🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <b1a_9507050700@salata.com> Doug.Bashford%ow@salata.com (Doug Bashford) writes:
    >>It is outrageous -- the dead and fallen logs will not be up
    >>to logging standards much longer, and the price of wood for
    >>home building has almost doubled in some parts of the
    >>country.
    >>
    >What kind of evidence would it possibly take to convince that
    >the "dead and fallen logs" angle is a scam? Or do you care?

Uh, actually, any evidence at all would be taken into consideration.
You have provided *nothing* beyond your assertions. Hell, even an NRDC
news release would be consider.

Considering that you've been using your anus to post you've still
made a null case.

For example, if the EcoTerrorist News Weekly wrote an article claiming
that XYZ corporation cut down healthy trees while pretending just to
be taking fallen trees, that would be a starting point.

But you don't have even that.

    >
    >R> And the eco-fascists really just don't want people to
    >increase their R> standard of living.
    >
    >But ecologists do. The problem is, you growthmaniacs are
    >killing the very dreams you are pitching. I want an airplane
    >in every garage, and with your methods, you have only
    >delivered longer work-hours for less pay, increased poverty
    >and crime, a system dependent on enforced high unemployment,
    >and really shitty family values since 1967. Facts are facts,
    >chum. But you don't care about facts, do you?

Why yes, facts is facts. But first you have to get some. The facts are
that eco-nonsense laws have destroyed most of the possible increase
in the standards of living. Our per capita GDP has increased somewhere
around 2.4x in the last 20 years, yet the standard of living has basically
remained still.

Those are facts.

"Environmentalists" (so-called) are almost entirely anti-growth of any type.
Wasn't it the head of the NRDC at the time when cold fusion was thought
to be real who said that a cheap energy source like that would be a
"horrible" thing to have and he was against it.

    >In a few years you will be old enough to date girls, do we
    >have to suffer thru your adolescent spouting till then? May I
    >suggest that you complete your education?

Oh, are you trying to be clever? Well, before you try to be cute, try posting
some ACTUAL FACTS -- hint -- facts are things that deal with reality, not
your agit-prop fantasy world.

So please, in the meantime, please don't project your lack of sexual contact
onto this discussion -- it really adds nothing to illuminate your factless
and (apparently) dateless like.


-- 
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)