use just that to make a case that wer arent cutting enough, is a joke.
Ten Bears
New member
Your the one who said
How about this?
Not me.
How about this?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ten, you're hopeless...
I know third graders that:
1. make more sense than you
2. have more common sense than you
3. have better comprehension skills than you
Everything I said about forest land is true.
Its tough to tell who is more dense, you or elkchsr...
I know third graders that:
1. make more sense than you
2. have more common sense than you
3. have better comprehension skills than you
Everything I said about forest land is true.
Its tough to tell who is more dense, you or elkchsr...
Ten Bears
New member
I think your writing skills are poor, and you're in to deep to back out now. 
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ten beers,
I'm not backing out of anything. Thankfully, the average SI reader/author has better comprehension than you.
Why do you suppose that everyone else has trouble following your "logic"...just look at the posts you make and how others reply...see a pattern???
I'm not backing out of anything. Thankfully, the average SI reader/author has better comprehension than you.
Why do you suppose that everyone else has trouble following your "logic"...just look at the posts you make and how others reply...see a pattern???
Ten Bears
New member
BUZZ, I understand that you have a narrow field of vision [(tunneled, as some might put it) additional comment added as edit]. I understand that you can't accept(or conceive) the concept of the "bigger picture". I understand that you (and GUNNER an IT) feel intellectually threatened by others. I understand that your comprehension skills get in the way. I understand, but some time your gonna have to let it go man. Just let it go.
[ 03-30-2004, 14:16: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]
[ 03-30-2004, 14:16: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]
RockyDog
Member
Tenbeers, what was that babble? What grade did you make it to?
I see I get to be included in debates with out even being here...Way to cool!!!
As usual, it matters not if your right or wrong Buzz, you lost the argument just because you can't seem to keep the grade school play ground smutter out of any of your posts......All well, can't or won't try to change the ignorance of youthful outbursts...
One thing you will need to get over, no matter how much your upset with the natural balance of Mother Earth not being what it was 100-200 years ago, or what you perceive it should be, nothing stay's the same forever, it seems that some 10-12 K years ago the environment was nothing like it is now...
As usual, it matters not if your right or wrong Buzz, you lost the argument just because you can't seem to keep the grade school play ground smutter out of any of your posts......All well, can't or won't try to change the ignorance of youthful outbursts...
One thing you will need to get over, no matter how much your upset with the natural balance of Mother Earth not being what it was 100-200 years ago, or what you perceive it should be, nothing stay's the same forever, it seems that some 10-12 K years ago the environment was nothing like it is now...
Ten Bears
New member
RD, 12 if'n you counts the GED.
Besides Buzz, there is no way "humanly" possible to "Put the forests back the way they were" 100-200 years ago. The biology of forests as a whole plus all of the people living in and around would in of itself prevent this...LOL...Sorry bud...
No matter what you say or do, you lose in the end...
No matter what you say or do, you lose in the end...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Elkchsr, do you freaking read the other posts before you say stupid shit?
Apparently not, or you'd realize that you just stated exactly what I did.
I never made reference to "putting forests back the way they were 1-2 hundred years ago", just the fact that they are different.
Therefore to compare the total amount of forest land today to 1920 is totally ridiculous. Of course the forests today are different, and that was my point. You arent comparing the same thing.
It seems to me you like to argue without evening understanding the issue at hand.
Now, run along, I think the short bus just pulled up to your house...
Apparently not, or you'd realize that you just stated exactly what I did.
I never made reference to "putting forests back the way they were 1-2 hundred years ago", just the fact that they are different.
Therefore to compare the total amount of forest land today to 1920 is totally ridiculous. Of course the forests today are different, and that was my point. You arent comparing the same thing.
It seems to me you like to argue without evening understanding the issue at hand.
Now, run along, I think the short bus just pulled up to your house...
JoseCuervo
New member
Ten Bears
New member
He has to keep going back to his "mental, happy place".
