🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CC9vLx.J7z@news.udel.edu>, whealton@brahms.udel.edu (Charles Ro Whealton) writes:
>In article <1993Aug24.134248.28680@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:
>>In article <ggauvrea.745881925@unixg.ubc.ca>, ggauvrea@unixg.ubc.ca (Gwethalyn Gauvreau) writes:
>
>>>CLAYOQUOT VALLEY THREATENED
>
>>Seems to me that after all the bluster that's been going on in this
>>newsgroup on this topic... that all these environmentalists have been
>>able to make clear is that they don't like the look of clearcut areas...
>>nothing more, nothing less.
>
>
>Gee, if it's not //Don the memorable loudmouth who loves to blast
>people just because they don't agree with him.  Funny, you pulled the
>same obnacious crap on the whale debate... Couldn't get it through
>your thick head that some of us just like to know that there's one
>type of living thing that's immune from man's destruction.  Fine, then
>although I won't try, I don't care if I'm obnacious like you always
>are.

Gee... I guess I got someone's hackles up... well, here's how it is,
Chuckie... it's just too bad! 

>
>It's the same thing here... SO WHAT IF SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO SEE
>CLEAR CUT AREAS.  

So what, you ask? It just seems to me that law and order should 
prevail in a civilized society... and the fact that some people
don't *like* something doesn't seem to me to be reasonable and
sufficient grounds to force their opinions on others... much
less to break the law. 

>The way forests are getting ripped down while
>obnacious people like yourself call it progress is ridiculous.
>There's plenty of forest that's been ripped down where I live.  Now
>there's about 6 - 8 shopping malls within a couple miles of each
>other.  Sure //Don, that was really necessary to have all those
>shopping malls that close.  

necessity had nothing to do with it. We live in a capitalist society,
and those individuals and corporations who have sufficient $$$ to
build malls are free to do so... with or without your consent.

>I don't blame these people for preferring
>to keep their forests.  

neither do I... but if they're going to do something about it, then
my advice is to do so within the boundaries of the law.

>Once the forests go, then the roads come, then
>the people come, then the wildlife goes... But that apparently doesn't
>matter to you... You probably also post to alt.destroy.the.earth.

what matters to *me* is immaterial... the scenario you describe has
been going on since the dawn of civilization... whether I like it
or whether you like it or not! Take a valium...

>>At this point, it isn't any longer a `private dispute'... the rationale
>>promoted by various environment-oriented groups has spurred citizens
>>(who would otherwise probably be law-abiding) to commit acts which run
>>contrary to current legislation. These people ignore the law and disrupt
>>the livelihood of other citizens, despite the fact that there are other
>>courses of action that they can take (if they are motivated enough).
>
>
>Gee, that's funny //Don... I could of sworn the poster said up above
>that the current government apparently gave promises that they're
>breaking to the public who's apparently very concerned...  Gee, here
>it is right here...
>
>   # Despite post-election assurances of public participation, no public
>   # input will be allowed during the first year of clearcut logging in
>   # this vital valley.
>

`post-election assurances of public participation' is a *long* way
from `bowing to public pressure'. Just because the government's decision
didn't meet *your* expectations doesn't mean it was wrong. Nor does
it mean that they deliberately *lied* to the public. It means, in
a nutshell, that they made a decision which got under the tree-huggers
skin. 

>But even though you're willing to condemn the public who's rightfully
>pissed off, I don't see you condemning the government for lying to
>them.  I guess that's probably how you'de of gone about it though, so
>it's OK.  It doesn't matter how much they lie about a topic of concern
>once they're elected, right?

Why don't you get yourself elected, Chuckie and see what's *really*
going on... maybe you could expose the giant scandal in all its glory.


>
>>Or perhaps this poster would try and lead us to think that because the
>>loggers' way of making a living isn't consistent with his/her way of
>>thinking that they shouldn't be entitled to the protection of the law.
>
>Or perhaps //Don would try and lead us to think that because toxic
>polluters' way of making a living isn't consistent with his/her way of
>thinking that they shouldn't be entitled to the protection of the law.

Chuckie, the very least you can do when posting to a world-wide
newsgroup is to write something that can in some way be regarded as
coherent.

>
>Same thing... They both rip this planet to shreds and destroy it in
>anyway they can for a buck and people like you will always be there to
>stick up for 'em.  Just like every post I've seen from you.

Making a buck, contrary to what you seem to be saying, is, in today's
*real* world, a necessity. What we have to do is strike up some reasonable
balance between making a buck and protecting the environment. 

It may surprise you to learn that I actually do believe in preserving
our little globe as much as we can... but I don't think we need to
upset the apple-cart so we can fix everything all in one day! It
is going to take time to develop political systems that are responsive
to both `business' and the `environment'... it's going to take time
for all to adjust. It's too bad the segment of society that has come
to call themselves `environmentalists' can't see that. It's too bad
that they've adopted the attitude that `the only way to get the attention
of the powers that be is to kick them in the gonads'. It's too bad they've
decided to resort to terrorist tactics to gain their end. I can't help
those things.

What I *can* do is express my views... 

>Geee, poor loggers... Isn't it nice they can destroy entire forests to
>make a living?  A living for the few that affects all of us in a
>negative way.

Gee, poor environmentalists... 

>
>"Despite the fact that there are other courses of action (jobs) that
>they can take (learn) (if they're motivated enough)."

As long as they don't take *your* job, eh Chuckie? If you had as good
a grasp on human nature as you do on your dislike of my opinions, then
you'd probably understand a few of the problems you'd have to overcome
in order to implement such a plan. What could provide such motivation?
The answer to that question is simple: money! Will it be *your* money
Chuckie? You can bet your sweet bippie that it won't be! But let me
guess... you don't *care* how these people survive, do you? As long
as they quit cutting your beloved trees down.



//Don
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
She was a French girl, and very pretty... I knew she was in love with me 
when she started calling me pet names, like `salle cochon'... -- Herbie