🚀 go-pugleaf

I sort of wonder if this "sham" science Suzuki is supposedly spouting
reflects on his family origins somewhat.

Before you discount what I say - and I refer to the people who don't assume
anything I rant about is worthless and wastes bandwidth (they probably have
gone on to the next article by now, or, having me in their killfile, never
see my articles) - let me continue.

I promise to be brief.

Suzuki may inflate facts because it brings in donations.

Why? It's marketing, pure and simple.  The scare tactics do not involve
statistics, just some reasonable hyperbole.

However, we need to understand the man too.  He had a lousy childhood, since
he suffers from mild bipolar disorder.

If he isn't on a speaking tour or in the studio, he suffers from
decriminations about the past especially with regard to his father.

I believe his father was a fisher at Steveston prior to the war.

Another relative survived World War I as a British veteran (people in Canada
were granted British citizenship prior to 1947 - thought the date may be in
error).

Usually, you'll find people who distort the facts tend to work best when
they are actively engaged in something.

This is a man who needs to develop some meditation techniques with positive
reaffirmation, because his subconscious mind KNOWS he's telling too many
white lies.

Obsession about past events in one's life reflects this.

OK, that was my explanation of the nature of David Suzuki.

Tune in next time when I armchair psychoanalyze why Gordon Campbell lowered
everyone's taxs (but didn't go far enough).


--
Overgrow the State!
White hat hackers: keeping the worldwide web secure...
--
"Eric�" <Eric�@hardknocks.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.158c99308370cc02989be8@news.uniserve.com...
> Brent Beach wrote...
>
> > The Suzuki foundation may be misrepresenting the situation, and Eric is
a
> > swell guy and all,
>
> Well thanks for cognizing that, BB - I respect your views too!
>
> > but this rebuttal tells me little to help me form an
> > opinion.
> >
> > How about some references for your statements?  For example
>
> > > * BC's west coast rainforests are "an area of little scientific study"
> > > This is an outrageous lie.
>
> > It seems to me that until they put up those canopy study stations in the
> > Carmanah, all the study was for was how fast to clear cut. Got any
> > references to actual scientific study of biodiversity in the coastal
> > rainforest prior to that?
>
> Sure.  Look up names like 'Jerry Franklin'.  Ask any forester who
> 'Hamish' is.  Check out Ken Lertzman at SFU.
>
> These guys made their names studying these ecosystems.  These guys and
> their research are so well known in the ecology and forestry community
> that there is no reason why I need to provide references to any
> particular documentation.
>
> You go tell Lertzman that his life's work is a sham.  Shit, that's what
> the greedy asshole Suzuki is doing.
>
> > > * it states that clearcut logging "destroy[s] BC's forests and
> > > biodiversity.  Another complete lie.
>
> > The claim that tree nurserys use enough genetic material to retain
diversity
> > in the trees of the forest seems false to me - they only plant a couple
of
> > species after all - but what preserves all the non-tree species formerly
> > found in the clear cut?
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand your argument, Brent.  Nurseries grow
> little trees, and they do that with seed captured from the forest.  There
> has never been a logical argument to suggest that they are introducing
> genetic purity.
>
> > > * "Today more than half of BC's coastal rainforest has been lost, and
> > > what remains is immediately threatened."  Two utter lies in one
sentence.
>
> > Do you have any references that show the first statement to be wrong. I
live
> > on Vancouver Island. The percentage of old growth forest left on the
south
> > end of the island is far below half.
>
> Exactly.  And the percentage of old growth forest left in Vancouver is .
> . . . ?
>
> Brent: if someone posits a particular statement, surely I don't have to
> prove them wrong?  Don't they have to provide the documentation first?
>
> In Canada we have 4 ecosystems that are threatened.  Here's a challenge:
> name those four, tell the NG where they are, and for bonus points
> describe why they are endangered.
>
>
> > Er, it is my perception that the better educated areas actually have a
lower
> > birth rate. Got any evidence for your argument?
>
> Which argument is that?
>
> > If you are suggesting that the industry side of this debate is above the
> > selective use of statistics and misleading statements to justify their
> > position, then I respectfully suggest that people should be very careful
> > about believing anything you say in defence of that industry.
>
> Not at all.  I am simply proving that Suzuki is lying.
>
> > At least three times in the last 20 years the industry has recanted all
of
> > its past practices and sworn that its new practices are environmentally
> > friendly and sustainable. I expect to continue happening in the future.
I
> > have no reason to believe they are any better now than they were in the
> > past.
>
> I know a guy who runs a woodlot at Gray Creek,  I know a guy who runs one
> at Meadow Creek, one at Kaslo, one near Salmon Arm.  I know guys who bid
> on big licences.  And the central point is that they all care about the
> forest.  They aren't pinstriped moguls trying to steal our birthright.
>
> Why don't you tell me what you have done to protect one of the four most
> endangered ecosystems in Canada?
>
> While you're at it, describe what you've done to ensure that Washington
> State tourists won't find Victoria tampons washing up on their beaches.
>
> E.Schild
> haffabee@usa.net
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.261 / Virus Database: 131 - Release Date: 2001-06-06